The Possibility of a Ron Paul Third-Party Run for President

May 31, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

We are certainly at a crossroads in America, with Election 2012. The political ruling class has usurped many of our rights away, and stolen much of the private wealth and capital that had provided jobs and opportunities and had raised the standard of living more than in any other society.

But the farce that these elections continue to be merely reinforces my point that such elections are mere rearranging of deck chairs.

The Ron Paul people have been following the rules at the state conventions and winning delegates to go to the national convention, while, apparently, the Romney people have been allegedly engaging in cheating and dirty tricks, the latest of which has been in my dreaded state, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

But why Ron Paul is trying to get the nomination of a party that has been a socialist-neocon-central planning party for 150 years, I’ll never know.

The convention will be a Romney-coronation police state nightmare, especially for those who are there on behalf of Paul.

As Lew Rockwell advised, it may even be a good idea that the Ron Paul delegates not even attend the convention, for their own safety.

My prediction is that Ron Paul’s delegates will not be treated well there, and there will most certainly be agents provocateurs trying to provoke some kind of disruption that would then be blamed on Ron Paul.

And if the nominating process actually does go to a second ballot in which Ron Paul delegates then give Romney a real challenge, the Ron Paul people will be accused of cheating, as though they didn’t legitimately win their delegate status.

But is all this worth it, especially given how within the national Republican Party many people are still hostile to Ron Paul’s message of freedom, personal responsibility, and peace?

That is why I still believe that Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate.

Unfortunately, those delusional anti-Obama conservatives – the ones who keep saying how important it is that we oust Obama, and that we all must get behind Romney – do not understand that they want to get behind a socialist, mealy-mouthed politician who is really no different from Obama, except for the rhetoric, which means nothing in the real world.

And then there are those people who think that a Ron Paul third-party run would harm Rand Paul’s chances in 2016, if he were to run for President at that time. “Yech,” is what I have to say to that. And the reason for that is that electing any one of the current statists who support the status quo now will just be a further kicking the can down the road which will definitely lead to the economic collapse, civil unrest, martial law and chaos that trend forecasters such as Gerald Celente have been predicting for a while.

What really got me was this interview that was going viral, in which Rand Paul defended Romney’s record at Bain Capital, but was erroneously being labeled as an “endorsement” of Romney. Most of the comments on that post show that many people in the liberty movement are still supportive of Ron Paul, would never vote for Willard Romney under any circumstances, and believe that a Rand Paul endorsement of Willard (or worse, a Rand Paul VP nomination with Willard) would be a total sell-out.

The truth is, the real Romney is not a “capitalist.” He is a socialist. And it is that Romney-Obama socialism and central planning that have been destroying America for a century.

But in their irrational cognitive dissonance and fear and panic of an Obama reelection, the “conservatives” say we must in solidarity all get behind the socialist Romney in November. But who is it exactly that the hysterical ones are supporting?

Delusional Republicans and conservatives nationwide who are all getting behind Romney in November means this: They would be getting behind

• a “global warming” true believer who will consider carbon taxes and whose energy and environmental advisors are also true believers and energy-corporatists,
• someone who supported the socialist Wall Street bailout and is in fact bought and paid for by Wall Street banksters,
• a governor who raised taxes on businesses,
• someone who supports the Federal Reserve and who would reappoint clueless Ben Bernanke as Chairman,
• someone who believes that government should mandate health insurance,
• a nanny-state drug warrior, including the war on medical marijuana,
• someone who said he would have signed the NDAA bill that Obama signed just months ago that should make Tea Partiers even more fearful of the tyrannical central planners in D.C.,
• and someone who supports strong governmental controls on civilian gun ownership (Given Romney’s support of NDAA and his being a strong chickenhawk militarist, I’m sure that a President Romney would make good use of the 450 million rounds of ammunition that DHS has ordered.)

Now, is Rand Paul really sure that he wants to get behind that kind of candidate in the 2012 presidential election?

Ron Paul is none of those things.

But, most of all – and this is where Rand Paul is wrong in that aforementioned interview – Willard Romney is no “capitalist.” No real capitalist would impose insurance mandates on people by the force of law.

No real capitalist would implement a health insurance bureaucracy called the “Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority.” Or even consider “carbon taxes,” and so on and so on.

Dr. Paul is the true capitalist in his support of truly free markets, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts under the rule of law.

Remember now, the zombie Republican Convention Romney fanatics – part of the real “Tinfoil Hat” crowd – the ones who will be attempting to shut out the Ron Paul delegates, will be supporting one of the most socialist Republican candidates in a long time.

One big difference between Obama-Romney and Ron Paul: When the economy does collapse and there is civil unrest, both Obama and Romney will impose a treasonous, civil liberties-crushing, due process-free federal martial law, but Ron Paul will not do that.

Instead of the Obama-Romney unconstitutional, un-American martial law, Ron Paul would (at least I think he would) restore to the people their God-given right to protect themselves form aggressors, from burglars, looters, rioters, muggers, thieves, rapists and other violent criminals.

Imposing martial law against the American people would pose even more of a threat against our security than rioters and thieves themselves, by unleashing an already out-of-control government-security complex and military onto innocent civilians.

The military has long been the Presidents’ personal army, just as the American Founders feared.

In a society of true common sense and the preservation of freedom, the civilians would be armed, and the employees of government would not. Threats from foreigners would be met with immediate resistance from an armed, vigilant public.

Statist Presidents such as the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama and their minions have been making that go the other way to the point of the current tyranny we have today, with their disarming of the American people, and their starting of wars of aggression and provoking of foreigners to make us less safe, their spreading the military across the globe and weakening our actual security.

Romney would continue that path toward greater weakness by way of the neocons’ delusional hegemonic fantasies.

Now, if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination for President at the convention, then, as Justin Raimondo has suggested, Paul really ought to run as a third party candidate, either as an Independent, or perhaps Gary Johnson could step aside and let Dr. Paul run as the Libertarian Party candidate.

However, as prominent voluntaryist Carl Watner has stated, attempting to restore freedom via the political electoral process is futile, as the use of the State’s own apparatus of institutionalized aggression ends up serving the State’s own ends. You cannot force people to be free.

Which is not to say that we can’t elect Ron Paul who would at least dismantle immediately some of the federal government’s most egregious grasps on our persons and property.

You see, unlike the current and past socialists and statists who have ruined America, and who promise further ruination, Ron Paul doesn’t want to use the political system to implement some political agenda or program. Unlike those other politicians who want these political offices because they crave power and control over others, Ron Paul just wants us to have our freedom.

No, Dr. Paul wants to be elected to the presidency to dismantle the unconstitutional extensions of the President’s executive power that Obama and previous Presidents have given themselves without the approval of the people’s representatives in Congress, Paul would fire all the czars, and repeal many of the federal government’s intrusions and encroachments into our lives and liberty.

Now, some people are worried that a Ron Paul third-party run would harm Rand Paul’s political future, Rand’s potential for a 2016 presidential run. First, America can’t wait that long for a restoration of our freedom. And also, honest people ought not be concerned with political career-planning.

Ultimately, what Americans need to do is engage in mass non-violent resistance. They need to withdraw their consent of all the economy-destroying, liberty-crushing socialist policies that these bureaucrat imbeciles have imposed on us.

As Carl Watner pointed out,

The goal of voluntaryist resistance is to abolish the political power structure and its success or failure in obtaining that objective rests squarely on the degree to which its strategy succeeds in delegitimizing the State and in inducing people to withdraw their support from the government. Its major strategies rest on education (which heightens public awareness of the evils of the State) and in persuading large numbers of persons to refuse to cooperate with the government … Voluntaryists must structure the conflict situation with the government in such a manner that the government becomes responsible for the resulting actions. Mass non-cooperation and widespread civil disobedience present a “resist or abdicate” dilemma to the government. In resisting voluntaryist demands, the government becomes responsible for its own repressive acts. In abdicating, the government not only loses face but political power.

Various Items for Saturday on Memorial Day Weekend

Lew Rockwell was interviewed by Brian Wilson, and suggests that Ron Paul supporters and delegates need to be very careful when attending the Republican National Convention in Florida, or they just shouldn’t go. I agree with his assessment of that. The Romney fascists there want to coronate Willard, despite his being a constantly lying, flip-flopping, amoral, socialist, Fed-supporting, Wall Street-licking, global warmist, health-insurance-mandating sleazebag for 20 years, and who will lose to Obama in November.

The neocons, in their globalist lust for communist-like Big Government to spread all over the world, and in their worship of the American-Exceptionalist cult, will be sorry that they did not support Ron Paul, who would beat Obama were Dr. Paul the Republican nominee (or the Libertarian or other third-party nominee).

At the convention in August, the Romney statists will not want to see any Ron Paul bumper stickers or Ron Paul buttons, and they won’t want to hear anyone talking about Ron Paul, or “End the Fed,” etc. These Romney fascists hate freedom, love the State, and will use the army of police all around and inside and outside of the entire convention apparatus to harm, arrest, assault or who know what else done to the Ron Paul people. This despite the fact that there will be people who are legitimate Ron Paul delegates who have a right, according to the rules of the Republican Party, to give their vote for Ron Paul, especially on the second ballot. There will be no easy slide to a first-ballot nomination for Willard Romney. (He. Does. Not. Deserve. It.)

______________________

The Massachusetts Medical Society has recently decided to be against the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. That’s as opposed to the California Medical Association who wants it legalized. Unfortunately, the issue seems to be confused, in that so many people are indoctrinated to believe that the State should decide what’s best for us, and not we ourselves.

The real issues here are freedom, self-ownership and personal responsibility. Individuals have a right of self-ownership — the individual owns one’s own body and has a right to put into it whatever one wants, but must take responsibility for the consequences of one’s own decisions and one’s actions. See Laurence Vance in The Moral Case for Drug Freedom (and, regarding the issue of victimless “crimes,” see Every Crime Needs a Victim).

Now, I’m not a doctor — but if were, I wouldn’t prescribe something that involves inhaling carcinogenic smoke. According to the the Mayo Clinic, “marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the potential to cause cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs’ exposure to carcinogens.”

Yes, some studies have shown some good, positive health benefits to marijuana, but it also has its negatives, smoked or ingested otherwise, particularly in heavy usage and in long-term usage. The same thing applies to many prescription drugs, over-the-counter meds, and many food products as well.

Bottom line: The State has no moral authority to make the buying, possessing, or consumption of something illegal, no matter what. The people have the right to their freedom to decide for themselves what to consume and what not to consume, based on making their own informed (or uninformed) judgments. Too bad the Massachusetts Medical Society doesn’t agree with me, and instead believes in the nanny-police state.

________________________

The new carbon tax goes into effect in Australia on July 1st, but apparently there will be laws in place that punish businesses who criticize the new tax as being a contributor to higher prices. This kind of speech-censorship bullying on the part of government bureaucrats and police is not surprising given the political correctness intolerance that the global warming fanatics have shown since Loony-Gore’s popularity began. Despite the crap that the State-worshiping warming alarmists have been spewing about “carbon footprints,” they don’t seem to understand that plant life needs carbon dioxide for its survival, a chemical compound that we humans naturally exhale!

Before the major exposing of the climategate fraudsters, the schools were (and might still be, I don’t know) showing Al Gore’s film Inconvenient Truth. Little children were having nightmares because of that. I think that all those school administrators and teachers who deliberately terrorized a generation of schoolchildren with the Gore-environmentalist-wackoism should have been arrested and prosecuted for terrorism. (See this classic by Lew Rockwell from the year 2000: The Enviro-Skeptic’s Manifesto)

But with the carbon tax and State-sponsored censorship in Australia, those who have bizarre beliefs based on faulty information and State-worship probably tend to be insecure with their beliefs, and of course they will attempt to stifle those who believe otherwise. As Paul Joseph Watson writes on Infowars.com,

This draconian measure will be enforced by teams of “carbon cops” who roam the streets conducting snap inspections of businesses to ensure they are not making any reference to the tax.

The characterization of dissent against the carbon tax as a criminal offense exemplifies how the measure passed last year goes way beyond merely forcing Australia’s top 500 companies to pay an extra $23.78 per each tonne of CO2 emitted. The system will be rolled into a carbon trading system by 2015.

Not only will Australians be whacked with price rises on everything from energy to food, small business owners will also be intimidated into silence when they are forced to pay out more for key supplies. Energy prices across the country have already been skyrocketing over the course of the last year.

And Watson quotes Australian columnist Miranda Devine:

But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hardship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.

My advice if you live in Australia: Move! If you were planning to move to Australia any time soon: Don’t!

And the same advice applies to those who live in Nazi York (as David Kramer might say). If the governor signs the new legislation to outlaw anonymous commenting on the Internet within Nazi York: Bug out! And don’t do business there, don’t vacation there as well. I can’t see how anyone could live in these Blue Police States, such as New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.

As Watson notes in his article, Barack Obama praises the new Australian carbon tax, as he is clueless regarding the real effects of taxation and other government intrusions on prices and markets. (Perhaps Obama is so clueless because of all that marijuana he smoked while in high school — and does anyone really believe it ended with high school? No wonder we’re not allowed to know his high school and college academic record.)

Government Monopoly Tyranny vs. The People’s Right to Independence

In my post yesterday and the recent article on the Bureaucratic Berlin Wall, I have mentioned (albeit briefly) this “attachment parenting” phenomenon, and helicopter moms, and how in more recent decades, parents have become very selfish and narcissistic, and lacking in encouragement of their kids’ developing a sense of their own individual identity and independence. These attitudes coincide with our society’s nanny state which is now a full police state, a nanny-police state. The people’s unwillingness to allow their offspring to become separate, independent, free-thinking human beings is reflected in their creating laws upon laws and government policies that treat the population in general as dependent, helpless children, as subjects, as serfs who must follow the whims of imbecilic and criminal bureaucrats, politicians, and police.

Ah, what a life.

An early example in America of this resistance on the part of “authority” to allow the people to become free of Leviathan’s grasp, to be free humans, is President Honest Abe Lincoln’s assault on the seceding Southern states, Lincoln’s War on Independence. Lincoln’s loyalty to “The Union,” to Washington’s control over a large expanded population, far surpassed any loyalty he might have had toward liberty, the rights of all human beings to their freedom and independence, and the idea of the federal government’s role of serving the needs of the people of the states.

Lincoln’s need for absolute power and control over the people was so important that he initiated the intentional Total War murders of the Southern civilian population, and persecuted Northerners who criticized Lincoln’s war as well as the Fugitive Slave Act that he supported. (More here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

When members of society show too much independence, whether it be inhabitants of states who want to secede from a union (that they never had voluntarily agreed to be a part of in the first place), or raw milk-buying moms transporting those products across state lines against the authoritarian will of stupid government bureaucrats, it seems to be the nature of the typical government bureaucrat — in his power-tripping enjoyment of the monopoly he has in being above the law — to crack down on such indications toward independence and autonomy, and hard.

Another more recent example was Andrew Wordes, who was persecuted to death by local Roswell, Georgia bureaucrats for his attempting to have chickens on his own property. After a zoning board warning about his violating ordinances that didn’t exist, the city council then wrote new ordinances, and it got worse from there, to the point of Wordes committing suicide, or should I say, he was “suicided.” Jeffrey Tucker has the story here, and there’s an update on the city bureaucrats’ criminality. But there are stories like this all across Amerika, and more and more frequently. These damn government bureaucrats do not like their authority over you to be defied.

It’s really an uphill battle these days, trying to get others to understand what’s happening to our society, trying to get people to question the crap that government bureaucrats spoon-feed the people, given how uninformed, misinformed, ignorant, indoctrinated and brainwashed most of the people are now, from their daily hours-long staring into the TV, and their 12 year early prison sentence in the government school indoctrination centers.

Some people actually believe that Navy SEALS killed Osama Bin Laden last year, that he was actually still alive up to that time and hadn’t already died years before, probably of kidney failure, and not that the Navy Seal-bin Laden charade was exactly that: a made-up, pretend charade and a sham, and a hoax. (More here, here, here, here, here, and here. And most Americans are clueless and don’t know that the Bush Administration never even had evidence against Osama bin Laden regarding the 9/11 attacks anyway. See here, here, and here.)

And some people actually believe that Lincoln’s War to prevent Southern Independence was to “free the slaves,” when the opposite was true, it was to enslave all Americans under the Total State Rule of Washington, rule by stupid and corrupt bureaucrats and criminals, most of whom should be in jail. The federal government began as a third-party agent to serve the interests of the people of the states, and Lincoln turned it around to enslave the masses to serve the bureaucrats and criminals (sorry, I repeat myself again) of the Federal Leviathan Dictatorship. (See previous links on Lincoln and his War.)

Yes, it’s an uphill battle to get people to really understand that the federal government shouldn’t have been created in the first place, because “limited government” is impossible, because any kind of legal monopoly held by any certain groups of people to which the rest of the population must be compelled to submit, that some people may be above the law and not be accountable under the rule of law that the rest of the population must obey, is a system inherently doomed to failure, inherently doomed to implode. And that is what is happening now.

We must resist the tyranny! Ask questions, challenge the government’s assertions, criticize those who deserve to be criticized, expose the lies, propaganda and corruption for what they are.

As journalist Chris Hedges wrote in his recent article on the judge’s striking down of provisions in the NDAA that would have allowed the indefinite detention without charges of those who criticize the U.S. Regime,

Not to challenge this law would have meant being complicit in its implementation. And once resistance defines a life it becomes reflexive…

Rebellion is an act that assures us of remaining free and independent human beings … Totalitarian systems, to perpetuate themselves, always seek to break autonomy and self-determination. This makes all acts of resistance a threat, even those acts that will not succeed. And this is why in all states that rule by force any act of rebellion, even one that is insignificant, must be ruthlessly crushed. The goal of the corporate state, like that of any totalitarian entity, is to create a society where no one has the capacity to resist.

But really, the only real answer right now, toward regaining our freedom and independence, is rejecting central planning and the totalitarianism it brings about, and having secession of the states, and the return of private property rights and the sanctity of voluntary contracts, and ending compulsory monopolies by government bureaucrats and government police!

No More Common Sense in Amerika

In Jeff Berwick’s article on his weekend festivities in Mexico, he mentions the freedom of spontaneity, the nonchalantness of violating local ordinances or codes (if they exist), and his own enjoyment of booze and partying and so forth.

Berwick likes drinking, loudness and motorcycles, apparently. I don’t.

I like peace and quiet. There’s never enough of it for me. Sure, unwind when it’s the weekend. (However, from reading Jeff Berwick in recent months, I have gathered that the weekdays are also weekends for him.)

But I like quiet and I’m not for the partying stuff. Call me a “stick-in-the-mud.” Perhaps “fuddy-duddy” is more appropriate for me. But NOT a “curmudgeon” (Because I’m not “grumpy,” as curmudgeons are, nor am I old enough. I think you have to be over 70 to qualify.)

Anyway, Berwick mentioned in his blog about the philosophy of laws, and the difference between the will of some politicians, bureaucrats and hacks being legislated into laws that we all must obey, and natural laws that are based on the protection of liberty and property, and, most of all, common sense.

As Amerika collapses and crumbles apart, what has been coinciding with that has been the steep decline of common sense. In my article on Amerika’s Bureaucratic Berlin Wall, I referred to how Sen. Chuckles Schumer wants to steal more money from people who are fleeing the USSA, and how greedy and covetous these selfish politicians are in their taking from others who no longer want to be Americans and who are therefore no longer morally “obligated” to have to contribute to the public treasury (in phony, fiat USD, that is), and they therefore should no longer be legally obligated either. Common sense would dictate that. But criminals who are attracted to the armed power of Leviathan have no common sense, no scruples, no sense of morality, and no idea why we have “law” in the first place.

And I also mentioned the bureaucratic means of Leviathan’s totalitarian grasp on the serfs whose lives it claims ownership of, the requirement of so much disclosure of extremely personal information on passport application forms, information that is none of the bureaucrats’ g**damn business!

Common sense also dictates that, of course people have an inalienable human right to travel, a right of movement throughout a territory, and a right to leave and then return without the State’s permission, of course human beings have that natural right. It’s like, “duh!” This is just common sense. But greedy, slave masters of the State don’t see it that way. They own you.

Another example of common sense, or lack thereof, is a situation that Michael Graham was discussing and arguing over with just about every caller to his show. In Burlington, Connecticut, this guy was arrested for “illegally killing a black bear,” and for “criminal possession of a pistol.” You see, the bear seemed to have wandered onto the resident’s yard and into his garage. The homeowner obviously felt the bear was a threat to him or his family and he shot the bear.

Of course he shot the bear. When a bear goes onto your property, that is a wild, dangerous animal that very well could harm you or your children. Of course you shoot the bear. And you KILL the bear. Another big “Duh!” But the idiots, the human-hating animal-lovers don’t get that. They want people to get attacked by bears.

After killing the bear, there’s nothing wrong with making good use of it, such as making a new bear skin rug for your living room, or perhaps a fur coat, if that’s possible. Oh, wait a minute — is all that illegal? I’ll bet it is, especially here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Oh, well. Never mind, as Emily Litella would say.

Anyway, a caller to Michael Graham’s show defended the police arresting the bear-killer, and was saying that you shouldn’t kill any animals even when they are a threat to you. The caller said, “They were here first.” Can you believe this? The animals were there first, but we are second-class territory-inhabitants.

No, sorry lady, you moron, the property owner was there first, it’s his property, he bought the house and the land, he was there first, not the bear. Of course the homeowner had a right to shoot and kill the bear that was trespassing on his property and threatening him and his family. And if he felt that a man entering the property was a threat to them, he has a right to shoot him, too. (If he has common sense, that is. Obviously, most people with common sense can distinguish between the non-threatening milkman and a threatening possible burglar, rapist or murderer.)

So there is no more common sense in Amerika.

Another example of the diminution of common sense is how parents are clinging to their kids now, as I briefly mentioned in my article this past weekend. Very selfish, narcissistic, hovering parents, not willing to allow their kids to become independent, and think for themselves. The latest is this “attachment parenting” that was in the news, thanks to the ghastly Time cover.

Breast-feeding up to or past age 4? Having your kids sleep in bed with you? How sick is that? No wonder so many young people are so screwed up now. And I thought that those helicopter moms who follow their kids to college, who calls her son every day at his dorm to check up on him, who talks to his professors to argue over a grade on the son’s behalf, I thought these people were bad. C’mon, people. Perhaps parents should start to grow up, and then maybe let their kids do the same? But I digress.

Anyway, back to the Amerika-government-slave taxing expats issue.

Now we are seeing that House Ignoramus Speaker John Boehner is saying that Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s renouncing of Amerikan citizenship is “outrageous,” and, in Boehner’s interview with George Snuffleupagus this weekend, Boehner was close to endorsing Chuckles Schumer’s legislation to steal more from expats. So much for “conservative” Republicans who believe in “free markets.”

I’m sure Willard Romney will also agree with these congressfelons. You see, these people are so entrenched with the State in Washington, their first solution toward resolving budget problems is to steal more money from as many people as they can, certainly not to cut budgets. That would be the common sense approach, after all. But covetous statists who live high off the hog and who have merged their own personal identities with the State have no common sense.

Now, speaking of no common sense, I heard Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on the radio over the past week, as well as Michael Savage. They are all getting hysterical in their Obama-hate, “lesser-of-two-evils,” “we must vote for Romney,” “everyone get behind Willard” crusade. These are totally clueless clucks who really don’t understand the situation we face, and how Willard is just another socialist who will not do a damn thing to change the way they do business down in Washington. Willard is a narcissistic, mealy-mouthed politician with no sense of morality, no understanding of free markets, private property, the sanctity of voluntary contracts, and the business cycle.

Now, Glenn Beck was the one who was expressing some anger at the Ron Paul delegate people, and expressing concern that they will cause havoc at the convention. GOOD! You warmongers and Big Government Republicans have ruined the country, turned it into a police state, virtually given a communist in the White House the keys to the totalitarian nightmare that everything seems to indicate we will have to suffer. And no, Romney will be no different from Obama, Romney will continue and expand the police state, as well as the counter-productive warmongering.

Beck and Hannity’s cluelessness really makes me barf. And Michael Savage is really no better (except that he has some intelligence). When he’s not wasting time complaining how Mark Levin, Savage’s main competition, sounds like “Groucho’s grandmother having a hysterectomy,” Savage is also saying how, regardless how bad Willard Romney is, we still must get behind him.

Sorry. People with common sense would get behind Ron Paul. Only people lacking in common sense would bomb Iraq in 1991, destroy civilian water and sewage treatment centers, impose sanctions and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the 1990s in their continual provoking of foreigners and then act surprised at 9/11 and then go on to do more of the same to Iraq and start a whole new war in Afghanistan, and then drool for more wars in Syria and Iran for no good reason, while Amerika is collapsing in bankruptcy and moral decay right before their very eyes.

I guess Jeff Berwick is lucky to be where he is in Mexico, especially if Amerika really sinks into the totalitarian police state tyranny where it appears to be heading, where both Barack Obomber and Willard Romney will take us. If Ron Paul can get the delegates he needs, however, and if elected he would reverse a lot of this police state, end our government’s trespassing on foreign lands and provocations of foreigners, and really bring back common sense, and, most of all, restore freedom. And maybe then I can get some peace and quiet.

And if not, then it really is up to the people to resist the tyranny.

The Bureaucratic Berlin Wall in Amerika

May 19, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (link to article)

If Hitler had won the war, we’d all be speaking German now.

~ a typical interventionist warmonger

We don’t have to worry about some Hitler invading America and turning this into a dictatorship, because that is what we already have now. And worse.

They’re really all the same now: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea … and now, the USSA.

It is of no surprise to me that the same kinds of warmongers – from Honest Abe Lincoln waging war against secessionists and Fascist Delano Roosevelt’s internment camps to Dubya and Obama’s “anti-terror” (i.e. anti-due process, anti-civil liberties) wars – are those who do as much as they can to steal what private wealth they can and enslave the people’s labor.

In addition to the “Enemy Expatriation Act,” an act proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman that would remove citizenship from terror suspects not convicted, now the clown’s fellow moonbat-fascist Senator Chuckles Schumer proposes to punish people who renounce their American citizenship and move to countries with less wealth-confiscation powers. This is in response to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s move to Singapore and his September, 2011 U.S. citizenship renunciation.

So, besides all the anti-due process policies these people in Washington have been inflicting on Americans since 9/11, in their desperate attempts to steal as much wealth as they can from others, they will go after their tax-theft victims who attempt to flee the country.

But, as the Daily Bell noted, “governments don’t need taxes anymore. Why do you need to extract funds from citizens when you print all the money you want anyway?”

So really, it isn’t as much that Chuckles feels the U.S. government needs even more of people’s money, it’s the attitude of envy and covetousness by the socialists who rule over us: “How dare you leave the country and take your own property with you?”

And another provision that the lowlifes propose is to never allow these expats to return to the U.S. Now, what a childish display of overt resentment! Talk about ignoramuses with an utter lack of understanding of what freedom is all about.

It is actually these senators who don’t belong in America. They need to grow up, and stop persecuting Americans who earned and acquired their wealth through hard work, honest investment, and being the actual producers of society! (What, exactly, have Joe Lieberman and Chuckles Schumer actually produced for others, or services they have actually provided to others, except for feeding off the public trough?)

What clinging government bureaucrats like Lieberman and Schumer remind me of are those parents and school administrators who panic if they see a child playing alone in a playground or park while the parent goes into a store. Or when police see a child or pre-teen kid walking home alone from school, and actually seize the child and take him home in the cruiser. Have you heard those stories?

We live in a very clinging, perverted society now in which the idea of independence and freedom is to be shunned, as the smothering, narcissistic adults can’t bare to let the kids have their own space, live by their own free will, and become independent from their authorities.

In the same way, the State’s proclaimed ownership of the people and their labor keeps the people enslaved and imprisoned. And it’s sick.

Another thing that envious, fascist senators here remind me of is the enforcement during the 19^th Century of the Fugitive Slave Laws. If a slave ran away to his freedom, which was his right to have, this law (which Honest Abe Lincoln supported, by the way) mandated that the slave be captured and brought back to his “owner,” and without anything resembling due process. It also punished severely anyone who had helped or sheltered the runaway slave.

Well, this is very much like what these clinging slave masters in Washington are doing, and not just to wealthy American expats, but to the rest of us poor slobs, as well.

Well, I would like to ask Chuckles Schumer: Who is actually driving away these ex-patriots? Why are they leaving America? And who is it that is driving away American businesses to offshore locations? Is it really just their greed? After all, the real greed is on the part of government bureaucrats who can’t get enough of other people’s wealth, and who can’t get enough from markets through illicit means while virtually exempting themselves from laws the rest of us must obey.

Or is it the American consumers who are driving away these expats? Is their patronage so overwhelming to businesses and thus scaring them away? Nope. It’s these damn government bureaucrats.

It is these government bureaucrats and their tyrannical tentacles that are pushing people out of the U.S.

People are trying to escape now from this Prison State. The wealthy ones are lucky if they actually can get out. But many of us do not have the wealth and can’t afford any big moves, or some people have medical issues which make a big move impossible. So, many of us will have to suffer in the near future because these bureaucrats in Washington are turning America into a Nazi-Soviet concentration camp.

The truth is, no one should have his citizenship renounced or revoked more than these covetous, clinging senators. It would be very difficult for anyone to be more un-American than these senators.

But this wealth-covetousness-clingingness is not all: Not only are these criminals trying to make it difficult via taxation for someone to escape the Amerikan Prison State with one’s own wealth that one rightfully acquired, but they are also making it difficult to leave via draconian bureaucratic means.

The State Department may not have yet approved the proposed passport application form DS-5513, which would require the memory, research and disclosure of personal information about one’s entire life history (including facts about, yes, one’s circumcision, for instance). But our right to freedom of travel, the right to leave and return to our homes as we please, has apparently already been restricted by the State Department’s illegal use of another, similarly intrusive form, and because of that some people have already been denied a passport.

Requested on these forms is information about you and your family members that most people could not possibly remember. It is an unbelievable Bureaucratic Berlin Wall that is being designed to keep the people inside the prison to exist on behalf of those covetous, sadistic slave masters in Washington.

Even the drones now that the federal and local governments are using to act as surveillance-spies (to make sure no one can escape alive) are not necessary, as those bureaucratic forms will be enough. All it will take to prevent someone’s escape from the U.S. government’s imprisonment is some lowly, scar-faced bureaucrat in some DC office stamping “Application Denied.” (Drones not needed, but the treasonous criminal bureaucrats will use them anyway.)

Yes, the Gestapo senators who hate America and who hate freedom really are turning the United States into Nazi Germany, East Germany, and the Soviet Union.

“If we didn’t win World War II, we’d all be speaking German now”?

No, we wouldn’t be speaking German now, but we are living in Nazi Germany. No, not because of invasion from Nazis, but because of the foreign regime that has occupied Washington, DC for 150 years that has turned the guns on the American people.

Ron Paul vs. The Real ‘Tinfoil Hat’ Crowd

May 17, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

While Ron Paul will no longer actively campaign in the remaining state primaries, he will nevertheless continue in the delegate-winning strategy, and go to the Republican convention. Contrary to State-shilling media hoaxers and propagandists, Dr. Paul has NOT dropped out of the race, and those who hope for a future of freedom should vote in remaining primaries.

But one must wonder why Ron Paul has not received as many votes as he should have during this election campaign.

Well, one of the unfortunate consequences of democracy and especially government’s seizure of education has been the decline in critical thinking and common sense in America.

In the mainstream of America, the people love the State, and they demonize those who challenge the State’s authority, legitimacy and policies. It seems that some of those most maligned are the libertarians, particularly the Austrian economists, historical revisionists, anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists, and voluntaryists.

Remarkably, it is these libertarians whose views are closer to those of the American Founders than the modern mainstream statists. Yet it is the libertarians – advocating individual freedom, the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of trade and voluntary exchange, and equality under the rule of law – who are dismissed as “Tinfoil Hat” wearers.

Our society has become an Orwellian, Bizarro World in which dependence, irresponsibility, recklessness and aggression are good – and peace, independence, responsibility and prudence are bad.

Only in Amerika does advocating independence, responsibility and the rule of law give one a “Tinfoil Hat” status.

Here, I will set the record straight, that the opposite of all that is actually the case, in government spending and monetary policy, and in foreign policy.

Government Spending and Monetary Policy

In a recent debate between Ron Paul and Paul Krugman, Ron Paul summarized the differences between him and Krugman: “(Paul Krugman) believes in big government … and I believe in very small government. I emphasize personal liberties. I don’t like a managed economy, whether it’s through central economic planning or monetary policy, or even Congress doing it.”

There Ron Paul described the true fiscally conservative and responsible approach that Krugman in the past declared to be of the “Tinfoil Hat” crowd.

Krugman and his fellow Keynesians support increasing government debts and deficit spending, and believe that more people should be dependent on the government, such as “the poor,” students and the elderly. And they advocate greater tax-thefts of the workers and producers of society to involuntarily finance such dependence and serfdom.

The Keynesians and statists continue to fantasize that corporatism, militarism, tax-thefts, debts and deficit-spending are helpful to Americans.

But when crashing back down to Earth, we learn that those who are most helped by stimulus, government social programs and war profiteering are the government bureaucrats themselves and corporate special interests. (e.g. ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, Solyndra, body scanners, etc.)

Can you get any more “Tinfoil Hat” than the elitist daydreamers wanting more of such government activism and intrusions?

In reality, the State is the true “1%,” as evidenced by the wealthiest districts of America surrounding Washington, D.C.

But we must no longer allow these elitist daydreamers to continue forcing their delusions onto the rest of us! The people have a right to know the truth!

Government deficit-spending and the National Debt force future generations to have to involuntarily pay for current and past generations’ self-indulgence and irresponsible spending habits.

Philosophically, Ron Paul believes that if it’s wrong for your neighbors to take your earnings from you (that is, to force you to do extra labor to serve others involuntarily), then it’s just as immoral for government bureaucrats and their armed police to do that.

No one should be above the law.

And Ron Paul understands that when you rely on funding the government through borrowing, you are creating a moral hazard.

There’s no “Tinfoil Hat” there – only a sound, rational belief in protecting the rights of the individual, protecting private property from theft and intrusion, and a belief that no one should be above the law.

Another moral hazard is the printing of money out of nothing. For a government to just spend money that doesn’t exist, or that has nothing of value backing it, is extremely irresponsible. It ought to be considered a crime, as it is equal to actual theft and fraud.

This fiat money printing causes inflation. It is a sneaky, backdoor way of government bureaucrats and their “private” banking cartel associates to get easy money right away to spend – while causing price inflation of everyday necessities, which makes it more difficult for those in the lower and middle classes to afford to provide their daily needs, especially in food and energy.

Through this backdoor inflation-tax, the Primary Dealer Big Banks are virtually stealing from the poor and middle class. This is not just a real moral hazard, but it also should be considered a crime.

So the truth is, those who advocate these schemes of debts robbing future generations and fiat-money printing robbing the current population are really the true “Tinfoil Hat” wearers of our time.

For more on these issues, see Murray Rothbard in Taking Money Back and Repudiate the National Debt, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Why the State Demands Control of Money. (And more information here [.pdf], here, here, here, and here.)

And here is an important interview of Ron Paul covering monetary policy, the business cycle, government-stimulated artificial inflation and bubbles, and the role of government in private economic matters.

By the way, unlike clueless Krugman and Bernanke et al., Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble and economic downturn of 2007-2008, as did many amongst the Austrian school of economic thought. That was based on their knowledge of history, and understanding of cause and effect, as well as the moral hazard that results from excusing people from personal responsibility and the rule of law.

In economic matters and monetary policy, Ron Paul wants to bring the government’s budget back down to only funding that which the Constitution authorizes, and eliminate the tyrannical IRS (and most of the other dirty three-letter words in Washington).

Ron Paul also wants to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, repeal legal tender laws and allow for competing currencies.

Unthinkingly, many people believe that those proposals are of a Tinfoil Hat variety, whereas it really is the status quo of monetary serfdom that only real Tinfoil Hatters would support.

Forcing the entire population to only use the one government-issued, government-debased currency is very authoritarian and dictatorial, and it violates the people’s right to freedom of exchange.

People have a God-given right to choose any medium of exchange they want, and, unlike the chaos that the current central planning monetary dictatorship causes, a natural order would result from a society of monetary freedom.

And regarding the government’s control over the nation’s banks and the people’s wealth and savings, why can’t an individual or group who wants to serve one’s community own and operate a bank? In a society of freedom, there would be no central government bank (and thus no revolving door between a “Federal Reserve” and the dreaded private sector), banks would compete for the people’s business, and the currently legalized fraud of fractional reserve banking would not be allowed under the rule of law.

More important, in such a society of freedom, those bankers who engage in risky and irresponsible investment and lending practices would be held accountable and would not be bailed out by taxpayers involuntarily. Those local banks with the best reputation would attract more customers, while the irresponsible ones would be forced out of business or be sent to jail. A system of freedom would also reward consumers who take responsibility for their own banking choices, too.

As Jacob Hornberger noted just recently, we need to separate banking and state.

Only real Tinfoil Hat wearers would support an authoritarian, top-down central banking authority and a cartel of government-controlled “private” banks who can get away with crimes of theft, fraud, and “bailout” extortion-looting.

Foreign Policy

On foreign policy, I still can’t believe the number of people who actually “boo” Ron Paul’s suggestion that we apply the Golden Rule to foreign policy.

Now, a lot of people have this false “Tinfoil Hat” view of Ron Paul and libertarians in foreign policy mainly out of ignorance of actual history, as well as lacking skills in critical thinking.

Unfortunately, too many Americans simply believe the propaganda that government bureaucrats tell them, as repeated to them by the State’s lapdog media stenographers.

Besides ignorance, a problem with many Americans is their belief in American exceptionalism – that the U.S. government may trespass on foreign lands with military bases and occupations against the will and approval of the actual inhabitants of those lands, but foreign governments may NOT trespass and occupy OUR lands. This long-ingrained moral relativism has reinforced many Americans’ narcissistic, communistic self-appointed role as rulers of the world, as owners of the entire world’s territories.

It is this attitude of American covetousness that has contributed to so many people viewing as absurd Ron Paul’s asking how we would like it if a foreign government invaded our territory and occupied our lands. The question is not so absurd, when you consider all the aggressions and provocations committed by the U.S. government against foreigners.

And when I refer to most Americans as ignorant, many of them actually don’t know such facts of history as our government having started a war against Iraq a first time (even though Iraq was of no threat to us), in 1991, and intentionally destroyed Iraq’s civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those actions, along with the sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis throughout the 1990s. And all this led to widespread anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East.

Prior to that during the 1950s, on behalf of the British Empire and its covetous craving for Iran’s oil, the U.S. government and its CIA staged a coup and overthrew the Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh, and installed the Shah of Iran for the next 25 years. The U.S. government supported the Shah’s tyranny, and that led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The Iranian population knew damn well that the U.S. government was the main supporter of their tyrant leaders.

Just look at this description of the Shah’s notorious torture and spy regime, and how it compares to America’s current police state of NDAA, NSA spying, torture regime, the DHS and the TSA.

Unlike the Tinfoil Hat wearers, Ron Paul understands that when you go across the street and provoke your neighbors, trespass on their property and steal their stuff (and murder their family members), they will try to retaliate against you.

Dr. Paul wants to dismantle the Leviathan militarist and police state apparatus that are turning us into the Soviet Union.

The real Tinfoil Hat wearers support keeping or even expanding the current Leviathan nightmare.

Now, do people really believe that if we close down the foreign U.S. military bases and bring the troops home, stop initiating wars against others who were of no threat to us, and shut down the Nazi-like, Soviet-like police state at home, that we would make ourselves even more vulnerable to terrorism?

Sorry, the opposite is true. Our government’s aggressions, intrusions, and provocations are what really have compromised our security and made us vulnerable to terrorism.

After all, during the 1990s Ron Paul actually foresaw the increased probability of terrorist attacks on our soil, based on the U.S. government’s provocations overseas.

Only Tinfoil Hat wearers would think that you can provoke your neighbors but think they wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) fight back.

The truth is, the main purpose of post-Cold War militarism and the “terrorism” charade has been for certain special interests to profit from the labor and savings of the American workers and producers. (For more on that, see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.)

Conclusion

While the Ron Paul campaign will probably be accused of “stealing” Republican national Convention delegates, it is really the Ron Paul campaign who are following the rules of primaries and state conventions in their accumulation of delegates.

But it is the Romney people who have been committing the shenanigans, and are the true alleged cheaters and alleged vote-stealing fraudsters.

Some people just crave political power and artificial financial advantages over the people, while Ron Paul wants the opposite: Freedom!

There is a reason why so many people are enthusiastic about Ron Paul: Because they believe in freedom, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who has said that he wants us all to have our freedom.

The younger crowd amongst the Ron Paul supporters have a very good understanding of the dwindling freedom and prosperity we have in America, and it is they who will have to suffer many, many years in the future of the kind of Total State-controlled, impoverished society that the Obama and Romney statists are giving us, and the young people know it.

But the Tinfoil Hatters want it all to continue, and at these young people’s expense, to which the young people reply, “Up your nose with a rubber hose!”

For those whose only real familiarity with Ron Paul is from the propagandist mainstream media and the neocon talk radio blabbermouths, here are some of Dr. Paul’s own writings and speeches:

Hundreds of articles by Ron Paul (Three of my favorites: Paper Money and Tyranny, The End of Dollar Hegemony and What Really Divides Us) and Ron Paul’s many books promoting freedom, peace and free markets

Here are some of Ron Paul’s books that are available for free online:

• A Foreign Policy of Freedom [.pdf]
• The Case for Gold [.pdf]
• Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200-Plus Years [.pdf]
• Gold, Peace, and Prosperity [.pdf]
• Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property [.pdf]

And there are these more recent books:

• Liberty Defined (Intro, with links to buy the book)
• End the Fed
• The Revolution: A Manifesto

Emails Responding to “Right to Marry” Article

There were quite a few emails in response to my recent article on LewRockwell.com, The Right to Marry. Several of the emailers joined in the chorus of the so-called conservatives with the religious point of view, and some gave me some Biblical quotes. That’s fine, but there are many Americans who don’t believe as these people believe, and don’t believe in the Bible. It is your view that God views marriage or homosexuality in this or that way, but the words of the Bible are not the rule of law. The rule of law is to protect the individual from the aggression of others.

Another emailer made the suggestion of intellectual property: “Nobody owns marriage.” That’s correct. If you are a firm believer in the “institution of marriage,” and that marriage should only consist of one man and one woman, that is fine, but others disagree with you. You don’t own marriage and don’t have a right to put your view of marriage into the law that all others must obey. When you claim ownership of marriage, and use the State to enforce your view of marriage and how other people ought to live, and force all others into the State’s rules of relationships and contracts, then you are claiming ownership of the people, which is a very communist point of view.

I’m really tired of this subject. There was an article posted on Strike the Root yesterday, by William Hubbard. It was very brief and to the point:

Amendment Done

I have sullied myself this day, and for no profitable reason. I have stained my soul and made a lopsided deal with the devil. I entered the voting booth this afternoon, for the last time, against my principle, in order that I may fight for other principles. I have not voted in years. This is not out of apathy but out of strength in my beliefs. I do not believe one should force their opinions on their fellow man at the point of a government’s gun. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner is no way to protect the meek, but today I mistook the ends justifying the means. This is never the case and my soul has historically known better. I am ashamed. I hoped to vote against one evil and for a good. My fellow man does not share my beliefs; of this I am now sure.

There was a man whom I hoped was the last voice of freedom and peace to hold this country from ruin. This statesman, Dr. Ron Paul, was the only presidential candidate of the last 50-odd years to truly take to heart the Christian admonition of the Golden Rule and apply it to our policy of dealing with our neighbors; the only man in more years than I have lived to believe in loving your enemies, not bombing them–man, woman and child alike, for harming us in no way. His campaign will be not more than a footnote in our history, if that.

It appears the people in the once great state of North Carolina are more concerned with whether or not two men may love each other enough to commit to a lifetime together than if their tax dollars are used to incinerate children across the globe. They are more worried about enforcing one set of so called biblical values on their fellow Americans than standing by the values straight from the mouth of their professed savior. I am not a Christian, but Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, yet repeated at length the admonition of love, peace, forgiveness and not judging each other. I hoped by turning on my strident belief against the polls, I might stand against the hatred embodied in Amendment One of this state’s constitution and stand for an end to our country’s violence against our fellow man. Instead I have only degraded myself. I have turned to what I knew was wrong only to be shown it was for naught. It was not fighting the good fight. It was not a last stand. It was a vile, despicable act of which I cannot wash myself clean.

The Right To Marry

May 12, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

Once again, the “gay marriage” or same-sex marriage distraction is in the news and on the talk shows. Some people say it is a societal or cultural issue that government must address, and others say it is a religious issue.

The same-sex marriage issue is a private issue. And yes, the individual has a right to marry.

Who the hell is the government to allow or forbid private people to establish their own voluntary associations, relationships, contracts and marriages?

Regarding the right to marry, while the Bill of Rights does not mention that specifically, the Ninth Amendment does state that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There are an infinite number of rights that human beings have. Each individual has an inherent right as a human being to one’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as one doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s same right.

Based on this right of self-ownership, each individual has an absolute natural right to do with one’s life, one’s person and property as one wishes, as long as one is peaceful. Unfortunately, statists and politicians do not understand this.

Murray Rothbard addressed the right to self-ownership in his magnum opus, The Ethics of Liberty. (Here is The Ethics of Liberty online at the Mises Institute.)

In my view, the individual owns one’s own life.

The community in which you live does not own you, your neighbors do not own you, the State does not own you.

You own you.

Therefore, the State has no jurisdiction over your life and has no legitimate authority to determine whether you may or may not marry or whom you may or may not marry.

Each individual has the right of self-ownership and jurisdiction over one’s own life, as long as one does not violate anyone else’s person or property. And each individual human being has a right to establish voluntary contracts with others who are mutually agreeable to said contracts. Such contracts are not the business of the State or of your neighbors, as they are private contracts. The terms of the contracts and who may or may not participate in them are the business of those who are the parties to such contracts, those who voluntarily agree to such terms, and it’s no one else’s business.

Third parties who attempt to intrude themselves into such contracts, whether they be your neighbors, Grandma Harriett, or government bureaucrats, are intruders, trespassers, and just plain meddlesome busybodies. And that includes marital contracts.

Does it matter what past court decisions have said about marriage and marital contracts? Not really. Courts are State monopolies of ultimate judicial decision-making; therefore they are illegitimate, because, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted, many people within a given jurisdiction did not voluntarily agree to or sign on to a contract to employ such courts. If there is a dispute in a marriage involving a marital contract, the moral and ethical way to settle such a dispute is for the parties to the contract to find a third-party arbitrator. They should not be compelled by legal force to have to use the State’s one monopoly court.

Now, the only candidate for President who believes that the government should stay out of the marriage issue, to my knowledge, has been Ron Paul.

And in my opinion, there should be complete separation of marriage and state. No one should have to get a license issued by government bureaucrats to marry. It is not the business of the government to permit or forbid a private individual to establish one’s own private contracts voluntarily.

It seems to me that some so-called conservatives, such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, believe that the State owns the lives of the people, and should use its armed power to dictate who may or may not marry, and should dictate the terms of these private contracts. Obviously, some religious conservatives do not believe in the inalienable rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These statists support a community’s use of the State and its compulsory legal and police powers to force a certain social view onto the entire population, a.k.a. social engineering.

I believe that Willard Romney does not have the same kind of repressive social convictions as the other statist reactionary politicians, as Romney is the epitome of finger-in-the-air weathervane pol. Despite his past support of “state’s rights” on the issue of same-sex marriage, currently for political reasons, Romney supports the proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage to please the religionists and conservatives who believe in socialist government-managed social engineering and societal central planning in marriage.

Regarding the idea of employment- or tax-related financial benefits or privileges associated with marriage: Private employers have an inherent right to dish out whatever benefits they want to give employees, and based on their own views of morality. No one should interfere with that basic private property right.

But since government employers are government agencies, and because everyone owns the government, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed in his book, Democracy: the God That Failed, then everyone should be included in benefits without arbitrary discrimination against certain groups of people.

And with the complicated, destructive tax-theft system now in place, what we have now is social conflict and the planned chaos of socialism and central planning. The only way to resolve these issues is to get rid of the socialist system now in place, get rid of the welfare state, and restore the people’s freedom of voluntary association and contracts, and their right to keep every bit of the fruits of their labor.

But really, we need to ignore these petty distractions and concentrate on the more important issues, such as the wars that George W. Bush started and that Barack Obama has escalated and expanded in our government’s continuing provocations of people overseas, and the police state that further destroys our liberty and compromises our security.

Yes, the right to marry is as much a right to establish contracts in any other part of life, and it’s nobody else’s business. It is just as much a human right as the right to not be drone-bombed to death or detained indefinitely sans due process by a dictatorial President run amok.

Among the current presidential candidates, only Ron Paul supports freedom of contract, as well as promises to repeal many of the intrusions into our lives, liberty and property that government bureaucrats have inflicted on us. Romney and Obama do not believe in restoring such individual freedom; their desire is for more power and control for themselves and their fellow government elitists over the lives of the people.

Let’s hope that Ron Paul continues to make waves in the GOP, and if he doesn’t get the nomination, let’s hope he then runs against the two Republicrat and Demopublican statists Obomney and Rombama.

Unions And Anti-Immigration, Anti-Business Conservatism vs. Labor Freedom

In my recent article on neocons and progressives, I wrote that employers are enslaved by workers unions: “Unions have used intimidation to coerce their employers to pay them more than their labor would be valued in a free and open market [.pdf]. Employers have become slaves of workers, and as a result there are fewer workers, because some employers can’t afford to pay the salaries and benefits that the unions have forced them to pay either through ‘negotiations’ or through legislative force.”

Apparently, it bothers some people to suggest that it is really the unions who do the enslaving of employers, and not the other way around. But I believe in the truth. Emotionalistic rhetoric shouldn’t be used to cover up the true message of those who do not believe in voluntary exchange. In a peaceful and just society, all exchanges, all trades must be voluntary, including the trade between an employer and workers. Employers trade some of their assets in exchange for the workers’ labor.

If a worker doesn’t like the pay that an employer is offering, then the worker should have the freedom and choice to leave and find a better employer. When one says that group intimidation tactics or the armed powers of the state are needed to threaten and coerce the employer to increase the pay, one is thus seizing ownership and control away from the employer.

Of course, it is easier for people to gang up on someone to get what you want, rather than making an effort to find better employment opportunities elsewhere. The latter way is the way of free choice and personal responsibility under the rule of law, and the former is the way of aggression. Economically, the way of aggression, intimidation and legislative force has tended to result in many employers not being able to afford the artificially-higher, non-market-based wages (and benefits and pensions) demanded of them, so they cut jobs. And because of further governmental intrusions into these private economies, employers cut whole branches and plants, and thus thousands of jobs.

But in a system of voluntary exchange, and absence of State-protected privilege, coercion and intrusions, all employers have the freedom to expand their businesses and create new jobs, and workers have the freedom to establish contracts and compete for better wages and a higher standard of living.

So when the collective group of workers and their enablers in government use force and coercion against the actual creators and producers of society, they are really seizing ownership of the businesses against the will of the actual people who worked to build those businesses and jobs-providers. That is as much “slavery” (and communism) as is the income tax and all the other forms of State-enslavement of the individual that are taking down formerly free and prosperous America.

(For more, see Tom Woods, Jim Powell, Rothbard, Hornberger, Walter Williams, and Bovard.)

If the people on the left still don’t accept the idea of labor freedom and the sanctity of voluntary contracts, then here is another example, in the context of the immigration issue. As I have mentioned before here (and especially here), and a point of view that most conservatives don’t like, even though I have morality, private property rights and free exchange on my side and they don’t: people who believe in the collective ownership of an entire territory and the collective right of exclusion are thus opposed to private property and voluntary contracts. As Hoppe noted, the right of exclusion is a private right, not a collective or public right.

The immigration issue involves labor and employment. It is also an issue of government central planning and the chaos that causes. As Jacob Hornberger noted just recently, conservatives support the government’s central planning in the immigration issue. (And see Hornberger especially here and here on that.)

The reason that conservatives want the government to be empowered to centrally plan the population and have the control over who is allowed into the territory is that they believe in collective ownership of the entire territory. But if you believe in collective ownership of the entire territory, then you have to admit that, when the collective assumes or seizes ownership and control over the entire territory, then ownership and control over everything within the territory goes with that, including all property, private and public, private industry and the people themselves. It is a system of collective ownership of each individual, his wealth, capital and labor as well.

Of course, such communistic collectivism goes against the ideas of individual freedom and private property. All human beings have an inherent right of travel and the right to migrate anywhere in the world they want, as long as they don’t trespass on private property. And all individuals have a right to establish voluntary contracts with others in labor and employment as well. Private contracts are private contracts, and not for third party intruders to violate or take control over, regardless whether those third party intruders are one’s neighbors, business competitors, or government bureaucrats.

I’ve used this example before, and I’ll use it again. If a Mexican worker sees a job opening available at a Texas business establishment, then he has a right to travel to that business and apply for that job. If the business owner or manager believes that the worker is best for that job, and whose service will contribute to bringing on more customers and thus more profits (and subsequently higher wages for all the workers there, and better service for the consumers), then it is that businessperson’s right to hire that worker, and it’s no one else’s business, period.

But the conservative control freaks and the unions of Establishment workers who want to shut out possible competitive workers all want to get in the way of that private contract between employer and laborer. Economically, this ultimately goes against the interests of the consumers, by forcing the employer to hire less qualified workers who might provide lower quality service.

Morally, this means reduced freedom, reduced productivity, reduction in quality of service, and conflicts amongst the people. That is what socialist central planning has wrought. And always will. Planned Chaos, as Ludwig von Mises would call it. This is a truly immoral way of life that has been destroying a society that really did make great progress as a result of the Enlightenment and the transition from neanderthalish collectivism to individualism and human freedom.

What have been causing the biggest problems with immigration are the welfare state (get rid of it) and the war on drugs (get rid of it). And it is the unions that have been causing their own workers’ unemployment and despair, with their seizure of employers’ assets through intimidation and force, and their enslavement of the business owners.

We need to restore freedom and restore private property, voluntary exchange and contract rights.

Morning in America

May 3, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

That was Ronald Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign slogan, which manipulated the voters to give Reagan a second term of deficit-spending, expanding the welfare/warfare state, and further enlarging Big Government.

Barack Obama will do similar manipulating of the masses.

For many decades it has not been “morning in America,” given America’s extreme decline, economically and culturally. Many Americans today are dependent and ignorant, and more and more aspects of daily life have been politicized and centralized into an increasingly frightening and totalitarian Washington, D.C.

Many Americans are impatient, intolerant, short-sighted, self-centered, and our irresponsible, spend-happy Congress merely reflects the general population.

Last Fall’s Black Friday shopping frenzy was a clear example of what Americans have become.

In Washington, Congress has continuously, selfishly and irresponsibly been voting to raise the debt ceiling to pay for all its goodies to please the lobbyists and in their own push for reelection. “Let my constituents’ grandchildren pay for my extravagance!” say the selfish congressmen. The Republicans are no different from the Democrats.

And the government has been encouraging Americans to overspend on their credit cards, buy homes they can’t afford, and encouraging students to go into debt already at age 18.

Meanwhile, if the Republicans actually do repeal Obama’s Soviet health care plan, they want to replace it with a Republican version of SovietCare.

With conservatives like this, who needs liberals?

The reckless, clueless Congress voted to give the President the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely anyone he feels is a “terrorist” or otherwise criminal, without being required to show evidence against the accused. The real reason for this may very well be as a preemptive action when America’s predictable economic collapse and civil unrest occur.

After all, why then did the Department of Homeland Security order hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition? That’s for a domestic agency, not the military.

Because of the War on Drugs that Obama is prosecuting, and the sick obsession with drug users that local police neanderthals seem to have these days, innocent middle-aged women who never harmed anyone are being arrested and tortured for buying Sudafed at the store.

In America today, the progressives and liberals celebrate Barack Obama as a “warrior” President, by continuing to be in denial of Obama’s daily drone bomb murders of innocent civilians overseas. Meanwhile, the left’s Messiah cracks down on medical marijuana users and whistleblowers like a remorseless beast while simultaneously protecting torturers and government agents spying on Americans.

With liberals like this, who needs conservatives?

And the schools now are prisons. Many of them have police patrolling hallways.

In America today, according to the American Dream Blog, little pre-teen kids are being arrested and handcuffed from school for giving another kid a wedgie, for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, for using perfume, and for burping in class. A 6-year-old boy was charged with sexual assault when playing tag.

Whatever happened to common sense in America? What kind of teacher or school administrator would call police on these children? When I was growing up, no cop I ever heard of would even think of arresting a child, and for those things.

In the government schools, the teachers unions want smaller class sizes and higher pay and more benefits, for a nine-month school year. As Elizabeth Warren might say, “Good for them!”

But teachers don’t want to be tested and promoted based on merit and ability. Many teachers today are themselves poorly educated. America’s international educational ranking has gradually sunk especially since Jimma Carter imposed the federal Department of Education on us.

When I was in school, we had large classes, and teachers were in control. We didn’t have teachers and school administrators and parents drugging their kids up on Ritalin and SSRIs, and other poisonous, mind-altering, behavior-altering drugs back in the dark ages of civility, respect for others and an encouragement to learn.

And now there are anti-bullying and zero tolerance policies, pushed by ignoramuses and control freaks who have no common sense at all.

But some school districts and state legislatures are trying to reform their “Zero Tolerance” policies. Here’s my way of reform: Abolish government schools completely!

And so many people now seem to be paranoid and think that any stranger is a potential child molester, and people are so sensitive now that if you say the wrong thing, you’ll be accused of harassment or worse. I would never be a teacher now out of fear of false accusations or lawsuits. Much of the idiocy in today’s America is due to the politicization and centralization of education. There is no more freedom of thought, freedom of conscience or freedom of expression.

And God forbid one might walk down a neighborhood street alone where there are kids, our of fear of being viewed as “suspicious.” With the DHS “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, everyone is suspicious of everyone else, and you can’t trust your neighbors anymore. Not because they might molest your children or steal your lawn furniture, but because they might report you to local government bureaucrats as “suspicious,” or for doing something on your own property without a government-bureaucrat’s permission.

And these days with the growth of government and its intrusions into every intimate aspect of our everyday lives, one is viewed as “suspicious” for wanting to homeschool one’s kids or for refusing vaccines. Government Child Protective Services (sic) social workers and the police own your children. If a neighbor thinks something in your home is “suspicious,” watch out! Based on false accusations, your kids can be taken away and abused by government bureaucrats. Was there always a little Hitler or Stalin in these government bureaus all across America?

Just a few decades ago, we never would have thought that a “Child Protective Service” could be so corrupt that it would involve itself in child sex trafficking. The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaeffer’s investigation into  these things may have cost her her life.

America’s popular culture and Hollywood have also contributed to the decline of our society, and the elites have targeted the children. It is the cultural and political elites who are the biggest threats to the children, certainly not everyday parents and average Joes.

And when did so many things in America become so sexualized? Why do so many parents these days seem to allow their little pre-teen girls to wear those skimpy little clothes, revealing a lot of skin and making them look like sluts? And at the same time, kids get arrested for merely hugging a friend in school! What a sick, backwards, demented society America has become!

In America today, police are strip searching people who have been arrested for overdue parking tickets, for walking a dog without a leash, and other minor “offenses,” and the Supreme Court said this kind of treatment by perv-cops toward innocent civilians is okay.

The TSA is now well known for its workers’ sexual molesting of little children and disabled elderly Americans. The TSA has been committing sex-related crimes against innocent civilians for several years now at the airports, and are now moving on to commuter rail and buses, and local bus routes where the misfits and hooligans harass innocent commuters.

The U.S., as Naomi Wolf has asserted, now uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses. I can’t believe that there would have been one Supreme Court justice just 30 or 40 years ago who would have approved of strip searching innocent civilians arrested for minor offenses. Perhaps those justices who lived through the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, and who knew of Hitler and Stalin’s sick abuses of the civilian population, would have seen the handwriting on the wall if such a strip search case appeared before them.

If Obama declares martial law and directs the military to arrest and detain protesters and critics of the government (a.k.a. “terrorists”) – an order sure to be approved by those lettered imbeciles of the Supreme Court – how safe will we and our children be when many members of the military have no problem with sexually assaulting their own comrades?

Supreme Court justices in times past were well educated and informed in history. But it is very hard to believe that today’s Supreme Court who claim to believe in “original intent” would actually know original intent if they fell over it.

“The Fourth Amendment? What’s that?”

“The Fifth Amendment? Never heard of it.”

“Inalienable?” (Crickets.)

In America today, many good cops who protect innocent civilians from the bad cops’ barbaric violence are punished. As William Grigg observed, the good cops are “targeted for the unforgiveable offense of ‘crossing the Blue Line’ by taking the side of a Mundane being attacked by a member of the Brotherhood.” Was it always this way? (No, because in times past, most people had a sense of morality. But not today, alas.)

Cops used to be protective of innocent civilians. But nowadays, so many of them seem to enjoy harassing and bullying innocent civilians, male and female. The neanderthals seem to get off on it. Many cops these days are getting away with actual crimes, while their comrades come to their defense.

These University of California, Davis campus police officers just nonchalantly pepper-sprayed protesters sitting peacefully on the ground. I can’t see how anyone could do that to people. In the old days, I don’t think that cops or university police would have done that. If protesters were asked to leave and they didn’t leave, then usually the cops physically removed them (and usually without causing too much harm). But spraying pepper spray in their faces? What kind of sick sadist would do that?

On May Day 2012, some Occupy protesters, observing May Day with protests and occupying, had already experienced just how much like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany America has become, especially in New York.

This “Us vs. Them,” government vs. civilians attitude has become quite prominent, especially since 9/11. People with government and police authority have been given such artificial authority, and it seems to go to their heads. Many of them act like Nazis now.

“It’s morning in America” for the power-grabbing politicians, bureaucrats and armed police, especially now that they are getting their FEMA camps in place, and have ordered their hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for DHS.

America is a banana republic basket case, and the real psychopaths and lunatics are the rulers and their minions and brownshirts.

Can innocent, peace-loving, freedom-loving civilians survive in this People’s Republik of Amerika in the case of total economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest, and martial law?

Or is there some sort of alternative way to handle the societal and cultural decline and totalitarian centralization that are taking us down?