Kerry Endorses Ed Markey: The Power-Craving Democrats Want to Ensure a Special Election Win

Massachusetts U.S. Sen. John Forbes “Liveshot” Kerry has already endorsed U.S. Rep. Ed Markey to become Kerry’s replacement in the senate if Kerry does become the next U.S. Secretary of State. Markey had just announced his intention to run a day before the endorsement.

Given Kerry’s endorsement of Ed Malarkey, the other prominent prospective Democrat candidates for the special election might as well not even run.

Already since the Kerry endorsement, one prospective candidate, U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas, has now dropped out of contention. Tsongas is the widow of the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, who was replaced by John Kerry in the Senate in 1985. And Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, gave a statement praising Markey but not outright endorsing him. Mrs. Kennedy may be selected by Gov. Deval Patrick to temporarily hold Kerry’s senate seat until the special election.

Two other prospective candidates include U.S. Reps. Stephen Lynch and Mike Capuano. Lynch has no chance in a primary as he voted against the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “ObamaCare”) and he is considered to be “against abortion rights,” whatever the hell that means. Though Lynch could have a chance running as a Republican.

However, Capuano has issued a somewhat aggressive statement in response to the Kerry endorsement of Malarkey, according to CBS Boston: “’It seems that the big names of our party are trying to choose our nominee for us,’ Capuano said in a statement. ‘When I became Mayor of Somerville the establishment wasn’t with me. When I became a Member of Congress the establishment wasn’t with me. If I make this run it will be the same way- from the streets up, not from the elite down.’”

Have the swallows returned to Capuano?

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Scott Brown hasn’t stated whether or not he will run in this special election, only months after his defeat by Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren. In a general election between Markey and Brown, there would be little difference between the two socialists, in my opinion. The useful idiots in Massachusetts who think of themselves as “conservative” supported Brown in January 2010 to replace Ted Kennedy in that special election, and again for reelection last month. Scott Brown has been lovingly supportive of Willard Romney’s medical fascism/socialism (a.k.a. “RomneyCare”), and is as much an environmentalist wacko as Ed Markey is.

I noted here what Scott Brown wrote on his January 2010 campaign website. On his campaign website at the time, Brown wrote that he “voted to increase the use of clean energy biofuel in MA,” “consistently supported funds for town recycling programs,” “voted for statewide Climate Change standards to reduce pollution,” “led the effort to promote alternative energy vehicles,” and so on. And as a U.S. senator, Brown voted for the Dodd-Frank corporatism, that anyone who actually read through that piece of crap would have opposed. Scott Brown is really just another economic ignoramus with a pretty face, an unprincipled political opportunist who likes power.

So if Carla Howell decides to reenter politics and run for this senate seat, she ought to run as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. It would be a genuine “small-government” Republican versus the Big Government Republican Clown Brown and Big Government Democrats. Or perhaps the “other Joe Kennedy,” the one who is not related to the regular Kennedys and who ran in that January 2010 election as the third party candidate against Brown and Martha Coakley, could run in this special election, but as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. (See the debate video among Brown, Coakley and the other Joe Kennedy at the bottom of this post.)

In 2010, Ed Markey’s Republican opponent, Gerry Dembrowski, had this video, in which he went around Markey’s own neighborhood and talked to the people there. No one there ever saw Markey around in his own neighborhood. One neighbor said that Markey doesn’t even live there anymore. The video partially quotes from the U.S Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, which states that a representative must actually live in the district he represents.

“Ed Markey: The Undocumented Congressman”:

Government Fascists Run Amok

Besides the already fascist policies of registering private gun owners with the government, Sen. Dianne Feinstein now is proposing to fingerprint gun owners. But the process of fingerprinting is an act of processing criminal suspects. It is a search of one’s person that is done based on “reasonable suspicion,” that the person who has been arrested is actually suspected of having committed some specific crime. Searches of one’s person, property and effects are illegal unless the “authorities” have some kind of “reasonable suspicion,” and also a warrant signed by a judge.

You see, fascist politicians like Dianne Feinstein do not understand the Fourth Amendment, and they do not understand history. There was a reason why the early Americans wrote the Fourth Amendment, and that was to make rules for the government to follow in an attempt (albeit a failed attempt) to protect the rights and security of the people. To do a search and gathering of evidence (which is what fingerprinting is, not merely “identification”) from a totally innocent individual and keep that information in a database is an extreme violation of the rule of law, and yet another act of criminality committed by government bureaucrats.

Such illegal searches and databases also make the people less secure. The Fourth Amendment begins “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” That means that we all have a right to be secure.

But just how secure is an individual if the government (of all things!) keeps a database of your personally-identifiable fingerprints, and whether or not one owns or keeps firearms as well? We know that government databases are breached all the time.

It just seems that everything these government bureaucrats are doing these days makes the people less secure. Stupid government bureaucrats started an illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, intentionally destroyed Iraq’s civilian water and sewage treatment centers and the electrical means to operate them. That was followed by sanctions and no-fly zones, deliberately preventing the Iraqis from rebuilding, which led to skyrocketing disease and cancer rates and the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, many of them children. And that was before the year 2001, and before 9/11 !

You see, such immoral actions obviously provoked not only Iraqis but there was then even more anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle-East. And that, along with other invasive, aggressive U.S. government foreign policies, led to 9/11. So, stupid corrupt government bureaucrats like then-President George H.W. Bush did things to intentionally provoke foreigners which made us Americans less secure. Bush’s stupid son, George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps “filling Dad’s shoes” in starting another war against Iraq. Iraq was of no threat to America in 1991 and again was of no threat to America in 2003. Bush the Younger (and dumber) also invaded Afghanistan in 2001 which was also of no threat to America and had no role in 9/11 as well. Bush the Younger was quoted in 1999 as to have said that a good war would be good “political capital.” (It got him reelected.)

And the reason that the first President Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 had nothing to do with Kuwait or oil — it was because the Cold War was coming to a close, and the Soviet threat was collapsing. Such an end to the Cold War meant the necessary reducing of U.S. government presence and military bases overseas. And that meant drastic cuts in military spending, which meant a reduction in the military-industrial-security-complex’s profits off the backs of the workers and producers of America (a.k.a. “taxpayers”).

All these illicit government actions did was to make Americans less safe. When you invade and occupy other people’s territories and murder their people, those invasions and occupations are provocations. And now because of the Unpatriotic Act and NDAA and other police state policies implemented by those politicians and clowns in Washington, not only are Americans less safe because our government provokes foreigners, but we are less safe from our own government’s intrusions and crimes against the people, including illegal searches, surveillance, tracking, trespasses, unlawful arrests and incarcerations, suppression of speech and political dissent, and so on.

So much for our “right to be secure.”

These treasonous imbeciles in Washington such as Dianne Feinstein and the Bushes are the real criminals of society. And shame on them. And shame on those who support them and their criminal policies as well.

I Fear the Government and the Obedient Sheeple, More Than I Fear Guns

December 21, 2012

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

I do not intend to write something here to convince the emotionally hysterical gun-control crowd to abandon their fantasy of removing guns from the world. They live in a fairyland and there appears to be no way to change their minds.

Nor am I trying to even convince the so-called conservatives, the Republicans, the alleged “gun-rights” advocates to stop it with their kowtowing. This is really just a rant (albeit an informed rant).

But I do want to note that the point of the right to bear arms – which is a right, by the way, not a government-granted privilege – is for people to have the means to defend themselves, not just from everyday criminals and predators, but mainly from government tyrants and their minions.

I just don’t understand the so-called gun defenders and gun store owners suddenly joining the irrational hysterics of “Why would anyone need an assault rifle, or military-style weapon? We should ban those.” Well, as history has shown, if you’re going to forbid the civilian population from having certain firearms, then for your own safety you will have to forbid police and military from having them too.

But a lot of people don’t seem to understand that. They trust government police and military. A lot of people feel safe with an armed government and a disarmed civilian population. (It really should be the other way around!)

And why is almost no one from the gun-rights crowd pointing out that it’s really the government’s gun restrictions, gun-free zones and “zero tolerance,” in which honest, law-abiding civilians (e.g. teachers, school administrators and other adult school workers) are forcibly disarmed by government bureaucrats and police, that increases the vulnerability of these children to an attack by an armed intruder?

This is why I call people “sheeple,” “zombies,” and assert that many people now are totally hypnotized and brainwashed to love and adore their most vicious predators and threats to society: The State and its loyal flunkies.

For clearly, Washington is preparing for something, whether it is economic collapse and civil unrest, “natural” disasters, or civil war …

Whatever it is, it’s something, and we know the bureaucrats are preparing for something, given the Department of Homeland Security’s purchases of hundreds of millions of hollow-point bullets and high-powered battle rifles, Barack Obama’s Executive Orders to seize control over mass communications in America and seize U.S. infrastructure and people involuntarily, Obama’s preparing the FEMA rendition camps (not to mention the many coffins and mass graves being prepared), the U.S. Army’s manual which outlines a plan to kill rioters and demonstrators, the Army’s training troops to drive tanks through U.S. streets, FEMA’s preparing for food storage confiscation, and more unconstitutional and criminal Obama-police state policies now.

There is also Obama’s NDAA provision of indefinite detention of Americans, which gives the President the power to have the military seize and detain indefinitely anyone that the President or his minions have deemed a “terrorist,” a “combatant,” or otherwise a criminal, without providing any evidence against the accused.

Obama also has claimed the power – upheld by the court bureaucrats – to assassinate anyone he chooses, based on his own reasons, without any due process or any evidence against the accused.

A widely publicized example of that was Obama’s assassination of Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose only “crime” was criticizing U.S. foreign policy within his religious sermons, totally protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (I have addressed that here and here.)

You see, the power-grabbers have started with the Muslims, after the widespread post-9/11 brainwashing of Americans toward anti-Muslim prejudice and acceptance of anti-Muslim government policies and militarism.

So, thanks to the sheeple zombies’ approval of  the post-9/11 hysterical “War on Terror,” Washington has now been cracking down on speech, critics of stupid government bureaucrats, political dissent and government whistleblowers. But start with the Muslims and they will go on from there.

More recently, former Marine Brandon Raub’s Facebook posting questioning the government’s official explanation for 9/11 caused such a stir, he was criminally abducted by Secret Service and local authorities and involuntarily detained in a psychiatric ward. He is not the first victim of the State’s such crimes, as there have already been others in recent years.

Among the Obama Regime’s war on whistleblowers, Army Private Bradley Manning suffered major abuse during his extensive pretrial military imprisonment. Manning allegedly released videos and documents to WikiLeaks exposing our own government bureaucrats’ war crimes in Iraq and the bureaucrats’ incompetence and corruption as well.

Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer was another government whistleblower who has already suffered at the hands of the un-American central planning degenerates in Washington.

More examples of the government bureaucrats’ war on speech, political dissent and government criticism include former Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, who wants to “cognitively infiltrate” Internet sites and social media, and Obama’s new law in which Constitutionally-protected protests will be stifled. And even Facebook has suspended the account of a user who questioned the official narrative involving the Sandy Hook, Connecticut school shooting.

But it is clear that Washington wants to stifle criticism and dissent amongst the masses, and us schmucks who do have a right to criticize the most buffoonish and imbecilic bureaucrats who have ever pervaded Washington, DC and who should be criticized, lambasted, raked over the coals, satirized, lampooned – all totally protected by the First Amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Bureaucrats say and/or whether there’s a “War on Terror” or not.

Besides the government’s cracking down on free speech, it has become oppressive in other ways. Examples include the TSA’s VIPR teams now invading the bus terminals, Amtrak stations (which is being encouraged by all the filthy government hand-outs, of course), and on roads and highways, the government siccing S.W.A.T. teams on alleged student loan defaulters, and the FDA’s war on raw milk.

As Jon Rappoport noted, government bureaucrats don’t like it when the people over whom they rule do things on their own. That is why government bureaucrats are now forcing independent-minded people back on the government-controlled grid.

The government bureaucrats don’t like it when the people express their own independence and who show that they do not need those government bureaucrats, or their alleged “security” workers to defend the people. That is why government bureaucrats insist on “gun-free zones,” in which children are left vulnerable to attackers, rather than allowing the adults at the school to be armed to protect those children from real harm.

“Let’s put a police officer or security guard in the school,” the compromisers cry. However, locking down the schools like this turns the kids into prisoners, and won’t protect them.

The near impossibility of being able to reach those who can rightfully be considered “sheeple” is frustrating now.

For those who are still in denial of the possibility that the U.S. government could possibly ever turn the guns on the people, there is already precedent of this. During the 19^th Century American War on Independence, besides President Abraham Lincoln’s State-murders of many thousands of innocent civilians in the South and his army’s murders of hundreds of military protesters in the North, as Thomas DiLorenzo pointed out,

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers…censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment…

And there are other examples of those abuses, committed by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and FDR, besides the more recent examples.

And regarding the right to bear arms, a lot of people actually find it absurd if you point out how Hitler took advantage of gun control laws already in place, and further strengthened them to disarm Germans, mainly the Jews. So had Jews in Germany been able to exercise their right to bear arms, many of them might have been able to resist the Nazis from abducting them and taking them to their deaths. (See David Kopel and Richard Griffiths on that issue.)

It really should be the reverse of what the sheeple want: We would be much better off, much safer and more secure with an armed civilian population and a disarmed government!

Finally, while Premier Obama violates his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” on a daily basis, one individual who has declared with very strong and straightforward language his personal pledge to resist the fascist disarmament campaign is Stewart Rhodes, Founder of the Oath Keepers organization. Included in his statement of resistance, Rhodes declares,

I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms … I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws.  I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states.  We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist…

I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any “assault weapons ban” or any other illegitimate “law” passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm.  We will resist.  And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day.

If we are presented with the “choice” of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time.  We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected “peace” purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”  I too choose liberty or death.

I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood.   We will not let the Republic fall without a fight.

And he means it. I don’t know anyone personally who has the guts to declare such a strong statement of resistance to government tyrants. I know I don’t.

But we do need more Stewart Rhodes in America, that’s for sure.

(And fewer buffoonish, dangerous government bureaucrats, that’s for sure.)

Kids, Violence and Legal Drugs

The media overkill and hype regarding the recent Connecticut school shootings has been sickening. There have also been very short-sighted, emotionally hysterical calls for more gun control, more State disarmament of the civilian population.

I managed to survive hearing another discussion on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour that was broadcast on WGBH radio last night. Judy Woodruff had a panel on to discuss the issues involved with the school shootings. Two doctors on the panel, a PhD psychologist and an MD pediatrician, couldn’t wait to say, “Thank goodness for the Affordable Care Act,” what a “giant step” we took with that, in their belief that the false issue of “mental illness” needs to be addressed here.

I thought I was going to toss my cookies. These are the influential people regarding “health policy” for all Americans, and whose judgments we seek regarding why kids go on murderous rampages! (Doh!)

No, “doctors,” the problem is not “mental illness” with kids who become monsters. One problem is our sick, demented culture of death and destruction. Another problem, which I believe is probably relevant here, is the prescription drug culture.

Doctors and the government schools are handing out “behavior-modification” and emotion-suppressing drugs to the kids like candy. The worst of these drugs, to my knowledge, are the SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) anti-depressants. The well-known Prozak is an SSRI drug.

But first what these ultra-authoritarian State-parent substitutes do is label normal kids “hyperactive,” “defiant,” or “oppositional.” Then the authoritarians force the drugs on the kids really to suppress the kids’ true emotions and to shut them up. Of course they’re “oppositional” and “defiant,” because as innocent little kids they inherently perceive you wacko hypocrite authoritarian adults in their lives for what you really are, and they don’t like it!

The government-controlled schools stifle the kids’ natural tendencies toward creativity and productivity, which they express through play, curiosity and self-expression. I think one reason why many teachers feel compelled to suppress and punish a child’s own self-directed personality and curiosity is the teachers’ own long-suppressed (and now self-suppressed) desire for knowledge and truth, and many teachers nowadays are themselves lacking in adequate reading and comprehension skills as well.

Of course, there are always extreme examples of a child who won’t stop disrupting the class. The answer to that is to get that kid out of that class. But I digress.

And because our culture now is so infantalized, and is one of immediate-gratification, impatience and short-sightedness, it is easier for the “authorities” (including many immature parents out there) to just label a kid as “oppositional” or “defiant,” or “hyperactive,” despite that that is just a natural part of being a child, and label him as “mentally ill,” and drug him up, rather than trying to find out why he’s acting that way. Much of the time, I would bet, such children are “high” on bad foods, snacks filled with sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup is cancerous poison as we now well know.

Many kids are loaded with these junk foods and it affects their behaviors and their emotions. And because of the negative effects these foods have on the digestive process, the actual nutrients they could have been getting from their other more nutritious foods are not absorbing into their system. So regardless of how well their parents might feed them, because of the junk foods, they are actually nevertheless malnourished, and that affects their brain functioning which affects their behaviors and their emotions.

So labeling a child “mentally ill” is already a bad thing, because they are not mentally ill, and then worse, rather than dealing with the actual causes of disruptive or depressed behaviors, the authoritarians give the kids these drugs, especially the SSRIs. The SSRIs have been a common factor amongst some of these mass shootings. One of the Columbine School shooters had been given Zoloft and Luvox. And, like Jon Rappoport, I, too want to know if the Newtown, Connecticut Shooter Adam Lanza was being given these kinds of medication.

Now, I have searched and searched, but I have been unable to confirm whether or not the Virginia Tech or Aurora theater shooters were actually on SSRI anti-depressants. Like Frank Reynolds, I, too want confirmation.

PrisonPlanet has this post-Virginia Tech review of the previous links between anti-depressants and violence. And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights has this very thorough Fact Sheets page. It is sickening the collusion amongst the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a. “Big Pharma”), doctors, the media and government institutions to suppress information and the truth about these prescription drugs’ association with violent behaviors.

So anyway, this labeling and stigmatizing of kids, and then drugging them up with dangerous, unhealthy drugs needs to stop. Parents and teachers and other “authorities” need to stop labeling and stigmatizing kids. That, to me, is just another form of child abuse.

And it’s a shame that our society is allowing the drug-pushing bordering on criminality of the Big Pharma-Government-Media complex. That needs to stop, too.

More Commentary on the Recent School Schootings and Gun Control

Jacob Hornberger has a post today regarding the recent Newtown, Connecticut school shootings, making some of the same points that I made briefly in my post, and elaborating on some other points. Hornberger notes the irrationality of gun laws, and remarks about the crazed shooter, “No doubt much to the surprise of statists, he didn’t say, ‘Golly, even though I want to murder all those children, I can’t do it because it’s illegal for me to carry my gun onto school property.’”

Regarding these laws to ban guns, Hornberger points out that such bans are as effective as laws against drugs: “… all that gun control would do is convert the business of owning guns into a black-market enterprise. That means gun gangs, gun cartels, robberies, muggings, and all the other things that come into existence with a black market. If you like the war on drugs, you’ll love the war on guns.”

And Hornberger notes regarding the gun-free government schools:

So, does that mean that the solution is to let public-school teachers and administrators carry guns to school? Not for us libertarians. We have no interest in telling the state how to run its schools. For us, public schooling is an inherently immoral and destructive institution. It should be dismantled completely, in favor of a total free market in education. See The Future of Freedom Foundation’s book Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families by Sheldon Richman.

A free market in education would put families, not the state, in charge of their children’s education. Some people would choose schools that are not gun-free zones. Others would choose schools that are. The same principle of freedom of choice would apply to a vast array of other things — schools that are general in nature and others that specialize in things like music, religion, math, liberal arts, or science. Some parents would choose to have their children be educated without schools.

But the point is that in a free market, people are able to get what they want, as compared to having the state force it upon them and their children. As things stand now, most families have no effective choice at all — the state forces them to send their children into a gun-free institutions where their children are defenseless against murderers.

Hornberger also points out America’s violent war culture, especially of the past 20 years now, with needless and counter-productive wars started by the U.S. government in Iraq since 1991, and Afghanistan. Plenty of children overseas have been murdered by these wars’ bombs, bullets and drones. William Grigg makes these same points in his article today on the hypocrisy of our current murderer-in-chief, and Arthur Silber made similar points in his post yesterday.

Hornberger concludes his post today stating that the very essence of the right to bear arms is for the people to defend themselves when the government becomes oppressive and tyrannical, which the U.S. government is well on its way to being.

History has shown that when the military and the police have a monopoly over the ownership of guns, freedom doesn’t exist long in those societies. People must obey whatever edicts are issued by government officials and they must submit to whatever government officials do to them. As Judge Alex Kozinsky put it in his dissenting opinion in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer, giving the government a monopoly over the ownership of guns is a mistake that people can make only once. It becomes too late to make it again because the deprivation of liberty becomes permanent given the inability of people to violently resist it. As our American ancestors understood so well, the right to keep and bear arms is the best insurance policy against tyranny.

Now, a lot of sheeple are in denial these days that our very own government could possibly turn against us, (“It can’t happen here,” and so on.), yet that is exactly what our government has been doing. Look at the TSA and how those criminals treat innocent travelers, and look at how cops are bullying, intimidating, assaulting, tasing, unlawfully arresting, shooting, wounding and murdering innocent civilians on a daily basis. Combine all that with these modern day cops’ steroid-enhanced macho-criminality, and how militarized today’s local police department are, and this spells disaster for a free, peaceful society, and for the freedom of every human being to go about his or her business and not be in fear of government police or military bureaucrats doing God-knows-what to them.

The Recent School Shootings and The Emotional Gun Grabbers

There has been another mass shooting, in which 20 kids and several adults were murdered by a psychopath. Once again, the emotional calls for more or stricter gun control are coming out of the woodwork. The news media are loaded with people who respond to these events with pure emotionalism and no rational thought whatsoever.

Here are my main points regarding the issue of the right of self-defense, the right to bear arms vs. the hysterical gun-grabbers:

1. Because criminals who murder, rob, assault, and rape don’t obey laws against murder, robbery, assault and rape, then obviously they will not obey laws regarding guns. Duh.

2. Had just one adult at that school who was nearby been armed, he or she could have taken out the shooter soon after his shooting began. The armed school worker could then have saved the lives of 20 or more of those people there by shooting the shooter.

3. The reason the early Americans wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution was mainly to protect the people’s right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Below is a list of articles to read to elaborate on those and other points.

And at the end of this post is the video of Sen. Tom Coburn discussing then-Supreme Bureaucrat nominee Elena Kagan on the 2nd Amendment and the right of the individual to self-defense. In her incomprehension of the idea of self-defense, Kagan speaks for the entire Obomber Administration and the Left who defend the rights of violent criminals but not their victims, and who believe that the State’s authorities and bureaucrats must be armed but the civilian population must be disarmed.

Articles:

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom by Jacob Hornberger

How Unalienable Rights Become Privileges by Karl Denninger

The Real Reason They Arrested Brandon Raub: Strip Him of His Right to Bear Arms by The Daily Bell

Norway and Gun Control by Jacob Hornberger

When They Come for Your Guns … You Will Turn Them Over by Jim Karger

Ready, Aim … Submit! — Why They Will Take Your Guns From Your Cold Dead Hands by Jeff Berwick

UN Arms Trade Treaty on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism by Thomas Eddlem

ATF’s Latest Gun Grab by Nita Ghei

A Gun-Free Zone at Fort Hood by Jacob Hornberger

The Phony War on Cops and the Real War on Us by Kevin Carson

The Original Black Panthers’ Pro-Gun Rights History by Adam Winkler

Black Americans’ Right to Bear Arms by Ann Coulter

Video:

A Rebirth of Radicalism Is Needed To Heal America

December 14, 2012

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

If you found your way here by searching for “conservative websites,” or “libertarian websites,” or “libertarian conservative websites,” then you’ve probably noticed a different way of thinking here. A radical way.

One thing I try to do with my writing is get people to say, “Hmmm. I hadn’t thought of that.” And I also want to get people to reassess their long-held views, particularly regarding the necessity of government bureaucrats having the monopoly power and artificial authority that they have.

Well, here’s some news: government bureaucrats aren’t necessary, and neither are government monopolies.

After an election season promoting the statist quo and stifling dissent, and a looming “fiscal cliff,” it is time to more vociferously promote the American Revolutionaries’ radical ideas of liberty and property.

And there are many writers on LRC who do just that. For example, economist Thomas DiLorenzo told it like it is in his article, Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionist.

I can’t believe there are “anti-communist” conservatives who are denouncing secession as a “treasonous” act! These bozos are acting like communists themselves who want to keep people inside the prison State and not let the people out, not let them have their independence!

Incidentally, I have noted in the past how today’s conservatives are very collectivist and communist in their views. I just want people to step back and see the hypocrite conservatives for what they are, that’s all.

For instance, note the Republicans’ no-tax-pledge betrayal now and their true support for ObamaCare in their lovey-dovey devotion to Big Government. (Yech!)

Notice, by the way, how both conservatives and progressives seem to oppose secession in general. These attitudes supporting State-slavery of the people have only paved the way for the totalitarian rules that are keeping Americans inside the territory.

And in some ways, this secession issue is related to immigration. The conservatives support this failed socialist central planning in immigration, despite all human beings’ inherent right to travel, freedom of movement, and to migrate to wherever they wish, as long as they don’t trespass on private property. (I have addressed that here and here, and see Hans-Hermann Hoppe as well.)

But we do need a healthy, radical exposure of the true nature of the State and its minions.

So it is time for the intellectual radicals to return and be politically incorrect, time to reverse course and promote actual morality and bring back the good old days of open, honest intellectual discourse.

Or, as stated in the Principles of Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society: “an uncompromising intellectual radicalism.” Hoppe and his cohorts promote “totally unfettered individual liberty and private property.” (Why do so many people have a problem with that?!)

But just as Hoppe pointed out in his 2001 book, Democracy: The God That Failed, the de-civilization of society has occurred because the government monopolies in place promote exploitation and covetousness. Further, giving central planners in Washington various legal monopolies has promoted war and aggression, and empowered the banksters and the government’s monetary central planners to rob the people in broad daylight.

So here I want to do my part by clarifying how inherently criminal the State really is, especially in the areas of civil liberties, information-stealing and criminal wars.

Actually, the American Revolutionaries did not go far enough in their “radical” thinking. If only they had rejected giving governments legal monopolies and legal authority over the rest of the population, and if only they didn’t create a central planning ruling agency in the first place! Our society would have otherwise advanced not only technologically but civilly, socially and culturally as well.

For example, government investigators, police and prosecutors have been getting away with unconstitutional and un-American invasive acts of surveillance, tracking, and searches.  Many of these criminal acts are being excused by the court bureaucrats now, Supreme and otherwise. This includes the government’s access into everyone’s emails.

Private non-government people could not get away with such crimes. But because the people have unwittingly given the government a criminal monopoly of intrusion and theft, this is why the earlier Americans wrote the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution (which still isn’t enough!).

Many discussions of the Fourth Amendment, for example, have centered around the “right to privacy,” although the Amendment does not specifically mention “privacy.”

The Fourth Amendment does, however, mention the word “secure”: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”

In law and official government policies, people in various federal, state and local government agencies have the legalized authority to demand information from individuals’ private lives, finances, properties, and have the artificial authority to access, keep surveillance on and trespass into people’s “persons, houses, papers and effects,” access that they have no right to have.

Especially in the absence of reasonable suspicion, these government laws and procedures are criminally invasive against the individual’s person and property.

In reality, it is these people with government monopoly positions who are engaged in actual criminality, not their victims. This is especially the case when the society abandons the concept of presumption of innocence, in which the government agent must have a reason to suspect an actual individual of some actual crime against another individual’s person or property – otherwise the government agent must leave the individual alone and may not invade, trespass or violate the individual’s person, property or communications, period. No arbitrary surveillance, no fishing expeditions, etc.

You see, especially troubling are the monopoly and artificial authority that have been given to the government, to local government police, federal “national security” employees, and so forth. This artificial authority and monopoly of law and judiciary give those employees the power of being above the law, which cancels out the idea of “equality under the law.”

When the people decided that these government monopolists are “the law,” such a relationship inherently makes each individual vulnerable to officially sanctioned criminality.

The Sovietizing of America is taking place right before our very eyes, because the monopoly institutions of judicial decision-making and that unequal, two-tier caste system is the foundation for it.

Have you ever really thought about the moral backwardness of having to obey the orders of some government bureaucrat or police officer, or the laws that people like Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Archie Bunker Peter King create?

And let’s be honest now, do we really believe in morality and having a civilized society? If we do, then laws, procedures, and regulations which in any way violate the individual’s rights to life and liberty and the individual’s “right to be secure” in one’s person, property or effects need to be labeled as criminally intrusive laws, regulations and procedures. In my opinion, those who make these laws and policies, or enforce and prosecute them, are engaged in true criminality, intentionally or not.

So, that this monopoly exists, in addition to the disarmament laws, actually increases the individual’s vulnerability, and so such an official policy is inherently violating of the rights to life and liberty of the individual.

Currently, besides the government criminals, private criminals are getting away with assaults, robberies, and murders because their victims have been disarmed by the local “authorities,” and because the local government police monopoly doesn’t even prevent these crimes.

And more often now it is the government-monopolized police who are brutalizing innocent people.

For further reading related to these ideas, see Albert Jay Nock: The Criminality of the State; Hans-Hermann Hoppe: State or Private Law Society and Why Bad Men Rule; Harvey Silverglate: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent; Murray Rothbard: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (Ch. 12: Police, Law, and the Courts); Robert Murphy: Policing for Profit; and Robert Higgs: If Men Were Angels.

Some good news is that states have begun to actively nullify some of the federal intrusions that are criminal in nature. That includes some aspects of the failed drug war, the NDAA’s provision of indefinite detentions of Americans, and ObamaCare.

There have also been recent examples of jury nullification.

But it isn’t just the states and their governments who should enact nullification through legislation, because many state and local laws, ordinances and regulations are just as criminal as the federal ones.

To further restore their liberty, communities, neighborhoods, families and individuals will need to nullify those legislative acts of criminality that empower a bureaucrat or cop to violate one’s right to be secure in one’s person, property and effects.

So we also need judge and police nullification.

When police and judges choose to not enforce victimless crime laws or invasive regulations, or choose to not prosecute and sentence people accused of victimless “crimes” or invasive regulations, then those police and judges who set innocent people free will be heroes, in my view. Would they be “breaking the law”? No. They would be upholding the true, moral rule of law.

But one thing I really wanted to cover here is America’s war mentality, which is related to the aforementioned civil liberties matters.

Unfortunately, in 2012 it is considered “radical” to question government bureaucrats on so-called national security.

I really thought that, after Vietnam and 58,000 Americans killed for no good reason, the American people wouldn’t stand for any more of such government criminality.

But no. Then came President George H.W. Bush, who had to invade Iraq in 1991. And then the Iraqi sanctions, 9/11 and the “War on Terror.” To the elder Bush, in my view, the end of the Cold War meant a dismantling of the American foreign expansions (and a curbing of the voracious tax-feeding by the military-industrial-complex). The neocons and progressives couldn’t stand for that.

But in practical terms, all these statists have done is provoke foreigners and make Americans less safe.

It’s amazing the millions and millions of people over many generations who have been bamboozled and duped into supporting the wars that the U.S. government has gotten America into, and for no good reason.

Unfortunately, the masses tend to give the corrupt bureaucrats the benefit of the doubt with these wars.

So America is now a more primitive, politically correct and repressive society, thanks to the dumbing-down of generations of people by the government educrats. Grown adults now act like texting-obsessed, subservient TV sitcom characters who bow to the wishes of the most imbecilic, corrupt criminal types in Washington.

The dumbing-down is why we have U.S. senators who think that questioning the legitimacy of the “War on Terror” is “treasonous,” or that someone who criticizes the war-buffoons in Washington is an “enemy combatant,” or a “terrorist.” It’s sickening, and truly un-American, in my opinion.

The government schools have maliciously expunged the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge the assertions of government buffoons, which is necessary in maintaining a civilized society.

Why do so many people now have no idea that all human beings have an inherent right to due process and presumption of innocence? (Hmmm. Could that be because of the government-controlled dumbing-down of education in America? I don’t know, maybe.)

You see, if a government bureaucrat or military officer wants to accuse an individual of something, the accuser is morally, ethically and legally obligated to provide evidence against the accused.

Otherwise, we might as well let the Rulers and their minions just sweep up totally innocent people with no evidence against them and detain them indefinitely. (Oh, wait a minute, the Bush Administration already did that.) Or let the Rulers just murder people at will. (Hmmm. Obama is already doing that, too. Oh, well.)

Sadly, there are generations of people who are brainwashed into believing that “war is different,” and therefore suspending civil liberties should be permitted. Well no, war is not “different,” nor “exceptional.”

As I wrote here, war is an artificial concept used by collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts of aggression against others and get away with it.

So the people such as the two Bush Presidents who started wars of aggression – they are the aggressors, and thus the criminals, when it comes Iraq twice and Afghanistan.

There is no just rationalization for a war of aggression, period.

And Obama’s drones murdering innocent people day after day, it never seems to end, all this stuff, as America descends into Leviathan’s totalitarian enslavement.

What those who really value freedom and peace need is not just more radicalism in America, but more rebelliousness, more nullification of government crimes and especially a mass withdrawal of support of the current system of government monopoly that gives some people artificial authority over others.

Of course, the real solutions – as radical as they may be – to society’s current national ordeal of “fiscal cliff” and “terrorism” are decentralization and secession, and dissolving the United Soviet State of Amerika entirely.

“Grover, Please Agree to Raise Taxes!”

It’s a good thing that WGBH radio in Boston airs the audio of the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour (without the MacNeil and without the Lehrer) form PBS. When I used to watch TV, I watched that program with the aforementioned hosting, during years that the show was much less biased.

Well, last night I heard Judy Woodruff interview “anti-tax crusader” Grover Norquist, regarding the current “fiscal cliff” negotiations and the fights between the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans. After writing “Judy Woodruff,” I almost included “(D-Washington)” because she really seemed like she was a paid Democrat flunky, working on behalf of Obama and Nancy Lugosi to try to convince Norquist to agree to raise taxes. Perhaps her name should be “Judy Biased.”

Okay, maybe It’s just me, and maybe Woodruff really was just trying to be “objective,” or play “devil’s advocate” to Norquist’s position. But she really seemed like she was trying to convince Norquist of the Democrats’ tax-thieving point of view, as opposed to merely pointing out those arguments.

Ms. Woodruff brought up the election exit polls in which, she insinuated, the voters felt that raising taxes would be necessary, like some poll has some importance (as opposed to the historical record of tax raising just in the past 30 years that Norquist brought up). And then she brought up the Republicans who were abandoning their pledge to not raise taxes, like they actually have any legitimacy whatsoever. And then she brought up specifically the spending cuts that Democrats are alleged to have promised to make, such as in Medicare, like that’s really going to affect anything in the long term.

Maybe it’s just me, but what I heard from Judy Woodruff (D-Washington) was “Oh, Grover, can’t you see how necessary it is that we raise taxes to fix the budget problems? Why can’t I convince you that it’s soooo obvious how important it is that we raise taxes! It’s just so obvious, it’s a no-brainer, for crying out loud!”

Norquist pointed out the near-impossibility of Congressthieves actually cutting spending as promised when they raise taxes. The more they take from the people, the more they will spend. That’s just the way politicians are in a system that is based on theft and coercion.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino: Takes a Lickin’ But Keeps on Tickin’

Boston’s 5-term Mayor-for-Life Thomas Menino is finally out of the hospital after a month-long stay. Menino has been mayor of Boston since 1893 1993 and may actually run for an unprecedented 6th term next year, but that’s doubtful.

Mayor Menino, who turns 70 in a few weeks, is the one that Howie Carr on the radio has made a lot of fun of, in the same way he had made fun of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Howie has referred to the Mayor as “Mumbles Menino,” and actually there’s a good reason for that, in that Menino’s speaking abilities are not the greatest (as far as public officials go). Menino is also known for his wacky quotes, such as “That really fries my nose.”

Menino is one of those mayors who joined the anti-Chick-fil-A campaign. Remember that? That was an important part of being Mayor, I suppose. And a few years ago, he caused a big uproar by using taxpayer funds to help build an Islamic mosque in Boston, which involves religious worship. So Menino is also one of those mayors who doesn’t understand the First Amendment. Oh, well. Since when do politicians understand the First Amendment?

So Menino had been in the hospital for a viral infection and blood clot following a recent trip to Italy, but during his hospital stay had developed an infection “near a compressed backbone in his lower spine,” according to the Globe. It was also disclosed after he was transferred from hospital to a rehab center that he had also developed type 2 diabetes while at the hospital. However, a doctor there stated that Menino entered the hospital already with a high blood sugar level that seemed to have been further affected by the “stress of being sick.” Menino has had problems with obesity, which is a main factor in the development of type 2 diabetes.

Menino had also had a cancerous growth removed from his back in 1993, and a cancerous growth removed from his nose earlier this year. (“Oy vey” is right.)

Now, here’s the thing I don’t quite get about Boston’s Mayor-for-Life Thomas Menino. Back in 2004, he was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, which is a condition of intestinal inflammation, one of the two inflammatory bowel diseases (the other being ulcerative colitis). I remember very clearly back then when he was interviewed, he said that he was to remain on a very strict diet, “very boring” to use his words in that interview. In other words, light, bland foods that are not particularly irritating to the intestines. This strict diet and anti-inflammatory medications are prescribed for sufferers of these inflammatory bowel diseases for life, mostly. However, there are very good nutritional medicines and supplements that these patients could have as an alternative, as many prescription drugs have harmful side effects.

So anyway, I want to know why, since he was diagnosed in 2004 with Crohn’s and given a strict diet and anti-inflammatory meds, why is he still obese? I did read in the current article that he has been urged to “change his diet and increase his exercise,” according to the Globe article. And that tells me that he maybe isn’t obese because it’s some sort of “genetic condition.” (i.e. maybe he hasn’t been careful with his diet. But I don’t know.)

And also, the Globe article states that Menino had been taking steroid medication for the Crohn’s disease. Does this mean he has been taking those drugs since 2004? So, there are other prescription drugs to take — if one must take prescription drugs — for Crohn’s, because taking steroid drugs over a long period of time is a very bad idea. I hope he hasn’t been taking the steroid drugs steadily since 2004, for crying out loud. If so, such a long-term use of those kinds of drugs could very well have contributed to his recent problems. Or perhaps it’s RomneyCare that’s doing it to him. (Sorry — I calls it as I sees it.)

So, I doubt that Menino will be running for yet another term as mayor of Boston next year. I would bet against that possibility.