Design a site like this with
Get started

For Your Labor Day Weekend Reading

Brandon Smith says that the time is ripe for a false flag terror attack on American soil. I disagree. Not out of being overly optimistic, but based on TPTB’s awareness that 9/11 facts are coming out (as Justin Raimondo discusses here) and many more people are more alert to that sort of thing. What do you think?

But Lew Rockwell is optimistic regarding the so-called libertarian moment, regardless of the New York Times‘ relying on statists and beltarians’ take on “libertarianism.”

Wendy McElroy says it is good to laugh at and ridicule the Rulers.

Sayer Ji discusses a psy-ops story denying the vaccine-autism link.

Arthur Silber discusses his readers’ reactions to his previous post on the Robin Williams suicide.

Paul Bonneau writes about the good and the bad of Constitutionalism.

And Uri Avnery says the Israel-Gaza war is a war for nothing.

Freedom of Speech and Expression? Not With Conservatives, Apparently

Well, the constantly offended kvetches are out really out there now. This time it’s the ultra-conservatives, the anti-“anti-Semitism” crowd who are extremely bothered by the Metropolitan Opera’s upcoming performances of The Death of Klinghoffer, a 1991 opera by composer John Adams. The opera is a musical dramatic portrayal of the true story of Palestinian hijackers who murdered an elderly American in 1985. Criticisms of the opera, such as by writers at the American Thinker and neocon former Congressman Allen West’s website, are solely out of ignorance and emotion. I have written about the opera, and about the censoring of the HD simulcasts at theaters — and no, it is not an example of “Jew hatred” as the “Thinker” suggests.

And it isn’t just a boycott or protest against the performances these people want — they want to shut down the performances entirely, by suggesting that people write to the Met’s General Manager Peter Gelb to cancel the whole thing. And they are suggesting pressuring corporate sponsors and donors as well, to punish the opera company financially for carrying on with the performances.

But isn’t censorship and suppression what the Left constantly does, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Media Matters etc.? Isn’t it leftists who attempt to silence and  censor what they find distasteful or disagree with (e.g. banning Hans Hoppe from Sweden and Finland, banning Ann Coulter from Canada, banning Michael Savage from the U.K., wanting to jail “deniers” of global warming, etc)?

Now, now, reactionaries, there is no reason to fear that opera. If you don’t like it, then don’t go see it. Or advise others not to see it. Or stand on the streets at Lincoln Center during the performances holding signs expressing what ignoramuses you are. But remember, it’s only an opera. An opera can’t hurt anyone.

And an opera can’t hurt Jews. Don’t worry about it.

Many More Reasons to Be “Against the State”

Here is a new review by Alex Knight of Lew Rockwell’s book, Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto. Now, I have gotten the book on Kindle, but this is the first time I’ve ever had Kindle and it’s taking a little time to familiarize myself with it. I’m used to scrolling on the side and going a certain way, but it seems the scrolling with Kindle is backwards, and I can’t stand that. However, if you point on the sides of the page, an arrow shows up and you can just click that to go to the next or previous page, and there is a progress bar along the bottom to click if you want to. I am slow with these newfangled things.

David D’Amato discusses the Michael Brown murder by police in Ferguson, and connects the police state with the welfare state and the “administrative” state.

Ryan Gallagher has an article on the NSA’s own secret yet obviously criminal “Google,” a private search engine for other government agencies including local law enforcement to access hundreds of billions of phone calls, emails and Internet records of innocent Americans not suspected of anything. It is nothing but a thoroughly criminal operation. (Right up the U.S. government’s alley, of course.)

Chris Hedges has this article on “Truth Dig” very critical of Israel and its propaganda machine. He mentions George Orwell and 1984, Edward Bernays the “father of public relations” i.e. propaganda, Hannah Arendt (of The Origins of Totalitarianism), and Franz Kafka. (Israel-Firsters probably won’t like Hedges’ article very much, but I like it because I believe that the truth is important.)

Marcy Wheeler shows why the NSA can’t be trusted. (Like we need any more proof…)

And Gary North analyzes Janet Yellen’s waffles and syrup.

Some Interesting Items for Today

Patrice Lewis has taken to mocking feminists. (Are they that bad? But I think that the modern definition of “feminist” these days can be modified to be more accurately defined as “socialist” and “fascist,” or “socialist/fascist” because many of them now hardly support independence for women, private property ownership by women, free association for women, or the right of women to own and operate businesses free of government regulations, taxes and controls.)

Eric Margolis questions the “alleged” recent beheading by extremists.

And Robert Wenzel asks, Are evil operators pushing the President toward more war? (One thing he doesn’t mention is the Hillary factor. Just sayin’.)

Just Say No to Government Counterfeiting

Federal Reserve Chairwomanperson Janet Yellen spoke at a conference at Jackson Hole, Wyoming this week, doing her usual Sgt. Schultz impressions. But does it really matter what the Fed boss thinks, or what the Fed’s next move is? No, not really. If you are not that familiar with the Federal Reserve and why the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a bad thing and why this unaccountable agency’s central planning authority should be given the old heave-ho, you can check out this classic by Murray Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed. You can also read Robert Wenzel’s recent book, The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, as well as a new book by Wenzel’s fellow Economic Policy Journal publisher Chris Rossini, Set Money Free: What Every American Needs To Know About The Federal ReserveAnd of course, there is Ron Paul’s book, titled after what really needs to be done: End the Fed.

Protection Against Government Tyranny

Claire Wolfe has a lengthy post on the possible (or now, likely) merger of the organizations Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the faux Second Amendment Foundation. Ms. Wolfe links to a petition for people to sign  to speak out against the merger. Apparently, not only did the faux Second Amendment Foundation endorse the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin universal background checks bill, but they wrote the bill themselves! But throughout the years, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has consistently promoted the rights of all individuals to possess the means to protect and defend themselves.

Also, Brandon Smith has this terrific article on who really is at fault when “anti-government” violence erupts. He certainly clarifies “militias” and the liberty movement for those who get their propaganda disguised as news from mainstream media. DHS is feeding local police and sheriffs departments with documents which are intentionally misinforming them and inflaming tensions and a fear of the civilian population for no good reason.

And further, an even more lengthy article by Edwin Vieira, Jr. discusses the “bastardy of martial law.” Vieira gets into the specific details of the Second Amendment and the right of “We the People” to be the armed militia as a protection against their own government, a federal government the early Americans knew could easily grow into a tyrannical regime (which it is now, along with all the local police getting away with one act of criminal tyranny after another).

Finally, Jeff Deist discusses police states and private markets, and how “peace officers” have turned into what government police are today, and offers the market solutions.

The Right to Remain Silent

Wendy McElroy has this article on the right of every human being to remain silent when interacting with government police. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to be free of self-incrimination. Many times, as Wendy McElroy notes, people succumb to anxiety, fear and confusion when placed in an uncomfortable situation involving police contact, and may say something without thinking first. That is why many attorneys advise people to not answer any questions when in a touchy situation involving government police. However, I believe that you are legally required to provide your name when asked, but in most states, I believe, you are not required to show your ID if you are not suspected of anything. The government police need a reason to suspect someone of something first. However, as I have noted before, last year the Supreme Court ruled that your silence could be used against you in court at a later time, regardless of your right to remain silent. But, the court also ruled in that same decision, as long as you specifically cite the constitutional source which protects your declared right to remain silent — that being the Fifth Amendment — then your silence can’t be held against you in court. Yes, citizen, the Supremes say that you must be knowledgeable of constitutional law, in order that your rights are protected.

More on Ferguson and Elsewhere

Paul Joseph Watson writes about a U.S. Army document regarding preparations to use lethal force against unarmed civilians during riots in the U.S.  (A lot of military and cops seem to enjoy shooting and murdering unarmed civilians who can’t fight back, these days.)

William Grigg explains how murderous cops get away with murder, and how the recent Ferguson cop’s victim may not have been a thief as first alleged.

Melissa Melton explains to Obama the difference between carrying a gun and looting or attacking others.

Ryan McMaken explains the fascism of inner-cities that contributes to their economic problems.

Jacob Hornberger asks, What if the military or CIA had killed Michael Brown in Ferguson?

Alex Newman writes about the UN boss Ban Ki-Moon pushing for “international standards” for Ferguson police. (Yech!)

David Sirota writes about how cash flowed to lawmakers who voted to “militarize” police.

Wendy McElroy says that Democrats are part of the problem in Ferguson, too.

There are other matters to deal with besides events in Ferguson, you know. For instance, Walter Williams reminds parents what their kids’ tuition is paying for.

James Bovard has an article on FDR farm-folly lessons for ObamaCare.

And Lenore Skenazy says that kids are more likely to die outside of cars than in them.

Here Is the Latest on What’s Happening

Jacob Hornberger writes about Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff embracing the commies of Vietnam.

William Anderson asks, Why is the Innocence Project honoring someone the likes of Janet Waco Reno?

Becky Akers, the author of Abducting Arnold, compares what is going in now in Ferguson to the time of the Boston Massacre.

Paul Joseph Watson writes about possible agents provocateurs inciting violence in Ferguson, including members of the New Black Panther Party as well.

Radley Balko asks, after Ferguson how should police respond to protests? (Well, stop acting like Nazis so there isn’t any reason to have protests.)

Philip Weiss has this post about a progressive Rabbi who slams militarization in St. Louis but not Gaza.

Uri Avnery comments on the Israeli-Gaza war.

Ron Paul asks, What have we accomplished in Iraq?

Eric Margolis has some thoughts on Obama’s armed humanitarianism 2.0.

Brandon Turbeville writes about a New York candidate for governor arrested for filming the police.

Brandon Smith on order out of chaos, the doctrine that runs the world.

Wendy McElroy writes about how the Feds attack FedEx on behalf of Big Pharma and expand the police state

And Anthony Wile of the Daily Bell interviews Lawrence Reed of the Foundation for Economic Education.

Even More Relevant Now

Do Not Allow President Obama To Impose Martial Law

On October 3, 2011

Some people are predicting that there will be a major economic collapse, caused by unsustainable debts and other government intrusions into private economic matters, and by central banks’ excessive money-printing.

In America, the Federal Reserve’s continued irresponsible and reckless actions will result in further devaluing the currency and huge increases in price inflation, especially in food and energy prices. Some are predicting that there will be food shortages, looting, rioting, and civil unrest and violence in America.

There are some people who believe that such events will be followed by President Obama imposing a nationwide martial law. Recent terrorism drills, such as the major drill last week in Denver, are believed to be part of the U.S. government’s preparation for either terrorism or false flag events, or part of preparation for planned martial law. Obama was recently in Denver. One hopes that what former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has documented, a possible huge underground government or military facility at the Denver airport, and other similar places, are not true.

But the subject of martial law needs to be discussed, because it’s important that the people of the U.S. states have an understanding of this before Obama imposes martial law, which is essentially a presidential-military-rule dictatorship.

Obviously, any imposition of martial law by the U.S. government would be not only a gross violation of state sovereignty, thus making the states even further subservient to the authoritarian rule of the federal government, but martial law goes against the Founders’ ideas of inalienable rights and liberty.

Martial law includes the suspension of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and dissent, the right to bear arms and self-defense, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to presumption of innocence. The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of each and every human being to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are inalienable, pre-existing rights, meaning that they are natural and inherent rights, not given to us by any government. That means that no one, including government officials, police or military, may violate these rights or remove them – otherwise, they could not be considered inalienable.

Specifically, the right of the individual to life and liberty includes the right to own and control one’s life, and the right to be free from the aggressions of others, including police and military. The right of the individual to one’s life and liberty includes the “right to be secure” in one’s person, property and effects. In America, there are supposed to be no intrusions into the person or property of the individual without actual suspicion that a specific individual has committed a specific crime against someone else’s person or property. Even in those cases, the people were advised by the Founders to nevertheless question the official judgments of government agents.

Any suspension of these rights and civil liberties such as under a martial law would thus be an act of criminality by government officials, including the president, military and police, against the people. There have been many aspects of the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” including the Patriot Act and new warrantless surveillance intrusions, and due-process-free policies of apprehension and detention of Americans by federal agents, that some people believe to have been a back-door means for military rule in America.

As I wrote in my article, Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon, the rights to presumption of innocence (and thus the right to be left alone without suspicion) and due process have greatly diminished in America since the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to expand the federal government’s intrusive police powers over Americans. Putting such policies as the Patriot Act into place, and allowing for the apprehension, detention and assassination of Americans as well as foreigners, policies that remove presumption of innocence and due process, has made the U.S. government a much bigger threat to our liberty than terrorists ever could be.

Given Obama’s assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process, without having been convicted or even charged with terrorism, but by merely having been labeled a “terrorist” by government officials, and given the preponderance of historical evidence as to why we should not trust the judgment of government officials, Americans need to be vigilant. Why? Just one example is how current administration officials’ continuously label government protesters and Tea Party activists, antiwar protesters and even anti-ObamaCare activists as threats and “terrorists.” The crackdowns on peaceful protesters show more clearly how America is quickly turning into the Soviet Union.

Now, if you are a governor, and President Obama imposes martial law and orders you as governor of your state to enforce such an order, you are obligated by law to disobey that order, because it would be an unlawful order. Government officials recite an oath as they take their office, as do police and military personnel. Part of the oath for governor of a state – and local police officers for that matter – includes “support” of the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions. In some cases, the oath states that they will “obey and defend” the Constitution.

Some police officers’ oaths state that they will “obey the orders of superior officers” on the force. And the oath for enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces does include mention of obeying the orders of the President of the United States. However, when a superior officer or president gives an unlawful order, such as one that violates an individual’s right to due process or right to free speech or dissent, then the soldier or officer is obligated to disobey that order.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, explains here in this video why such unlawful orders must be disobeyed. The Oath Keepers organization notes that

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

The Oath Keepers organization views the soldier, military officer or police officer’s primary obligation of service as being to the people, not the president, and that their loyalty is to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If the President of the United States orders governors, National Guardsmen, military soldiers, police officers, to enforce federal martial law, the purpose of which is to remove civil liberties and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then such an order, therefore, is an unlawful order, and government personnel are obligated to disobey such orders.

Here is the Oath Keepers’ list of orders they would not obey, particularly because, as the Oath Keepers themselves note, such orders are “unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason.”

  1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people
  2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
  3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
  4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
  5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
  10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I never thought that in my lifetime I would see such a strong possibility of economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law in America. But all of this is completely avoidable.

How are economic collapse, food shortages, civil unrest and martial law avoidable? First, get rid of the causes of food price inflation. That means ending the Federal Reserve, ending central planning in money and banking, and allowing for free, competitive banking and competing currencies. Encourage the people to use gold, silver or something else of value as their medium of exchange, or a currency that is at least backed by something of value. Get the government out of money and banking, period.

Second, end the federal government’s intrusions into, restrictions on and subsidization of food production and distribution. Decentralize the entire food industry, and make the federal government stop infringing on the rights of local farmers and food producers, food distributors, retailers and grocers. Those local producers and traders – not government central planners – are the ones who know best how to handle their businesses, and what the consumers want and how much food should cost. No more police S.W.A.T raids on raw milk producers and other food producers.

We just can’t allow America to descend into the third world police state dictatorship that it seems to be becoming (and that is being reinforced in the schools). One step in the right direction would be to end all restrictions on civilians’ right to self-defense, and protect their right to own, conceal or openly carry weapons. That is what really prevents crime.

And communities need to consider de-monopolizing local policing and security. There’s no good reason for government to monopolize those functions. Let voluntary groups and private, competitive firms handle those things – that is what will end the current police-thug phenomenon.

Also, the federal government needs to end its counter-productive aggressions overseas and War on Drugs.

Finally, besides invoking the 10th Amendment and nullifying federal food, monetary and banking restrictions, and nullifying federal gun laws, if Obama orders martial law, then U.S. state governors must also nullify that, too. If Obama and federal agents and military insist on forcing martial law in the states against the authority of the states’ leaders, then the states’ governors may have to order state and local officials to arrest federal agents acting in violation of the states’ sovereignty and the people’s rights.

No, the way to deal with economic collapse, civil unrest and looting is not with a federal martial law presidential-military dictatorship. The way to deal with or prevent such a crisis is by going the other way: through decentralization and de-monopolization, and undoing all the governmental interventions that will have caused the crisis in the first place.

Copyright © 2011

Don’t Be a Slave of Fascist Bureaucrats

Copyright 2014 (Link to article)

The State makes up a whole bunch of rules that the rest of us must obey. If the people don’t obey the arbitrary, mostly nonsensical rules imposed by non-productive parasites, they have not really committed an actual crime unless they have harmed someone or have violated someone else’s person or property.

For example, the State has been threatening those who voluntarily possess, buy, use, or sell certain officially banned drugs with involuntary apprehension, detention and caging. Of course, this does not include alcohol or the endless list of government-approved prescription drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry being pushed onto the public by the “doctors” of society.

And all that despite the dangers of many of those pharmaceutical drugs, from alleged cholesterol-lowering drugs to the psychiatric drugs. Yet, the bureaucrats still believe that the pharma drugs should be “legal” while marijuana should not be.

The reason alcohol is legal (except for various state-designated drinking age limits), but “street drugs” are not legal is really more to do with the Rulers’ joy in ordering people around, and not even as much to do with their love for booze. (And boy, do they sure love their booze!) And the Rulers get their marijuana joints, their lines of cocaine and even their speed pills whenever they want them, so it’s not really a matter of the Rulers genuinely “disapproving” of marijuana, speed pills and cocaine.

America has become so fearful of risks now. I know I am. The statist drug war proponents believe that we can’t allow people to have drug freedom, or else there will be addicts and potheads crashing into each other on the roads and falling over each other on the sidewalks, and the hospitals will fill up quickly. (Actually, the hospitals will be increasingly filling up thanks to the deadly ObamaCare, but that’s for a different discussion.)

Obviously, since the post-Prohibition legalization of alcohol the shopping malls, schools, businesses and the roads and highways have been overflowing with drunks. Why, everywhere I look I always see at least 10 drunken people falling over, thanks to the fact that booze is legal. The same thing will happen with the legalization of street drugs, of course. “Any fool can see that,” is the usual argument.

So we don’t really see a lot of drunks out there, do we? And there probably won’t be a lot of potheads out there either when drug prohibition is finally ended.

But we have arbitrary rules such as laws against drunk driving, because of the risk of a drunk person causing accidents. That must be illegal because something might happen. Or something bad is more likely to happen than if the driver were not drunk. But all that does is punish people for behaviors which have not harmed anyone.

I don’t think it is morally justified to punish people because of something that might happen, even when nothing happened.

The problem with punishing innocent people who have not harmed anyone has to do with the society’s unwillingness to take risks. Going outdoors and walking along the sidewalk is a risk. Crossing the street is a risk. And here’s another example. The Rulers are now punishing parents who let their little kids play outside in the yard or in a playground unsupervised. They’re actually arresting and throwing in jail mothers who happen to leave a little kid in the car for five minutes, even though the child is just fine, is not too hot or cold, etc. “Oh, the child might get abducted!” Well, not really, because the chances of that happening just are so slim it’s not even particularly accurate to say that leaving the child in the car was a risk at all. But the do-gooders, the meddlers, the nosy neighbors who feel self-important by snitching to the cops, feel otherwise.

Actually, those holier-than-thou snitches are acting much more criminally than the innocent parents in those examples. The snitches contact government police who then endanger the lives of those innocent parents by arresting and jailing them. So these snitching nosy meddling neighbors are endangering innocent people, and I’d like to see the victims of such criminal endangerment fight back by having the snitchers charged with endangerment as well as false accusation. And maybe even terrorism as well, because when a little child is in the car seeing his mother being arrested by government police and for no good reason, that must be terrifying not only to the child but to the mother as well.

So we shouldn’t have laws against individuals’ behaviors which do not harm others. Someone smoking pot, driving drunk or leaving the kid in the car for a few minutes is not committing an act that in and of itself is harming others. Therefore that act is not a crime. However, the enforcement of such “laws” involves the involuntary physical apprehension, detaining and caging of the individual, and it is those acts which DO harm someone, and therefore those acts are crimes!

When people who know they have not committed any crime against others fight back against the regime of Nazi bureaucrats, dangerous snitching neighbors and the Rulers’ armed thugs, then maybe the growing police state can possibly be reversed.

We need to see more of the State’s victims with the courage to use the Rulers’ own system against them and their enforcers, by insisting that the enforcers themselves be charged with making unlawful arrests, charged with unlawfully detaining and abducting the targets of the neighborhood stasi and targets of laws against victimless “crimes.” The enforcers of unjust laws must be charged with false imprisonment of innocent people. And yes, those acts of detention and imprisonment are “unlawful” and “false” because the government’s victims whose liberty actually is being criminally violated are already obviously innocent of doing any harm to others. All they have done is disobey the arbitrary orders given by power-grabbing bureaucrats.

But it isn’t just the enforcers of the laws against harmless behaviors who are criminals for arresting or caging innocent people. The actual government bureaucrats who make up the artificial rules are causing the endangerment of innocent people in the first place. The Congressmen, state legislators, city councilors, etc. — those thugs also need to be arrested and charged with endangerment and threatening the lives of totally innocent people as well, each and every time they pass any law or legally enforceable ordinance that puts an innocent individual’s life at risk. And that includes the Presidents, governors, and mayors who sign such criminally injurious warrants against the hapless public.

And ObamaCare mandates are criminally threatening the lives of the people and compromising their security and privacy of their medical matters, by the Rulers’ ordering people to report their private information and relationships with doctors to the “authorities,” or ordering people to pay higher taxes for “non-compliance,” i.e. disobedience. It’s no different from a master-slave relationship in which the slave must obey the master’s commands, and the State is no different from a criminal gang.

The whole system under which we suffer is an Orwellian criminal racket in which real criminals are employed by the State and empowered to commit actual crimes against innocent people.

Now, while I’m not suggesting that people “break the law” and put themselves in harm’s way, I would say what a much better society it would be if the entire non-government population decided to disobey bureaucrats’ orders. After all, the people have a right to disobey unlawful orders by bureaucrats and their enforcers.

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.