Brasilianas.Org

"membros da comissão acusaram o governo de estar usando a Justiça para intimidar os jornalistas e as consultoras privadas, atentando contra a liberdade de expressão":

Contra a liberdade de espionagem.

 "Ele requereu aos jornais Clarín, La Nación, Ámbito Financiero, El Cronista, BAE e Pagina 12 os nomes, telefones e endereços de todos os jornalistas que escreveram sobre inflação nos últimos seis anos."

 Esquisita essa informação ( ou pior, se for o caso, essa determinação judicial)...

 Se o Jornalista escreveu sobre inflação sem citar qualquer dos indices em choque?

 Se citou todos ( ou os principais...), sem fazer qualquer comentario, deixando ao leitor a oportunidade de escolha do mais confiavel?

 Se citou apenas e tão somente o Oficial ( e tomando-o como correto)?

 Mais... Se citou os indices das consultorias, mas para criticá-los, deles discordando?

 Todos serão, ainda assim, chamados à Juizo?????

.......................

Por outro lado, a valer o argumento do Ministro, seria o caso de inicialmente demonstrar a improcedência dos indices das consultorias ( até mesmo em razão de má-fe, conlui, etc...)  para só então investir contra a publicação dos mesmos!

 O fato é que já de um bom tempo se fala nessa visivel diferença ente os indices do governo e os das entidades privadas.

 Sabe-se também que "um décimo" num indice economico pode representar uma diferença milhões e milhões de pesos ( reais oou dolares...) em negocios de compra e venda de papeis...

 Felizmente, parece que por aqui  escapamos dessa mazela...( por enquanto, toc, toc, toc...).

Por fim, é não se pode esquecer que assim como em qualquer outra corporação, a mídia tem o itinto de autodefesa muito aguçado, muito sensivel.

 Dizer que a determinação do Juiz ameaça a liberdade de expressão é um tanto ou quanto exagerado ( também por enquanto, e pelo pouco que se sabe...). Há recursos contra a medida, imagino. E há recursos até mesmo contra o Juiz, case se demonstre ( ou restem fundadas suspeitas...) ter exorbitado de seus poderes, especialmente se for para proteger o governo!

No mais, vale o Principio: Contra eventuais abusos praticados pela midia o melhor remedio é MAIS LIBERDADE DE IMPRENSA! Mais IMPRENSA! 

Qual o limíte para se taxar os cidadãos do Brasil?

O governo têm o direito de arbitrariamente confiscar a propriedade, a riqueza e o dinheiro seu?

Se existisse um límite para a arrecadação que obedecesse o princípio da não interferencia no seu progresso material e de bem estar , isto não obrigaria aos políticos gastarem melhor os impostos arrecadados de nós ?

Este debate sobre os limites deve ser um dos que irão mobilizar as discussões futuras, ainda mais que a atividade produtiva entra em uma espiral decrescente e ruinosa quando a relação do arrecadado em impostos em relação ao PIB é superior a 17%, número ultrapassado no Brasil que caminha com a super arrecadação do ano de 2011 e a forte retração do PIB para algo como 52,87% para o ano.

Acorda Dilma! 

September 25, 2011

How about No Taxes at All?

By Gary Horne

Recent debates about who pays taxes and how much miss the point.  Instead, people should be asking why the current system allows unlimited power to tax, restricted only by the "wisdom" of Congress.

The taxing power of the federal government was debated prior to ratification of the Constitution.  The Pennsylvania minority, who voted against ratification, raised the issue of unlimited taxing power in their dissenting addressi:

By virtue of their power of taxation, Congress may command the whole, or any part of the property of the people.

Many did not see the danger of out-of-control government spending, thinkingthe Constitution would limit for what purposes taxes could be used.  This point of view was addressed in the Anti-Federalist Papersii (Brutus, Essay VI, 27 December, 1787):

But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported:  that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, etc. to provide for the common defence, etc. will be unconstitutional. 

I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare?  Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by everyone?  No one will pretend they will.  It will then be a matter of opinion, what tends to be the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. 

As "Brutus" could see in 1787, confidence in the limits provided by the Constitution proved too optimistic.  In recent decades, the words "general welfare" have become magic, enabling the federal government to do whatever it wants.  In the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled the "general welfare" essentially unlimited, leaving the meaning up to Congress.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissentiii:

If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress' notion of the general welfare, the reality ... is that the Spending Clause gives 'power to the Congress ... to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are imposed.'  This ... was not the Framers' plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.

The words of James Madisoniv confirm that such was not the Framers' plan:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.

James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jeffersonv.

The power of the federal government to tax has become indefinite, and the uses of those taxes out of control and often unrelated to the citizens who pay them.  All three branches of government act as if the words of James Madison were never spoken, the words of Article I, Section 8 defining congressional powers never written.  It is time to ask the philosophical and moral question: "What principle justifies a government demanding money from its citizens?"

In the real commonsense world we inhabit every day, a simple rule applies.  I am morally and legally obligated to pay for goods or services provided for me.  If my roof is fixed, I owe the contractor the agreed-upon price.  If I ask the neighbor's son to mow my lawn, I owe him.  If he doesn't show up, I don't.  If I buy something, the seller is entitled to payment.  If a charity asks for a donation, I am not under any obligation, but free to agree or decline.

In the less commonsense world of government, there is no such rule.  The government, simply by imposing a "tax," can take from us without having to provide any good or service.  Taxes have no relationship to the extent, if any, to which the government is providing something.  Services government does provide should be billed to all citizens, but half of American taxpayers owe no federal income tax, and most of those filers actually net benefits from federal income taxes.  Despite this, there are continuing calls for the "wealthy" to pay more of their "fair share," turning the meaning of "fair" upside-down.  It is as if my neighbor fixed up his house and sent me the bill.  Since I am wealthier, it is only my "fair share."  A court applying the logic of government would agree that I should pay, since the improvement of the neighbor's house is in "the general welfare."

A substantial portion of federal government spending is for neither goods nor services for most of us.  Under the "commonsense everyday life" rule, I would not be legally obligated to contribute to, among other things, government funding for ACORN to register Democratic voters and pressurebanks, 61 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 25 billion in farm subsidies, or 535 million for a loan to a company with the right political connections.  None are goods or services for me, and I should not be forced to pay for them. 

Were the federal government to be held to the same standard as we have in our daily lives, there would be no staggering deficits.  Only government spending which actually serves the citizen could be billed.  Paying the government bill would be subject to the same legal standards which already apply to any other debt.  Some would not pay, and the loss would be distributed over the rest, but for most of us, paying a bill is a moral principle and a necessity to continue our economic lives.

A government allowed to bill only for services provided would be prohibited from giving out money to those with political connections or to buy votes.  So-called "entitlement programs" such as Social Security and Medicare would have to be fully funded by the participants.  There would be no legal loophole for redistribution of wealth.

In Ayn Rand's discussion of government financingvi, she states:

In order to fully translate into practice the American concept of government as a servant of the citizens, one has to regard the government as a paid servant.

A paid servant must serve in order to be paid -- the moral standard of a government for the people.  The current concept of taxation reduces the government to the moral standing of the extortionist, and an extortionist is notfor the people.

i Ralph Ketcham. ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers (New York, Signet, 2003), page 243

ii Ibid, page 284.

iii Edwin Meese III, ed., The Heritage Guide to the Constitution(Washington, D.C., Regnery, 2005), page 96.

iv Quoted from Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2009), page 110.

v Meese, op. cit. page 93.

vi Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (New York, New American Library, 1964), page 119.

O Luiz Lima tem razão, estão fazendo tempestade em copo d'água. O Página12 traz o seguinte:

“No se pidieron datos personales”

Ante el revuelo que causó su pedido de información sobre periodistas que escribieron sobre las mediciones de precios de tres consultoras privadas, el magistrado precisó que lo único que buscaba eran canales de contacto para citarlos como testigos. (a notícia segue no link do título)

Por outro lado... Eu vivi lá, no interior da Argentina, precisamente desde janeiro de 2007 até fevereiro deste ano. E por sentir na pele os preços do dia-a-dia, sei que a inflação ficou sim acima do que vem divulgando o INDEC, pelo menos nos gêneros alimentícios e aluguéis. Quanto aos outros componentes do índice não posso afirmar nada, mas o que chamamos aqui de "custo de vida" subiu mais que 20% com certeza.

PropaganSeptember 25, 2011

Propaganda is War by Other Means

By Ted Belman

There are those who embrace conspiracy theories of a government plan behind major attacks like 9-11 and Pearl Harbor, to lead us into war. As outlandish such theories appear to some, many embrace them because they believe that the government always manipulates public opinion to accept intended actions which the people would otherwise reject.

When a government intends a war of aggression, it must first inculcate hatred of the indented victim. This is done through propaganda which follows the following principles;

1) Select a target to be hated. Personalize it. Focus attention on it.

2) Keep messages on target. Avoid conflicting messages.

3) Attach labels and employ narratives causing the object of the hatred to be ridiculed, scorned and feared.

4) Have appropriate messengers deliver the messages. Thus a liberal delivers the message to a liberal and a Republican to Republicans and so on.

5) Keep hidden the communications of messages and the compensation between propaganda directors, media managers and content producers. Keep it secret.

7) Employ substantial numbers of creators of media content and media managers to ensure propaganda is script, timely and plentiful.

8)  Make certain that the public believes that the creators and managers are independent.

9) Make few points and repeat them incessantly.

10) Have public personalities express out-loud contempt, scorn and fear of the target of hatred in order to render such expressions socially acceptable and to crystallize attitudes of hatred which otherwise would be fleeting.

These same principles apply when any group or entity want to shape public opinion to achieve its ends.  They do their best to control the message and succeed to varying degrees.

While the manipulation of public opinion requires a conspiracy to accomplish, the conspirators are quick to debunk and mock any suggestion of conspiracy.

Sarah Palin has been the target of such attacks since she burst on the scene, but in her case, it came from two separate groups, each with their own agenda. They shared the goal of preventing her election but for different reasons. As a result all kinds of people, politicos, pundits, media outlets and public figures all piled on. So effective was it, that few dared defend her. They called her all kinds of names, described her as dumb, out for the money or celebrity, unserious and unelectable. They hid her sterling record and distorted her words and ignored her policies. Was this by chance or coordination?

Another example of these techniques was their use in transforming America. After George W. Bush won a second term in a contentious election, the left got mobilized. They spend the next four years demonizing him, e.g. "Bush lied people died."  But that wasn't enough to transform America. They had to change her values. The Left, lead by George Soros, set about to discredit Israel and American support for her. To do this it had to discredit the powerful AIPAC.

First came the indictment of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman of AIPAC in 2005 for espionage related charges. A few years later, Daniel Pipes reportedon why he and his Board ignored the criminal charges and decided to hire Rosen. He wrote "Our study of the government's case convinced us of its injustice, shoddiness, arbitrariness, hollowness, and futility." These charges were ultimately dropped years after they served their purpose. Then, Meirsheimer and Walt published The Israel Lobby which made the case against AIPAC and for Israel being a liability to the US rather than an asset. This was followed up with the creation of J-Street and the redefinition by it and by the NYT of what being pro-Israel meant. I laid this out in my April 2010 article, Israel is a net asset to the U.S.  Of course to capitalize on all this conditioning they had Barack Hussein Obama waiting in the wings to take over.

These things don't happen by happenstance or because most journalists are liberal, but due to a coordinated effort to get everybody on board.

The hallmark of Obama's presidency was his embrace of Islam and rejection of Israel.  Examples abound. No lie was too big to propagate. His Cairo Speech as a prime example.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings".

And then he piled it on so thick, you could gag.  Of course he was supported by the mainstream media and his administration all of whom ignored reality and embraced fantasy.

But the prime example of propaganda at work is what it has done to demonize and delegitimize Israel.  The Koran itself demonizes the Jews and calls for their destruction or at least dhimmitude.  But it was not until the twentieth century that the Muslim world escalated their war against the Jews and a Jewish state both before and after Israel declared its independence.

Jihad means struggle. It was not by accidence that Hitler called his book "Mein Kampf" or "My Struggle." In it, he wrote "Propaganda was needed that could fire man's spirits till they were ready to die." He believed that he had to motivate Germans to war.

Hitler went full bore against the Jews beginning in the mid thirties and ending with his death in 1945.  He enlisted the services of his friend, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husaini, to stir up the Arabs to kill the Jews and harass the Brits. He took his themes from the Koran [1]

"The Jews in Mufti's radio presentations were conspiring against Islam and against the Arab nation as a whole and has been doing so for 1300 years. Jewry's goal was Islam's annihilation... The Jews ...Zionists...intend to construct an enormous Jewish kingdom from the Nile to the Euphrates."

In 1975 the UNGA passed the infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution.  It was finally rescinded in 1979 due the vigorous efforts of the US.

Last year it was decided to hold Durban III in New York the day before the UN opens. Fiamma Nirenstein was furious and wrote,

"As a journalist, I covered the conference in South Africa in 2001. Those were just the days before the attack on the Twin Towers and never was a hate scenario better laid out. Durban was the platform to Ground Zero. While from the podium speakers heaped on the US and Israel all the sins of the world and demanded that they pay the penalty, Jews wearing kippahs had to protect themselves against the demonstrators toting portraits of Bin Laden, and hounding the Jews. The Jewish centers in the city were stormed and closed; and the press conference of the Israeli delegation was violently assaulted and interrupted. Israel was compared to Nazism and accused of apartheid in order to claim, particularly in South Africa, its lack of legitimacy. At the same time, Americans were demanded to handsomely compensate Africa for damages from slavery. The fact that, for centuries, the Arabs were the cruel slave traders who deported Blacks from Africa, had become a memory denied and forgotten.

The Durban declaration that they now want to resurrect and celebrate again, singles out Israel as a racist state, without naming any other country in the world. The many types of ethnic and religious discrimination that infest the world, the declaration does not exist. It does not even say a word about the thousands of massacres that have bloodied the globe for reasons of the color of one's skin or beliefs. The 165,000 Christian victims per year, or for 80% in the Muslim world, are not mentioned; nor the tragedy of the Tutsi in Rwanda, nor the tragedy in Darfur; nor that of the Uiguri or Kurds, let alone the persecution and discrimination of Jews in Eastern countries, and the growing anti-Semitism now being seen again in the West."

And now Anne Bayesfsky calls Durban III "the celebration of a notorious prescription for intolerance, closely linked to Islamic extremism." Sheadvises

"On Thursday, Western negotiators at the U.N. caved in to the demands of envoys from Islamic states to renew a modern-day form of the decades-long U.N. smear campaign alleging that the Jewish state is racist." [..]

"No doubt U.N. negotiators have been careful to conceal their intent by dressing-up U.N.-based anti-Semitism as an "anti-racism" proclamation. Nowhere on its face, for instance, does the document mention the word "Israel." The new declaration contains multiple seemingly innocuous references to the "victims of racism." But the references were promoted by negotiators for Islamic states because the Durban Declaration itself refers to Palestinians as "victims" of Israeli racism."

UNWATCH reports

"Beginning in the late 1960′s, the full weight of the UN was gradually but deliberately turned against the country it had conceived by General Assembly resolution a mere two decades earlier. The campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum was initiated by the Arab states together with the Soviet Union, and supported by what has become known as an "automatic majority" of Third World member states." [..]

"However, the legacy of 1975 remains fully intact: UN committees, annual UN resolutions, an entire UN bureaucratic division, permanent UN exhibits in New York and Geneva headquarters - all dedicated to a relentless and virulent propaganda war against the Jewish state. Together, they have made the UN into Ground Zero for today's new anti-Semitism, which is the irrational scapegoating of Israel with the true intended target being Jews. Not only do these anti-Israel measures incite hatred against Israelis and Jews everywhere, but they have done not a thing to help the Palestinian situation. On the contrary: they give strength and succor to extremists."

In this the UN was not acting alone. Bat Yeor, in her book Eurabia, noted that since President Charles de Gaulle changed French policy from pro-Israel to anti-Israel in 1967, France has led in promoting hatred of Israel within the framework of advancing a partnership between  Europe and the Arab Middle East.

An egregious example is the "al Dura Affaire." Charles Enderlin, head of France 2's Middle East Bureau, reported the story which was based on a film provided by a Palestinian cameraman. Phillippe Karsenty called it a hoax and for good reason. He had the facts and arguments to prove it. Enderlin sued him for defamation and lost. Throughout it all, the French Government stood by Enderlin and no French media supported Karsenty.

For the last ten years, the BBC has been decidedly anti-Israel in its reporting. Robert Aiken in his book, Can We Trust the BBC?, exposes the biases of the BBC and quotes some officials who believed the BBC is directed by the Foreign Office. Of course the Foreign Office has been anti-Israel for 80 years.

At Durban I, it wasn't enough to simply pass a resolution singling out Israel. NGO's in attendance pledged themselves to action in the cause of defaming and deligitimating Israel.

The NGOs do their part by promoting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement while Muslim Student Association promotes Israel Apartheid Week. They are joined by academics who give the slanders an aura of respectability. They all call openly for the destruction of Israel rather than the two- state solution. Assisting in this work are many NGO's financed by European countries including Britain and France and financed by George Soros.

US, Britain, France and Germany coordinate their positions on all matters pertaining to the peace process, They also coordinate their message. As a case in point they each threatened Israel with dire consequences if she didn't accept Obama's framework for negotiations.

This war against Israel is relentless

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and editor of Israpundit.  He made aliya in 2009 and now lives in Jerusalemda é a alma do negócio.