Design a site like this with
Get started

The Latest FBI Entrapment Case

Glenn Greenwald has this post on the FBI’s entrapment of yet another FBI-made terrorist.

None of these cases entail the FBI’s learning of an actual plot and then infiltrating it to stop it.  They all involve the FBI’s purposely seeking out Muslims (typically young and impressionable ones) whom they think harbor animosity toward the U.S. and who therefore can be induced to launch an attack despite having never taken even a single step toward doing so before the FBI targeted them.  Each time the FBI announces it has disrupted its own plot, press coverage is predictably hysterical (new Homegrown Terrorist caught!), fear levels predictably rise, and new security measures are often implemented in response (the FBI’s Terror plot aimed at the D.C. Metro, for instance, led to the Metro Police announcing a new policy of random searches of passengers’ bags).

This newest FBI entrapment case is just another example of how government central planning monopolies encourage waste, corruption and disruption of and intrusions into the lives of innocent individuals. This particular bureau exists to fabricate situations as a means of justifying ever-growing centralized control over the lives of the people.

As with the other socialist, central planning bureaucracies, the FBI practices the Keynesian “broken window fallacy,” which is more of the “broken window excuse for the bureaucracy’s self-preservation.” Let’s break windows and create tax-funded jobs to replace the windows, or nevertheless give ourselves who already have non-productive government jobs something to do to justify our non-productive government-monopolized jobs. Let’s encourage a young impressionable guy to commit jihad against Americans, a guy who has no criminal record (except for one vandalism incident in high school) and had no previous indications of wanting to commit “jihad” against Americans. Let’s set him up and provide for him the materials needed for his jihad, being his accessories, aiders and abettors, and then when he sets out to commit “jihad,” we’ll arrest him.

You see, what the FBI goofballs are doing is taking someone who would otherwise not have been involved in terrorism, and manipulating him to learn about the “American Empire” and the aggressions it has committed overseas (which is true), and get angry enough to want to commit violence against others.

Previous fiascos of FBI infiltration of mosques and entrapment cases have shown that it is the FBI who have been most guilty of promoting Islamic extremism and terrorism, as the means for our socialist “national security”central planners and bureaucrats to justify their “War on Terror” and false flags.

Now, socialism is more or less the public ownership of the means of production (but using a centralized State to carry out such an impossible way of life). In this case, the public’s State monopoly of a particular part of the investigative industry (the investigative wing of “national security“), with its centralized, compulsory government bureaucracy in which the entire public is compelled by law to use its “services,” locks out others in that particular industry who would otherwise want to compete in that field.

The “workers” in this government monopoly of these investigation “services” do not have to be concerned with any competitors in the field. That encourages waste, mismanagement and non-productivity. Also, when you give government agents the permission to be above the law, in which they would be arrested for crimes (such as concocting, aiding and abetting terrorist plots) if they were doing the same things as private civilians, you encourage further law-breaking and corruption.

For me, that’s the bottom line. In a truly civilized society, no one should be allowed to be above the law and allowed to commit crimes against others’ persons and property. All individuals must be equal under the law. And also, no one should have a government-protected monopoly in any field of endeavor whatsoever. Monopolists are not accountable.

N. Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue’s Chicken Is Delicious! (Although she herself is a dumb cluck.)

Last night I was listening to Michael Savage on the radio, with The Washington Times‘ Jeffrey Kuhner filling in. Actually right now I prefer hearing Kuhner rather than Savage, because I can do without all the yelling and screaming that Savage does on a nightly basis, as well as his reading from his new book (Zzzzzzz.). Anyway, Kuhner was talking about the latest Twilight Zone episode coming from, no, not Washington, but North Carolina. (Ticker Guy Karl Denninger wrote about it here.)

Gov. Beverly Perdue seriously said, “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover…”

Kuhner was correct that these statist nitwits really are making America into the Soviet Union. Like the Republican fascist neocons Bush and Cheney, the people on the left are also authoritarian, and would enthusiastically impose martial law and “suspend” elections (i.e. indefinitely extend Obama’s term as Acting President, if they have enough sheeple to support them).

I’ve stated repeatedly that these elections are a waste of time and are a futile attempt at rearranging the deck chairs. But, if we must have elections, and when times are bad, as they have been now for quite some time, what we should do is hold elections sooner than originally scheduled, like they have done in the U.K. and in Israel when things get ugly, and so on. Even more than that, and while I’m no fan of the Constitution, given that so many people believe that Obama has violated the Constitution so many times now and that, like Bush and Cheney, he has committed war crimes, it is just sick that no one has brought articles of impeachment before Congress by now. If he can’t be impeached (because the gutless wonders of Congress who talk a good game but don’t put their money where their big blowhard mouths are), then let’s have early elections, for CONgress and for President.

Now, regarding these upcoming elections for 2012 (that don’t matter), I keep hearing from these radio talk hosts this concern about electability. “Oh, we have to pick the Republican who can unseat Obama, anything as long as we get rid of Obama.” Ron Paul? He’s unelectable! Michele Bachmann? She’s unelectable.” So these morons conclude that … Romney? Romney should be President? Socialist, mealy-mouthed, flip-flopping, unprincipled, lousy businessman Willard Romney? As Nancy Lugosi would say, Are these people serious?

Unfortunately for America, the government schools over the past many decades have given us generations of people who think only in the short term, if they think at all. Thanks to democracy, socialism and our deteriorating and narcissistic culture, most people now seem to only be able to think up to the point of winning an election. America is an immediate-gratification society. That is why the snorting oinkers in Washington run up big debts for future generations to pay for, just so that the oinkers can have their selfish pet projects and make their corporate campaign contributors happy.

But do these Republican socialists out there ever consider what will happen starting on January 20, 2013? Of course they don’t. (Does it matter? No.) What will Romney actually do as President? Will he do the critical things that are necessary to “spur the economy”? Of course not. Like the other statists, Romney will protect the statist quo, he will give Wall Street more socialist bailouts and he will not do anything about the Federal Reserve, except encourage more money printing for the short-term without considering its long term further destruction. And Romney will continue the useless, counter-productive warmongering and trespassing on foreign lands that has made us less safe. All those statists (R) will do the same thing as Obama, as Bush, and all the others, except for Ron Paul (I think).

Regarding electability, some polls have been indicating that any Republican can defeat Obomber now, including Ron Paul. But it doesn’t matter. We need to change the entire system and de-monopolize Americans’ media of exchange and get the government out of the money making business, and decentralize the banking industry, and get the government out of that, too. I agree with Hans Hoppe, that “limited government” is impossible, and, the more centralized the government (e.g. the Soviet Union U.S. government, etc.), the more tyrannical it will be, as we are seeing now right before our very eyes.

Because the Mainstream Media Cover Up Government Crimes, It Takes Bloggers to Act As Gov’s Watchdog. Hence, Censorship of Bloggers.

It appears that Activist Post is back on with Google-owned Blogger hosting, but they will soon be switching over to a different, independent platform for hosting. Activist Post has this statement this morning on the issue. Supposedly, an “engineer” at Blogger claimed that the taking down of Activist Post was caused by an “automated process.” Kurt Nimmo at Infowars has more on this:

Blogger censorship is nothing new. The blogging platform owned by Google has a history of taking out blogs and websites it does not like or that are uncomfortable for the establishment.

Google worked closely with the authoritarian government in China to censor the internet. It’s video platform Youtube continually receives complaints that it removes controversial videos, especially politically controversial videos.

So it came as no surprise when the popular political website Activist Post suddenly disappeared and it turned out that Blogger had pulled the plug. It was eventually restored after a ground swell of complaints and criticism.

It is now a familiar pattern. A site suddenly disappears without explanation and after a couple days of news coverage it reappears. Blogger’s explanation for the Activist Post takedown – technical issues. Google has offered the same explanation after it has restored videos at Youtube.

Google usually backs down if the outrage is vocal and public enough, as it was in the case of the Activist Post takedown. Less popular sites that offend the elite and Google – a documented CIA front company – usually disappear forever.

Hmmm. I guess MY website is “less popular.” Does that mean that it will be taken down by the People With Power who don’t like to hear or see criticism of government officials? What is this, the Soviet Union? (Oh yeah, that’s right. This IS the Soviet Union, but called “Soviet America.” Oh well.)

Some similar news that goes with this latest censorship fiasco is that, according to Ars Technica, the FCC’s net neutrality rules will go into effect on November 20th. Expect lawsuits upon lawsuits. Its only the beginning, if censorship fascist and regulatory czar Cass Sunshine has his way.

Related to all this, Nimmo has this piece on the CIA-Facebook connection, in which Facebook places spyware cookies on your browser, so that, even when you are logged out of Facebook, Facebook can still track your browsing history. And apparently, there really is a CIA-Facebook connection, so I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Facebook is giving CIA that tracking info. (Helpful hint: after using Facebook, delete Facebook cookies in your browser.)

There’s even MORE spying and tracking, and political harassment going on now — from the paranoids and crackpots of the Federal Reserve, of all places! The Economic Collapse Blog has this piece now on that. The piece begins,

The Federal Reserve wants to know what you are saying about it.  In fact, the Federal Reserve has announced plans to identify “key bloggers” and to monitor “billions of conversations” about the Fed on Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs.  This is yet another sign that the alternative media is having a dramatic impact.  As first reported on Zero Hedge, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has issued a “Request for Proposal” to suppliers who may be interested in participating in the development of a “Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution”.  In other words, the Federal Reserve wants to develop a highly sophisticated system that will gather everything that you and I say about the Federal Reserve on the Internet and that will analyze what our feelings about the Fed are.

Obviously, if government officials feel the need to spy on us civilians and attempt to harass and intimidate us and especially those who dissent, and if such government officials have such a need to get private sector tech and Internet people to help them, then these government officials are showing that they indeed have something to hide. They know that the kinds of things they are engaged in are wrong, and criminal, and they are trying to find ways to hide their criminality, and ways to suppress that information from being brought to the public’s attention.

Also, regarding how the mainstream media are complicit with government crimes these days, Glenn Greenwald has this piece up today on how the media are suppressing the criticism of U.S. foreign policy from the freed American hikers from the Iranian prison:

What we find here yet again is that government-serving American establish media outlets relish the opportunity to report negatively on enemies and other adversaries of the U.S. government (that is the same mindset that accounts for the predicable, trite condescension by the New York Times toward the Wall Street protests, the same way they constantly downplayed Iraq War protests).  But to exactly the same extent that they love depicting America’s Enemies as Bad, they hate reporting facts that make the U.S. Government look the same.

That’s why Fattal and Bauer receive so much attention while victims of America’s ongoing lawless detention scheme are ignored.  It’s why media stars bravely denounce the conditions of Iran’s “notorious prison” while ignoring America’s own inhumane prison regime on both foreign and U.S. soil.  It’s why imprisonment via sham trials in Iran stir such outrage while due-process-free imprisonment (and assassinations) by the U.S. stir so little.  And it’s why so many Americans know Roxana Saberi but so few know Sami al-Haj.

An actual watchdog press is, first and foremost, eager to expose the corruption and wrongdoing of their own government.  By contrast, a propaganda establishment press is eager to suppress that, and there is no better way of doing so than by obsessing on the sins of nations on the other side of the world while ignoring the ones at home.  If only establishment media outlets displayed a fraction of the bravery and integrity of Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, who had a good excuse to focus exclusively on Iran’s sins but — a mere few days after being released from a horrible, unjust ordeal — chose instead to present the full picture.

Where Is Activist Post?

It appears that one of my newest favorite websites, Activist Post ( has been taken down by its host, Activist Post posts original articles and articles from other websites that highlight the news items of what various government agencies and the military are up to, and investigative reporting on the latest injustices, corruption and crimes, that we don’t hear about from cowards government lapdogs gutless weasels mainstream news sources.

I am suspicious of this, especially given that is owned by Google. And we know about the cozy relationship between Google and the Obama Administration. It’s very suspicious. TPTB do not like their corruption and crimes being exposed, and they have been very happy lately with the complicity and cover-ups of the mainstream media, the subservient, obedient stenographers of the so-called “free press.” It would not surprise me that Blogger shut down Activist Post for political reasons, not particularly from the web people and managers of, but from pressure from TPTB.

Does this mean that they are going to shut down MY website, too? Or, Infowars, Future of Freedom Foundation,, Strike the Root, The Daily Bell, Washington’s Blog, Economic Collapse Blog, the SHTF Plan, The Burning Platform, Glenn Greenwald, the Tenth Amendment Center, and many other “challenging the status quo” websites and blogs? These websites and blogs are openly critical of the status quo of statism and centralism, and have been trying to expose how governments in America, federal, state and local, have been removing our liberty and our rights, from the left and from the right, and the people who cherish freedom DON’T LIKE THAT!

I can see why those people in power don’t like being exposed for what they are. But they do have power, that’s for sure.

In fact, just recently, the other major blogging website (in competition with,, had threatened to suspend Rick Rozoff’s website, Stop NATO, but it is still up. The message from WordPress was: “Warning: We have a concern about some of the content on your blog. Please click here to contact us as soon as possible to resolve the issue and re-enable posting.”

Do you think the same kind of thing happened to Activist Post? But this time, they’ve been taken down without warning, without the chance to copy their material to transfer to a different blog? (Jeepers, I hope it doesn’t happen to me, after two years of a lot of writing and hard work that I put into this website.)

Two Kinds of Selfishness

September 23, 2011

© 2011 (Link to article)

In a recent debate CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul who should pay for the health care of someone who doesn’t have insurance and who is seriously ill. Blitzer asked Dr. Paul if, in a society presumably in which the government doesn’t fund health care, should the society just let the patient die. Dr. Paul replied, “No,” and explained how, in the pre-welfare statist days, hospitals, churches, friends and neighbors never turned away sick people, and he addressed the root causes of the high cost of health care: the impoverishing and stifling regulations and red tape, the corporatist special interest influences of the drug and insurance companies, lack of competition, and the consequences of inflation. But apparently Paul Krugman missed that part of Dr. Paul’s explanation.

One philosopher who tried to clarify the ignorance and myths about capitalism, and whose ideas contributed to the discussions of the differences between free market capitalism and socialism, was Ayn Rand. Her controversial book The Virtue of Selfishness sought to clarify the ethics and morality of selfishness, in contrast to the destruction of altruism.

To this day, it seems that many people – including very highly educated and supposedly informed and sophisticated people – believe that the “enlightened self-interest” aspect of free market capitalism amounts to the businessman selfishly taking away money and opportunities from others.

It is sad that mainstream America’s general view of voluntary exchange has been based on anti-free market propaganda, and not based in reality. In his review of Part 1 of the movie version of Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, Roger Ebert summarized this misunderstanding:

“I’m on board; pull up the lifeline.”

Due to a century’s worth of propaganda, the mainstream view of capitalism is really of State-capitalism or corporatism, in which the Established businesses – medical-related and otherwise – lobby for the government to impose laws, taxes, fees, and regulations that severely impair the newcomer entrepreneur’s ability to enter one’s field of interest, as such governmental interventions protect the established businesses’ profits and shield them from prospective competition.

Now, that’s “I’m on board; pull up the lifeline” selfishness: Using the armed power of the State to restrict the lives and liberty of others as a means of protecting one’s own economic interests.

That is not the kind of “enlightened self-interest” selfishness in which Rand defended free-market capitalism.

In State-capitalism, the established businesses align themselves with the government and, through the back door, they steal away through coercive legal restrictions the opportunities that entrepreneurs would otherwise have in the absence of the State’s restrictions. But, further than that, it is the consumers – including medical patients – who must pay the higher prices that are artificially kept higher via the State’s protection of established businesses. In such a socialistic, back-door redistribution-of-wealth scheme, those consumers’ wealth is being stolen from them by the government’s limitation of their choices.

In contrast, in a truly free-market capitalist system, there would be no government restrictions on the people’s right to earn a living, do whatever they want with their own money, or buy or provide whatever forms of medical care they want, period. In the truly free-market way of life, individuals are free to use their own minds and bodies, their own efforts and labor, and their own capital, for their own ends by trading their efforts, labor and capital with customers, clients, patients, businesses or employers, in a mutually-beneficial voluntary contract. This is what Ayn Rand referred to as virtuous selfishness.

Thus, it is not through free market capitalism, but through direct welfare-socialism and State-capitalism that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” In contrast, with free-market capitalism, the rich and the middle-class could not use a compulsory governmental apparatus to restrict the poor from using their own minds and bodies, their labor and capital from entering the same markets that have been seized by established businesses.

But unethical corporatist/welfare-state selfishness hasn’t just been happening in medicine, but in many other areas of life.

For example, minimum wage laws prevent an employer from being able to hire low-skilled workers in entry-level jobs, because many employers can’t afford to pay the higher wages. This especially prevents teenagers from getting a part-time job to get early experiences toward entering the “adult” job market later on. What the bureaucrats and the corporatist unions are doing is stealing away from teens the opportunity to capitalize on their own labor toward better opportunities down the road. The bureaucrats and unions work to protect their own established special interests by restricting others from entering the labor force. The real selfish ones here are the government bureaucrats and the unions, not the employers who are trying to give young people an opportunity to learn a skill or trade.

The government bureaucrats, special interest establishment businesses and unions are the ones saying, “We’re on board; pull up the lifeline.”

According to economist Walter Williams, author of Race and Economics, these kinds of government wage mandates and other regulations against businesses have hurt those at the bottom of the economic scale and contributed to preventing them from prospering. Further, Dr. Williams believes that the welfare state has “destroyed the black family.”

The welfare state has destroyed the family, period.

The corporatists and statists’ minimum wage laws and other tax and regulation trespasses, as well as affirmative action policies, have restricted not only black youths’ prospects for getting entry-level jobs to prepare them for the real world, but have also restricted black entrepreneurs from entering markets to compete on a level playing field with established businesses. Now, who is more immorally selfish: the established businessmen who benefit from government restrictions on others, and the professional politicians and bureaucrats who benefit from reinforcing the poor and minorities’ dependence on government? Or the free businessman who can pay a young person a lower wage that gives the youth much needed work experience toward later full-time employment?

In the absence of all the government programs and regulatory restrictions, would there be as much unemployment and despair as there exists today? Would there be as much violence and flash mob beatings amongst inner-city youth as there is today? Contrary to what those in Krugman world believe, these are consequences of government interventionism and State-business protectionism.

State-capitalism is destructive in other areas as well. For example, government bailouts of irresponsible financial institutions are also immorally selfish. In Krugman-Obama world, workers and producers are forced at gunpoint by the government to bail out irresponsible banks (and irresponsible individuals as well). Or, the central bank prints new money from nothing as an extra handout for the big banks. In this act of Keynesian, present-oriented selfishness, the Federal Reserve’s money-printing devalues the dollar, forcing future generations to have to use worthless paper as their medium of exchange, and causes price inflation, which hits the poor and middle-class the most, all while the Big Banks rake in the bonuses.

Other Keynesian present-oriented policies include Congress’s deficit spending and debts, which are nothing more than Congress selfishly using its credit card and enslaving future generations to pick up the tab.

This Orwellian statism now includes a president touring the country asking for higher taxes and begging Americans to help him pass a “jobs bill,” in which the government will further siphon more private wealth to redistribute to the government bureaucrats, and will result in further unemployment.

In striking contrast, the free-market capitalism, voluntary exchange way of life requires individuals and businesses – and banks – to take responsibility for the consequences of their own risks, which includes bankruptcy. While State-capitalism and Keynesianism involve immediate-gratification spending sprees at the coercive expense of taxpayers and consumers, free-market capitalism encourages long-range planning through saving and investing, and doesn’t allow for government theft of private wealth. So which group is the more selfish here?

The free-market, voluntary exchange way of life lives under the rule of law that protects the life, liberty and property of the individual, and forbids theft and fraud, trespass and physical aggression. It is the socialists and progressives’ regulatory trespasses that have encouraged the growth of America’s current police state, with police raids on guitar companies and raw milk producers, as well as doctors who do not conform to the medical fascists’ dictates.

To conclude, back to Wolf Blitzer’s question to Ron Paul as to whether society should just let the uninsured, severely ill medical patient die, implying that it would be out of selfishness to not have the force of government impose its will:

Establishment doctors and their high salaries are protected by State-licensing requirements and other guild-like monopoly protections. They are the ones who say, “I’m on board; pull up the lifeline” (away from alternative-medicine practitioners, whose right to earn a living and care for others is restricted by the government, and also at the expense of medical care consumers).

And the establishment Big Pharmaceutical companies’ high profits and unaccountability are protected by the corporatist, revolving-door FDA and patent laws, and by stifling restrictions against alternative nutritional medicine and supplement makers. The Big Pharmaceutical companies are the ones who say, “I’m on board; pull up the lifeline” (away from people who need better alternatives to the government-protected prescription drugs, many drugs of which make people worse off).

And medical licensing does not “weed out bad doctors.” On the contrary, it protects the bad doctors from the competition of better doctors and from the scrutiny of the free market. The exclusive Medical Establishment of government-protected doctors is far more selfish in their locking out the competition – and charging patients artificially higher prices – than it would otherwise be with medical freedom.

If only the government would remove its anti-competition, regulatory and price-fixing shackles from medical providers and insurers, allow pro-consumer competition to thrive once again, and end the corporatist State-protection of insurance and drug companies’ and doctors’ high profits. Then, prices would come crashing down all across the board, and even the poor and middle class would be able to afford medical care again. With freedom, it is the consumers – rich and poor – who would benefit from deciding which doctors and other medical providers should stay in business and which ones should get out.

When it comes to the ideological battle between the Krugmaniacs and the Ayn Randians, call me an ardent Randian.

Why? Because I love freedom.

Freedom to die? NO! Freedom to live!

The Moral Relativism of American Exceptionalism

Yesterday Michael Smerconish responded to Tony Bennett’s comments about what caused 9/11. Bennett noted that “To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally…” and asked,”But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right…” And in response to Howard Stern’s assertion that the 9/11 terrorists initiated the wars between the U.S. and Iraq and Afghanistan, Bennett stated that “They flew the plane in, but we caused it…Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”

Smerconish sounded like he couldn’t believe what he was hearing. He sounded like he was interpreting Bennett as though Bennett was referring to our military’s post-9/11 bombing, and Smerconish sounded like he had no idea that our government had been doing anything in the Middle East prior to 9/11 that could have provoked such a terrible act on 9/11. One of his radio cohorts said she was “offended” by Bennett’s statements, as I am sure many people were. That is because many people just can’t believe that our government could do anything bad to foreign people overseas. To many people, merely pointing out the actual history of what our government and military have done to other people, no matter how accurate such facts are, is “offensive.”

First, I have written on this blog and in articles several times now what our government was doing to the Iraqis throughout the 1990s, prior to 9/11. Especially here and here, and here is a list of good articles to read for those who don’t really know what the U.S. government is guilty of doing prior to 9/11.

That conversation I heard on the radio was very much like the reaction of audience members to Ron Paul at the recent Republican debate, in which Dr. Paul tried to explain that the terrorists were not angry at America because of “our freedom and values” (What freedom? What values?), but because of years of illicit, immoral and murderous actions by our government in the Middle East for decades, especially in Iraq since 1990. The people who booed Ron Paul, and who can’t believe what he or Tony Bennett has been saying, respond in such a way because either they are ignorant of pre-9/11 history, or because while they know about that history and what our government has been doing, they believe that it’s wrong for anyone to criticize the government. They are being subservient and obedient serfs, and how dare anyone question the authority of the government? is their attitude.

Sadly, many Americans still confuse our country, America, with the federal government. No, people who assert that 9/11 was a reaction, a retaliation, toward U.S. government actions in the Middle East are not “blaming America.” We are blaming our government. I have already written here on why central planning in national security is inherently flawed and doesn’t work. Central planning in anything doesn’t work. In the case of national security, in giving the central planning bureaucrats a monopoly power of armed forces over territorial protection, they will abuse that power for their own political purposes, because monopolists are not accountable, and what you get is these bureaucrats using those monopoly powers to deliberately provoke foreigners, and that is what the elder President George H.W. Bush did in his 1990-91 invasion of Iraq.

Besides Ron Paul’s point about the real intentions of the terrorists, the audience also booed him for stating this: “…we’re there occupying their land [the Middle Eastern, Muslim countries]. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

You see, Paul is pointing out how the U.S. government has had its military bases and other government apparatus on other peoples’ lands for decades, and the actual inhabitants of those lands react against that. His asking how would we like it if foreign governments occupied our lands is what got more boos. That is because so many Americans believe in “American Exceptionalism.” That is a euphemism for “moral relativism.” It is okay for the U.S. and its government to occupy (i.e. trespass on) foreign lands, but it is not okay for foreign governments to occupy our territory. How dare they! What Ron Paul was trying to refer to is the Christian moral philosophy of “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you” and “Don’t do to others what one would not want others to do unto you.” Unfortunately, while many American Exceptionalists are also Christians (like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and, allegedly Rick Perry), they do not believe in that philosophy. They are moral relativists, pure and simple.

This is why so many people have a hard time hearing criticism of invasive U.S. foreign policy, that not only consists of trespassing and occupying foreign lands for many decades since Word War II, but also includes starting wars of aggression against other countries that were of no threat to us. How dare we question our government’s officials starting wars of aggression against foreigners? When you START a war, that is very bad. People who start wars are war criminals. When you act aggressively against others with initiated physical violence that is not in defense but solely out of aggression, that is criminal behavior. That is what the U.S. government did to Iraq in 1991.

During that Persian Gulf war that George H.W. Bush started for no good reason, the U.S. military intentionally severely damaged the Iraqi civilian electrical, water and sewage treatment centers. The U.S.-led UN sanctions throughout the 1990s that followed prevented supplies to be brought in to make repairs, forcing the Iraqis to have to use untreated water. This led to huge increases in diseases and the deaths of at least 500,000 innocent Iraqis, many of them children. These acts by our government and military central planning bureaucrats all led to widespread anti-Americanism throughout the Middle-East. These actions and the U.S. government occupations of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries were specifically cited by al Qaeda as motivations for 9/11. Does Michael Smerconish know any of this? (How dare we point this out!)

And it is quite legitimate to ask how we would respond to a foreign government bombing our water and sewage treatment centers, forcing us to have to use untreated water, and then imposing sanctions, no-fly zones and a blockade to prevent materials from being delivered to water treatment centers. (We wouldn’t like that so much.)

In addition to all these points I’ve been making thus far, there is another problem with too many people. Even in pointing these facts of history out to people, they are either still disbelieving of it, or in denial. Some people just can’t believe that their own government could do bad things to others. The other problem is, some people just don’t have a problem with our government and military committing those aforementioned crimes against foreign people. “Well, that’s those people.” You know, the subhumans. And yes, a lot of people still view those Middle Eastern foreigners as sub-human, whether they will admit it or not. It’s okay to bomb them. Just today, Thomas DiLorenzo had an article on regarding how the leaders and generals of the U.S. government during the Uncivil War viewed Native Americans (a.k.a. “Indians”) as subhuman. James Bovard’s article from a few years back mentions the same thing regarding how Gen. Sherman viewed Southerners (Southern Americans, that is) as subhuman as well.

And no, such attitudes of elitist moral relativists aren’t just from that far back in time. I’m sure many readers are familiar with how black Americans were treated only 4 decades ago. And now, all you have to do is look around and you’ll see how our own government officials view us mere peasants and serfs. Look at the airports what the sickos and pervs are doing to little kids and grandmothers, and look at one instance after another of police abuse, intimidation and crimes against innocent civilians in America. And this is in their own country that these people are treating others that way, never mind how our government treats innocents in foreign countries! Police S.W.A.T. raids on student loan defaulters? Police S.W.A.T. raids on guitar makers and raw milk producers?

No, questioning the government and criticizing the government, police and military when they do bad things is what people need to do. Just being in denial of government crimes, or excusing them, and being obedient, subservient sheeple is the way to do things if you want your country to sink deeper and deeper into the totalitarian third world zoo that it is becoming.

Last year when libertarian Republican Debra Medina challenged Rick Perry for the Republican nomination for governor of Texas, she appeared on the Glenn Beck radio show. Beck set her up and smeared her as a 9/11 “truther,” when all she was saying was that it was necessary to question the official word of government’s explanation of things. We need to question our government and be skeptical. The sheeple might feel good about themselves when they boo Ron Paul or criticize Tony Bennett for doing so, but then they are only aligning themselves with the criminals of the State. And yes, the State’s bureaucrats and armed goons are by and large criminals, as they are constantly acting with total disregard of the rights and liberty of the people, and it keeps getting worse every day. In foreign policy, the criminal imbeciles are continuously provoking foreigners to act against us, as they have been doing especially since 1990. They have been making us less safe, more vulnerable, and we are certainly more vulnerable to the predations of our own government workers and their hired guns, the police, especially when idiots like Bush and Obama implement totalitarian policies such as the Patriot Act that give the police even more power to invade and trespass into our lives and property.

I’m very pessimistic now, especially reinforced by the neanderthal sheeple booing Ron Paul, and hearing yesterday’s discussion on the Michael Smerconish show. Americans have been taken for a ride, they are being duped and finagled, and they better start questioning their government and its motives, and they had better cease their support of these totalitarian policies, especially these wars on terror and drugs. This is a police state now.

As with World War I and World War II and all the totalitarian domestic war policies imposed by Wilson and FDR, expect even more and worse policies than we already have now, with these phony, counter-productive wars on terror and drugs, and the militarization of local police departments all across America. We will have worse abuse by the government, and, unfortunately, many Americans just sitting there and taking it like masochists and slaves, in addition to standing in long lines at the airports with the TSA (and now at football games), to get cancer-scanned, groped and molested, and neighbors “saying something because they see something” that’s totally innocent but they don’t like someone so get them in trouble, yes, expect that kind of Nazi crap. And expect the anti-statist quo non-sheeple, the ones who speak out against the police state abuse, and against the crimes our government commits in foreign countries, to be persecuted.

Either all that stuff or the states should start seceding to avoid it.

More from the People’s Republic of Brookline

Another story to write about from the People’s Republic of Brookline, Massachusetts, home of the former governor and imbecile-emeritus Michael Dukakis. It seems that people have been complaining about Brookline’s relatively new multi-car parking meters. A Town Meeting member is gathering signatures to have the town address the situation, “fix” (yeah, right) the meters, or return to the old single-car meters.

People are waiting in lines to sign the petitions. One petition-signer stated that the meters are “dysfunctional.” That is because, in my opinion, the town installed these multi-car meters to deliberately confuse motorists so as to increase the number of parking tickets to be handed out.

That petition-signer also stated that she will not do her shopping in Brookline because of the new meters.

I could see this scam from the beginning, in Brookline and the other cities and towns that are implementing this new racket. These local bureaucrats are just the same as the state and federal bureaucrats. They and their deficit-laden budgets are desperate for financial sources in order to fund their always-increasing numbers of added bureaucrats and bureaucracies, with triple-digit salaries and extravagant pensions. (“Hmmm. What new ways can we use to extract even more money from the people?”)

Okay, maybe their idiocy was well-intended, maybe.

You see, central planning bureaucrats come up with these schemes, whether this was intentional or not, or whether they really did intend for multi-car meters to aid in greater parking efficiency, and, what happens is their new schemes and devices effect in pushing people away. In this case, they are confusing and frustrating motorists to the point that fewer and fewer people will visit Brookline or do their shopping there. So, the central planners of the town, with the intention of collecting more, will collect less, and cost themselves more when they can’t afford all the new bureaucrats and their high salaries and extravagant pensions.

But what will be done with this petition for Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen is that the issue will be “studied.” (Surprise!) They already started a “task force” for that purpose last month.

Bottom line: If you live in the greater Boston area, don’t go to Brookline for shopping (or perhaps anything else for that matter).

Maybe it is time to take Walter Block more seriously.

More on Amerika’s Police State

There are so many things to gripe and grouse about, but I must continue my bewilderment at that formerly “liberal” People’s Republic of Brookline, here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. I have recently written about Brookline’s attempt to bring back the Ritualistic Loyalty Oath of Obedience to the Government Pledge of Allegiance in the schools. And I recently wrote about Brookline’s new multi-space parking meters as a means for the town to steal more money from motorists.

But now, we hear that in so-called “liberal” Brookline, a town that has repeatedly returned Barney Frank to Washington for 30 years, the police chief wants to fingerprint all “ice cream truck drivers, taxi drivers, managers of a business with a liquor license, automobile dealers and door-to-door solicitors,” according to the Boston Globe. At the upcoming Town Meeting, besides discussing the school Pledge of Obedience issue, they also want to ban tobacco sales in all drug stores, and order some day care centers to not have a playground (because a child might fall and hurt himself — the safety Nazis can’t have that).

With the Pledge of Obedience and fingerprinting issues combined with the anti-cigarette and “no playgrounds allowed” issues, I guess Brookline is the place where liberal fascists and conservative fascists come together in peace and harmony.

But, regarding mandatory fingerprinting, hasn’t the police chief ever heard of presumption of innocence? I would think that there might be fingerprinting of someone after they’ve been arrested, after they’ve actually been suspected of something, after they actually allegedly did something. Fingerprinting is a gathering of evidence of a suspect, not just a means of identifying someone. It is a search of someone’s person, or part of one’s person. To keep a database of something taken from someone’s person that uniquely identifies him is to already treat the individual as a suspect. It presumes guilt. It also puts these individuals’ lives and security at risk, because government databases of such personal information of private civilians can easily be breached.

As with all the other police state policies spreading throughout America, with federal, state and local governments committing crimes of intrusions against presumably innocent private civilians, this call to fingerprint certain business people and keep a database of such information illegally obtained without reasonable suspicion, will widen to these “officials” wanting to fingerprint everyone. They already want iris databases, for crying out loud, among other police state, totalitarian intrusions that will do nothing to prevent crime or terrorism.

But why is America turning into such a society of fascism? Why are the people becoming so passively accepting of these government intrusions, in which each and every civilian is treated like a criminal, and like a prisoner? And I’ve been using the word “civilian,” by the way, not “citizen,” lately, because to be a “citizen” of something, such as a “citizen of the United States” (or of fascist Brookline), means that you are owned by that community, or more accurately, owned by the State. I see two sets of people now: Government (or State) people, and civilians. I have read that only in relationship between military and everyone else is it “military and civilian,” with local police being part of the “civilian government.” But no, it is we civilians and those government people, and that’s it.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised when even so-called “liberal” communities such as Brookline are becoming so passive in accepting police state intrusions. Since 9/11, practically the whole country fell prey — like Pavlov’s dogs — to the Bush Administration’s emotional rhetoric that the lamebrain media simple-mindedly and reflexively repeated, over and over and over. “Whatever it takes, Mr. President, to keep us safe,” exclaimed formerly respectable national news journalists. (Even though, by continuing to commit aggressions overseas as they had been doing for many decades, and provoking foreigners to act against us, and doubling and tripling those aggressions after 9/11 like good little socialist central planners would do, they have been making us less safe, and they have been making us even more vulnerable to criminal intrusions by our own predacious agents of the State.)

I think there have been so many instances of police state policies, federally and locally, because those who hold positions of power now are reflective of the population as a whole, in terms of one’s sense of control over one’s own life. A lot of people are feeling much loss of control now. The economy is collapsing, a lot of people are jobless while having families to support, and are barely making ends meet. Also, we see all around us much chaos, here in the U.S. and overseas. Many government officials themselves probably have a sense of loss of control and so they make up for that by wanting to have more control over other people’s lives. I think that the NFL’s call for new pat-down procedures prior to games (which everyone should boycott, btw), Paterson, New Jersey’s attempt to impose adult night-time curfews for no good reason, and a lot of other police-state policies are showing that the “officials” who support such totalitarianism are just experiencing some kind of pathological need for control over others.

Authoritarians of the left and the right have a pathological need for control over others, and that is why they are fascists. From Obama on down to local police, they have contempt for individual rights. They do not believe in the right of the individual to be secure in one’s person, papers, houses and effects, and they do not believe in the right of the individual to one’s life and liberty, the right that one’s life be free from intrusions and from the aggression of others, and, especially, the right to presumption of innocence.

Perhaps the police chief of Brookline gets a feeling of control if he were to illegally collect and keep a database of businesspeople’s fingerprints, like that will effect in “protecting the public” any more than if they didn’t illegally collect the fingerprints. Perhaps for fascists in positions of authority and those who blindly support them, the feeling of control is what matters — America is currently the ultimate immediate-gratification society, after all.

Each day, there are more and more police state intrusions against the people, with the DHS and TSA, NSA, FBI and CIA, the Patriot Act, and locally all across America the militarization of police, the useless State-protecting Supreme Court upholding one police violation after another now, and corporatism’s intrusions of criminalizing everything from raw milk to guitars, and the fascist FDA criminalizing food and nutritional medicine in the name of protecting Big Pharma’s selfish and greedy profits. And now police chiefs all across America, while having Total State Control over whether an individual may exercise one’s God-given right of self-defense and right to bear arms, they want more and more power and intrusiveness for themselves against us, and they want to remove as much individual liberty and property rights away from the civilians as possible.

Where is all this leading? Will it EVER end, this obvious road to tyranny? We really are facing a choice in America now, that choice between two Americas is between the ever-increasing totalitarianism Soviet America, and freedom.

Some related articles:

Police State

Soviet Union: The Great Purge and “Population Transfer”

Nazi Germany: Gestapo Volksgemeinschaft and German Police in the Nazi State

On Standing Up for Our Rights and Bringing Government Criminals to Justice

September 16, 2011

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

Recently an Atlantic article on the history of guns emphasized the 1960s Black Panthers exercising their right to bear arms openly on the California state capitol steps. The article highlights one confrontation between a Panther and an Oakland police officer, who sees guns in the Panthers’ car and asks to see one of the guns. Knowing his rights, the Panther states that he doesn’t have to give the officer anything but his ID, name and address, and the conversation continued:

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

After a larger crowd showed up, the Panther stated, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” And the officer let him and his fellow Panthers go on their way.

Can you imagine such a confrontation now, ending with the cop leaving the individual alone? No, not today. Today, many cops are overzealous and/or extremely narcissistic, are bullies, neanderthals and/or tyrants. That Panther civilian would probably have been murdered in cold blood today.

It is necessary that people know and understand their rights as human beings, and defend their rights, especially in our “Us vs. Them” society. That refers to We, the presumably innocent public, versus the State, its apparatchiks and propagandists. That is, we who believe in the rights of the individual, the right to presumption of innocence and the right to be left alone, the right to move about and travel freely, the right that our persons and property are not violated by others or handled or searched by agents of the State, and the right to not be stopped and questioned by police who have no reason to suspect us of any wrongdoing.

We are now living in a police state, a prison state, in which the civilians are prisoners of the state and must bow to the authority of armed thugs. And it is only getting worse, and with the aid of the “clovers” and obedient masses, who have willingly accepted their lives being surveilled, questioned, searched, scanned, and raped by police and other agents of the criminal State.

Here is a confrontation between a cop and a civilian that would be from our current police state. The civilian is walking from the local pharmacy down the street toward a department store:

Police: Where are you going?

Civilian: I’m going to the department store.

Police: Why are you going there?

Civilian: To get stuff.

Police: Where do you live?

Civilian: 1349 Dependence Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Now, if another civilian approached that first civilian with those personal questions, don’t you think that information would be none of the other person’s business? Well, not in our current police state, apparently. And it isn’t just police who are intrusive against civilians, but our other government agents and bureaucrats and our neighbors are getting more intrusive as well.

Here is how that conversation really should go:

Police: Where are you going?

Civilian: Why are you asking me that?

Police: Just answer the question – Where are you going?

Civilian: Do you suspect me of something?

Police: No, just tell me where you’re going!

Civilian: Well, if you don’t suspect me of something, then I have a right to be left alone by the police. You are obligated by law and the Constitution to leave me alone if you don’t suspect me of anything.

That should be the end of that. The civilian should go on his way, and the police officer should go on his way.

However, oftentimes, perhaps especially when a civilian does exercise his rights, the police do not like their authority questioned, that is, the artificial authority granted to them by the State that other people are not allowed to have over others, which negates the idea of “equality under the law.” Such artificial authority allows the agents of the State to be above the law, which is what has been encouraging them to act like thugs and goons, marauders and murderers.

So, if that confrontation actually did occur, the cop might apprehend the civilian and detain him, not for committing any crime but for not bowing to the cop’s authority, not disclosing personal information that was none of the cop’s business, when ordered to do so. And of course, like a coward, the cop probably then would have called for “back up.”

Throughout America, people are being arrested and thrown in jail for non-crimes, while the actual criminals, such as abusive police and intrusively overreaching government bureaucrats, get away with actual crimes – of physical violence, trespassing, destruction and theft of private property. People are being kidnapped and caged for the non-crimes of videotaping police, growing a vegetable garden on their front lawn, having a garage sale, a lemonade stand, and so on. And schools are causing little 9-year-olds to be arrested for showing a toy gun, or suspended for teasing a fellow child in school that is now called “bullying.” Some schools are now banning hugging among students, because that might be misinterpreted as “sexual harassment.” What a sick society this has become! Little kids being arrested for showing toy guns and kids suspended for hugging, while the police continue to harass, bully, punch, kick, beat up, rape, tase, shoot, maim, and murder totally innocent human beings, and they get away with it!

Every day, the news is filled with one story after another of how innocent civilians are jailed for being disobedient, for not obeying a policeman’s orders. Why have the police become such cowardly little dictators?

And we also have a society with a Congress in Washington, filled with people who love to give orders and commands through their dictatorial legislation. And there are thousands and thousands of government bureaucrats across America who get very upset when you do not follow their orders to do as they say. It is not so much that these misfits and reprobates actually care about the poor, disadvantaged foster children or small businesses. It’s that they just like giving orders. They are little dictators, just like the abusive cops.

As the late psychologist Alice Miller referred to in her book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, some people in positions of authority are extremely narcissistic, and they perceive others as objects, and not only as objects, but as parts of themselves. When the object doesn’t do what one wishes, total rage occurs, as though one’s own arm would not function as one willed it to. That is what goes on with these dictatorial cops, politicians and bureaucrats.

Civilians, whose lives, liberty and individual rights are abused by police or other agents of the State, need to actively seek justice against the offenders. In this case, the civilian – especially if he has been arrested for no good reason, his whole day ruined, and now given an unjust arrest record – should demand that the arresting officer himself be arrested, and charged with violating the individual’s civil rights, causing criminal mischief, harassment, false arrest, terrorism, and so forth. And then, if the police departments try to resist one of their own actually being arrested and put on trial, and try to suggest that their officers are “only doing their job,” the offending officer can tell that to the judge, as the old expression goes.

Actually, law-and-order conservatives should support this, if they actually believe that all individuals must follow the rule of law. After all, while “a conservative is a liberal who got mugged,” a “civil libertarian is a conservative whose innocent son was assaulted or murdered by a cop, or whose own life was ravaged by a fanatical government bureaucrat.”

So if we want to call this a just and civilized society, we must hold all individuals accountable for their actions, and that must include public officials and police. For example, Dick Cheney, as Paul Craig Roberts has observed, was involved in starting three wars of aggression against two countries – Iraq (1991 and 2003) and Afghanistan (2001) – that were of no threat to the U.S., which, along with torturous sanctions, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings and much destruction of those two countries. It is astounding to anyone of any decency and any common sense that this individual has gotten away with such egregious crimes against humanity. Yet, he is on a book tour and enjoying life as a non-tried and convicted war criminal. Dick Cheney is now the poster child for our current totalitarian banana republic under the rule of the criminal State.

Speaking of Dick Cheney, if it is true that Barack Obama has been committing illegal wars of aggression in Libya and elsewhere, in addition to his supposedly illegal and immoral expansion of executive power domestically, then why hasn’t Congress filed one article after another for Obama’s impeachment? Why wait until elections a whole year from now to get rid of a murderous tyrant, when impeachment is the more moral and practical process for immediate dismissal?

Meanwhile, when they are on their many golfing trips and tax-funded extravagant vacations, the President and First Lady, Barry and Evita, have been getting away with plenty of pilfering and mooching, and no one seems to care. Barry and Evita have been wining and dining while Rome burns.

And now, their Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, in addition to all her other examples of banana republic tyranny and gross incompetence, has a brownshirt campaign called “If You See Something, Say Something.” What Napolitano is encouraging is that people spy on their neighbors and report to the government someone who might be unusual or “suspicious.” Of course, one person’s “suspicious” is another person’s mere non-conformity or political dissent. Besides the pathological need for control, bureaucrats just like to make everyone’s life as miserable as possible. That is what they were born to do.

If we were consistent in our desire to bring government ne’er-do-wells to justice, we should have Napolitano arrested for inciting illegal activities, such as eavesdropping, false accusation and false arrest, harassment, and so forth.

The people need to actively seek justice when their lives or businesses have been wronged by punkish police and government bureaucrats. For example, as soon as the Old Dominion Freight Line trucking Company was hit with an EEOC lawsuit for removing a self-confessed alcoholic driver from a driving position, the company should immediately have had criminal charges of harassment and reckless endangerment filed against the actual bureaucrat(s) responsible for such a lawsuit. And the head of the Gibson Guitar company should immediately have criminal charges filed against not only the federal bureaucrat(s) who initiated the intrusions against their business, but also against each and every member of the Department of Homeland Security (!) and S.W.A.T. teams that invaded their factories and offices. “Just following orders” in enforcing bad civil rights-violating and property rights-violating laws is no excuse.

We the People must fight back against these petty bureaucrats, these punk tyrants, and the cowardly, Neanderthal, Nazi police who use brute force and bullying intimidation against innocent civilians, little kids and grandmothers.

Finally, the real way to eliminate Nazi, Neanderthal police is by de-monopolizing all local community policing and security, and allow any individual or group who wants to volunteer their time to do such endeavors, as well as allow for open free entry into those activities of any private security firm that wants to do that. This encourages accountability. Government-monopolizing of these activities is what lures psychopaths and criminals into those positions, as monopolists are not accountable. In a civilized and just society, no one individual may have government-granted authority over another and no one may be above the law. And this should apply to national security as well.

Additionally, repeal all gun-related laws and protect each individual’s God-given right to bear arms and right to carry and openly display weapons. That is the real crime prevention method that works.

And regarding the tyrannical federal bureaucrats, in the manner of how the Soviet Union came to a necessary conclusion through decentralization, so should America decentralize.

Monopolist Bureaucrats and Their Interventions Intentionally Turn Good People Into Bad

Becky Akers has this piece on the NYPD-CIA-Fear-Mongering-False-Flag-Complex. This article gives yet some more examples of the difference between government and non-government. I have mentioned many times before how government monopolies are not accountable. This includes government’s monopolies in national security, “federal investigating,” and community policing. All employees of these government monopolies serve the bureaucracy. They need not serve the people because there is no incentive to do so, as there would be in a competitive market. All employees of government-monopolized police, “federal investigation” or security are bureaucrats, all of them. (Or, as David Kramer would say, bureaucRATs.)

Becky Akers’s piece highlights the scheme of FBI bureaucrats’ approaching a young male, teenage through young adult age, someone with no prior criminal or arrest record, and intentionally encouraging the kid to want to commit crimes of violence. The FBI bureaucRATs deliberately manipulate the kid psychologically, particularly to foment “jihad”-associated rage and anti-American and anti-Western emotions and then encourage him to act out against innocents, based on those artificially-stimulated emotions. The bureaucRATs actually provide the materials for the youngin’s prospective terrorist acts. But don’t worry, the schemers make sure that the device or “bomb,” or whatever, won’t work. They need it for their illegal, criminal entrapment of these otherwise non-violent youths, who wouldn’t have done or wanted to do anything had these interventionists not done their intervening.

The reason these scheming government bureaucrats do this is to add to their list of quotas for apprehended and arrested (and, they hope, convicted) “terrorists.” Only in government-land would this occur, certainly not the private sector. Can you imagine a private security or investigative firm doing this? They’d be indicted for inciting violence, and for promoting terrorism, pure and simple. But, when you have competitive security firms in the private sector, they are actually held accountable under the rule of law.

Government bureaucrats do not act under the rule of law. They are above the law. This is what government monopolies do. The monopoly agencies — that the entire public are compelled by law to use, with no alternative choices allowed — really are there to provide baby-sitting services for these misfits who could otherwise probably not survive in a private-sector world, in which everyone is accountable under the rule of law, and no one may use the armed force of the State to monopolize any endeavor by legally restricting the right of others to compete.

Anyone who intentionally encourages a youngin to commit acts of violence is acting immorally. Immoral people encourage violence in others. The moral people are those who discourage violence in people. Shame on the bureaucRATs.

Some useful related information:

Inside the FBI’s Terrorism Factory by William Grigg

The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot, by Glenn Greenwald

State or Private Law, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? and The Possibility of Private Law, by Robert Murphy

Competition in Private Justice, by Per Bylund

1970 Interview With Investment Advisor Richard Ney

Recently, David Kramer posted a link to an older post of his on the Blog regarding How the New York Stock Exchange Really Works, featuring information by investment advisor Richard Ney, particularly how the markets are rigged, especially by “Specialists.”

Here are two hours out of a four-hour 1970 interview by Jerry Williams of Richard Ney. (From The other two hours of the interview aren’t available there.) Click the links, and a new window should open, to play a Media Player window.

While this is over forty years ago, some of the things said in this interview sound like it could have been conducted yesterday.

Beck and His Fellow Clueless Neocons Are All Nuts

Yesterday Glenn Beck had David Horowitz on, promoting Horowitz’s new book, “Boring, Boring, Boring.” I’m not only sick of these neocons and their “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” paranoia, but their painfully transparent hypocrisy and total cluelessness as to what they are saying. They just don’t listen to themselves. It is difficult to believe that they really believe what they are saying,  but they do. Government-controlled schooling indoctrinates and reinforces obedience to the State and does nothing else. It certainly doesn’t encourage people to engage in critical thinking.

Sometimes listening to these supposedly “right-wing” neocons, who are really left-wing, is the same thing as listening to left-wingers. They all agree on one thing: The State is great, let’s bow to the State. They react emotionally to all the government propaganda that’s fed to them, as do the left, and eat it all up, without question. And, in typical Orwellian fashion, to the neocons “small government” really means Big Government.

For example, yesterday Glenn Beck was pointing out how the people on the left are out of touch with reality. In Beck’s criticism of the left’s distaste for their usual “bad guys,” such as corporations and so forth, Beck referred to the left’s idealizing as “We can have a Big Government that will get rid of all the bad guys,” and referred to the leftists as “simpletons” in that regard.

But really, Beck was unwittingly referring to himself and his fellow neocons in these past 10 years of futility, making Big Government Bigger and Bigger, to “get rid of the bad guys,” that these neocons will continually try to do, but never will do. That is, the very Big Government they support — placing its military bases and other government apparatus on all these other territories, trampling on the other peoples’ lands and murdering hundreds of thousands of their innocents, that the U.S. government has been doing especially since 1990, well before 9/11 — and its aggressions and trespasses are what have been motivating those foreigners to commit terrorist acts against us. But these neocons are blind to their very own idealizing and fantasizing, and refuse to hear someone tell the truth about the crimes our government and its military have been committing, since well before 9/11.

Beck referred to this so-called “caliphate to sweep the Middle East.” However, in actuality, these neocons have been on their own crusade, with all the religious fervor of the “Islamic extremists,” in their socialist, central-planning zeal to “reshape the Middle East,” or “democratize” it. Their zeal to do such socializing and reshaping is just as fanatical and destructive as the left’s zeal in reshaping the health care system in their desired image. These leftist neocons, a.k.a. “neoconservatives,” are hardly conservative, hardly believe in “small government,” do not believe in the rights of the individual to life, liberty and property as described by the so-called Founders (of whom Beck constantly lovingly speaks), and certainly do not believe in the so-called “Christian moral values” that they won’t shut up about.

When Beck’s guest, David Horrorwitz, compared themselves with their enemies the “Islamists,” he said, “We are creators — they are destroyers,” I thought I was listening to one of Beck’s pre-rehearsed and scripted comedy routines that he and his radio cohorts often perform for us. The real destroyers of the past century have been these neocons and neolibs, these internationalists and globalists, these leftists and central-planner obsessive-compulsives, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, FDR to Bush, and all points between.

When you know that David Horrorwitz and his fellow leftist neocons (such as Podhoretz and the late Kristol) are communists — and they supposedly were communists, but it looks like they never abandoned their cause of collectivism and statism — and their ilk Cheney, Bush, et al act like communists (and fascists) with total disregard for human life, invading and occupying other territories and murdering their inhabitants, then it is very hard to take them seriously.

Horrorwitz referred to “Cristian values,” and “love your neighbor.” Sorry. The policies they have been supporting have been the opposite of such beliefs. The level of historic (and economic) ignorance, paranoia and State-worship in that whole conversation showed that these neocon leftists are right on the same page with the “Homeland Security” Obama police statists and sicko TSA perverts.

My conclusion: These people are all nuts. Like the religiously zealous and fanatical Islamic extremists, the neocons and neolibs’ religion is Statism. They and their ilk and the policies they have been supporting have caused more death and destruction, and intrusions into everyone’s private lives, liberty and property, than Muslims have ever done or ever will do.

The Pledge of Allegiance Issue Returns in the People’s Republic

Well, the old Pledge of Allegiance issue is back in the news again, here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, specifically here in the Boston area, in the People’s Republic of Brookline, home of Michael Stanley Dufus Dukakis. Why must children be made to recite a loyalty oath to a flag? Okay, so it’s really a loyalty oath to America. Or is it? Sadly, this issue — which in the past has had people needlessly arguing whether the word “God” should be in the Pledge — is bringing up the generations-old confusion in many people between our country and our government.

There are two specific things: our country (America); and the federal government. It is unfortunate that when people criticize our government, some others perceive that criticism as being criticism of our country. For example, one of Sean Hannity’s rants against Ron Paul is Dr. Paul’s criticism of U.S. government foreign policy, which consists of our government and military trespassing on foreign lands for a century, especially since World War II. But the ignoramus Hannity thinks that is criticizing our country, as he foams, “Blame America, blame America,” etc. No, Ron Paul and others criticize our government’s actions, not our country.

In many people’s eyes, the Pledge of Allegiance really is a pledge of allegiance to our government, right or wrong, because they confuse country with government. Sure, being loyal to the U.S.A., especially if you live here, is a good idea, but, loyalty to our government?

Should I be loyal to a government whose professional bureaucrats and politicians start wars of aggression and solely for political reasons and never for actual defense? Should I be loyal to that government whose ineptitude and incompetence, and criminal aggression against others who are of no threat to us, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths overseas throughout the 1990s that caused blowback and retaliation against us? And then, as good little socialists would do, doubled and tripled their aggressions after 9/11?

Should I be loyal to that government whose corrupt and mentally unstable legislators rammed through an UnhealthyCare bill in the dead of night, with one new bureaucracy after another, one new intrusion into our private medical matters after another, that will raise the costs of health care and insurance and ultimately will end up giving the Soviet-wannabe leaders Obama et al the Total State Powers they dream of?

Should I be loyal to that government which employs thousands and thousands of sexual perverts and sickos, sticking their hands down people’s underwear and fondling their genitals, as well as operating cancer-causing machines whose only purpose is to make a good profit for the corporate neanderthals who produce them?

Should I be loyal to that government whose counterfeiting presses and computers fraudulently hand out new “legal tender” “Federal Reserve Notes” to the cartel of State-controlled and State-protected bankers, which devalues the currency that all Americans are forced by law to use, thus raising the prices of food and energy sources they need to buy, that the super-rich bankers don’t have to worry about?

Should I be loyal to that government whose idiot “lawmakers” rammed through a “Patriot” Act bill in the dead of night without reading the bill, that violates the God-given inalienable private property rights and individual rights to presumption of innocence, due process, and the right to be free from searches in the absence of suspicion, and all based on post-9/11 fears and paranoia and government propaganda?

No, I am not loyal to that federal government, the one single institution that is most responsible for the trashing of our liberty, the coming economic collapse and civil unrest. There is no reason to be loyal to an institution whose professional bureaucrats and politicians have acted treasonously against these United States — yes, all 50 of them! — an institution that is inherently doomed to fail, because central planning in and of itself doesn’t work and is one walking usurpation after another. Central planning does not work, and I’m sick of all this. Everything the U.S. government has done has been against the interests of the United States, and against the American people, and it is the U.S. government and all its generations of bureaucrats and politicians, lobbyists and lawyers, and other imbeciles, dirtbags and miserable wretches, who have been the MOST disloyal to the people of the United States.

We need to drop the federal government like a hot potato, before it kills us all off. Each and every state needs to secede and retain its independence and sovereignty, and the people of each state need to take back their God-given right to earn a living, do business and prosper, and raise and educate their children, without federal criminal gangsters sticking their grubby paws in everybody’s piggybanks and down their pants.

I am loyal to America, but not to the government. Besides, there is no reason for a loyalty oath, this Pledge of Allegiance. People should be presumed innocent and left alone, and the children should be left alone to do their schoolwork. Americans’ loyalty to their country should be automatically presumed, and these school bureaucrats should shut up and leave the kids alone and stop trying to forcibly indoctrinate obedience to the government in our kids. We also need to completely abolish government-run and government-controlled schools. They are worthless.

Loyalty to America? Sure. Loyalty to the government? NO!


UPDATE: I was just listening to Michael Graham talking abut this. He believes that there should be no problem if kids want to “show patriotism” with this supposedly voluntary pledge, and Graham mocked those who were worrying about kids being “pressured” to recite the pledge and that it could become a possible cause of “bullying.”

First, this recitation of a loyalty oath is not a “show of patriotism.” It is a show of obedience — specifically to the State, and especially with government schools.

Second, the whole point of this standing up collectively to recite a pledge in unison to a flag, but really, to the government, is a groupthink mentality. Our “democracy” is all about mob rule groupthink collectivism, that punishes the individual for dissent.

What if a kid — an intelligent teen who knows what’s going on in the news, or a younger kid who feels he should reflect his parents’ views — has a problem with what our government has been doing (the crimes and aggressions and intrusions as mentioned above), and he doesn’t want to stand and join the collective group to recite this loyalty oath to the State?

Or what if a high school kid in far-left Brookline has a problem with Obama’s UnhealthyCare, which caused his parents to have to pay double or triple their previous insurance rate, and he viewed the flag as symbolizing the Obama Administration. Do you really believe that his “opting out” of pledging allegiance, along with his expressed criticism of Obama, will be met with tolerance by his fellow students?

I think that many of us know quite well what would happen to such kids. (Perhaps it has been many, many, many years (and decades) since Graham was in high school, so he forgets.)

Move Out of Orwellian New Jersey

Wendy McElroy has been giving us many great articles and blog posts on the latest police state intrusions. Her newest one is to do with a new “anti-bullying” law in New Jersey. It was Gov. Christie who signed the bill into law last January. McElroy details the idiocy of the bill, and how obviously Christie could not possibly have read the actual bill before signing it — either that or his judgment is so bad, this should make even Ann Coulter change her mind about him. This is called an “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights” law. But what this law actually does is it violates several rights that the real Bill of Rights addresses. This is typical statist crap. Here is just some of McElroy’s article:

The following are merely some of the predictable new difficulties:

Anonymous tips encourage maliciously false accusations.
The bill attempts to forestall this criticism by stating that the tip line “shall not be construed to permit formal disciplinary action solely on the basis of an anonymous report.”

What about two anonymous tips? A student could call twice or a clique could target someone. The onus of proof is on the accused with no consequences borne by the accusers. Moreover, the Crimestopper hotline assumes that grade-schoolers are able to accurately distinguish between bullying and mere rudeness or a refusal to associate.

Children are being taught to inform on peers to the police.
The New York Times reported that “students will be told that there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to bullying: if they see it, they have a responsibility to try to stop it.”

That not only elicits images of children snitching to the East German Stasi on neighbors and ”friends” but also teaches that snitching to a police force should be the first option, rather than talking to the offending person or standing up for the abused student.

The definition of bullying is unreasonably broad.
According to the bill, conduct that is “good cause for suspension or expulsion” includes, “Continued and willful disobedience; Open defiance of the authority of any teacher or person having authority…; Participation in an unauthorized occupancy … of any part of any school or other building owned by any school district, and failure to leave … promptly after having been directed to do so…; Harassment, intimidation, or bullying.” “Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” includes “any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication.”

The bill appropriately prohibits violence against persons and property but school (and state) laws have addressed such offenses for many years. The new prohibitions sound more like social control than a concern for safety.

Nonphysical bullying, such as offending a classmate, is being criminalized.
The police involvement extends beyond the tip line. The bill mandates that “in consultation with the Attorney General, [the police] shall develop a training course for safe schools resource officers and public school employees assigned by a board of education to serve as a school liaison to law enforcement.”

Inappropriate but nonphysical behavior among children is now to be addressed by police policies and training programs.

Read the full article

More reasons to completely abolish “public schools” or government-run schools. The totalitarian police state in which we now live, and only getting worse, led proudly by Barack Obomber and Jamit Napalmitano, is now reaching down into the schools.

If you have kids in New Jersey government schools, you need to take them out and put them in private schools, or homeschool them. Or better yet, move out of New Jersey. Succumbs to Pressure of Obama’s Censorship Regime

Apparently, the Obama Regime has reached down to, one of the most popular blogging sites on the Internet, and has gotten WP to “suspend” Rick Rozoff’s website, Stop NATO.

Now, I believe in the right of publishers to control the material on publications — print or electronic — that they own. “The owner of the printing press” has the property right of control (including censoring what they don’t want on their own publication). Whoever the actual owner(s) of are, it is their right to suspend whatever bloggers they have allowed to publish on their website, and to delete whatever material they want.

However, as Rozoff notes in the above link, “no incitement to violence or other illegal action, no attempt to solicit money and no derogatory statement toward any demographic group have ever appeared” on Stop NATO or its mailing lists.

Now, I have been viewing Stop NATO periodically over the past year or two, and I have never seen anything that could be considered objectionable on that blog. Rozoff (not to be confused with contributor Michael Rozeff) mainly details the latest schemes and fiascos that NATO has been involved in, and provides many news links for source information. Here is his latest post. Here is a randomly selected post from a few months ago, and here is a randomly selected post from 2009.

Rozoff is correct in his conclusion that the sole reason for the “suspension” of his blog is “being anti-war and anti-militarist.” And anti-NATO. What really gets me is that the complaint is regarding NATO, an international crime syndicate and mass-murdering war machine that people should be criticizing.

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed in the years shortly after World War II, with an agreement among member nations to collectively come to each other’s defense if one were attacked by a non-member country or government. I can see the heavy emotionalism involved in the founding of this group, following so much conflict throughout Europe and Asia during World War II. However, the wisdom of forming such an organization is extremely questionable, and, really its founding was the result of short-term fear of a possible emergence of “another Hitler” or “another Stalin,” etc, at the expense of long-term security of all the nations involved.

In the past 20 years especially, NATO has done nothing good, and has caused only harm, especially to Iraq and Serbia-Kosovo-”Yugoslavia” (More info on NATO’s and Bill Clinton’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo here and here.) And now, Libya.

In fact, Tony Cartalucci has this article on how the Libyan “rebels,” whom NATO has been supporting, have been listed as “terrorists” by the U.S. State Department, in which NATO could be seen as having been providing “material support” for terrorism, under the U.S. government’s own laws.

And while many will applaud the corporate media for coming forward with this information, it should be noted that Pepe Escobar first broke this story on Russia Today, and the US and British propaganda outlets have merely been forced to address the growing public awareness of who these “pro-democracy” rebels really are and what role the US and British governments have had in betraying their people by providing material support for men who literally killed US and UK troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the 10 year “War on Terror.”

According to US Code Section 2339A & 2339B, the leaders of NATO, along with the US, UK, and French governments, are clearly guilty of providing a listed terrorist organization with material support in the most egregious, overt case since the code was written. The staggering scale of training, arming, and providing air support for Libyan Islamic Fighting Group militants, listed by the US State Department itself as a terrorist organization, all done criminally under the guise of “international law” rubber stamped by the contrived UN and bolstered with support from the equally contrived International Criminal Court, may be partially why more people are unable to understand the scope of criminality involved in NATO’s intervention in Libya.

Now, getting back to the censorship campaign by of the Stop NATO website, there is no way that anyone could possibly interpret Rick Rozoff’s blog as anything but merely compiling information on NATO’s latest acts of illegal and criminal wars of aggression. There has been no incitement of violence or any encouragement of any illegality on the Stop NATO website. On the contrary, Rozoff’s blog is pointing out NATO’s criminality.

However, there have been people who seem to be inciting violence and who have been acting with recklessness, and they are our very own U.S. government officials. For example, Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama have been recently referring to Tea Partiers, people who have been calling for fiscal responsibility and no more increases in debts, as “terrorists,” which is a way of implying that Napolitano and Obama would actually put Tea Party people on “terror watch lists.” And these government Stasi-types may be inciting violence against Tea Partiers at Tea Party Town Hall meetings or protests.

The U.S. should have pulled out of NATO and the UN  long ago, and evicted any NATO offices there might be in the U.S., as well as evicted the UN from New York. Let the murderous NATO and the anti-American UN stay in Europe and handle their own problems and defense. Americans are tired of being taken advantage of, tired of their hard-earned worthless dollars being taken away to support these internationalist organizations.

Bottom line: If you are an internationalist, a globalist and a collectivist, then you probably support NATO, and good luck to you. But if you believe in individual liberty and freedom of association, property rights, non-entangling governments, national sovereignty and the rule of law, then you are probably with me on this.