Skip to content

Category: Decentralization

Democrat Warmongers, Socialism, and the Need for an American Brexit

Glenn Greenwald features polling data that suggest Democrats now are the new warmongers, while Republicans tend to agree with Donald Trump in Trump’s getting the military to begin withdrawal from Syria (and, let’s hope, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those other territories that are not U.S. territories where U.S. government military do not belong!). Greenwald notes how the change in party-warmonger association occurred after the 2016 election. Like, “we hate Donald Trump, so if he wants to get troops out of foreign war zones, then we want them in there,” is what today’s Democrat voters seem to be saying.

Meanwhile, across the pond the besieged and embattled-axe Theresa May is doomed as Prime Minister of the U.K. because her clinging Brexit plan is going down to defeat in Parliament. She may very well be replaced by the far-leftist Jeremy Corbin. Why is it that there can only be the choice of left-wing statists or “rightists” conservative nationalists? Libertarians no longer exist, either in U.K. or in the U.S., it seems.

If it is a war between private property advocates and collectivists, socialists and nationalists, the private property advocates are in a teeny-tiny minority.

And here in the U.S. we have the young people attracted to socialism, even though they have no idea what it really is. It sounds nice. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sweden and the Nordic countries are not “socialist” countries, because they are generally “free-market” economies with privately-owned industry and means of production but with a welfare state, just like in the U.S. and the U.K.

Socialism is not Sweden, Norway, Denmark, et al. No, socialism is Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.

But because those who advocate for socialism are ignorant of what it is and of the history of its murderous, destructive effects throughout history, they advocate for it, because “socialism” sounds nice.

The advocates for continued government central planning in immigration in Amerika, so-called nationalists like Donald Trump, want a Government Wall on the border. They are unified in that. So, not much difference between those guys and the people on the left who want government central planning in other areas. And yes, the controls that the U.S. government has over immigration are examples of socialist, government central planning. As I wrote before, The Donald is himself a diehard socialist. And so are his ignorant followers, apparently. Socialism is all about a criminal police state over the people, in immigration, and all other areas.

Besides the hysterical cheerers-on for immigration socialism central planning police state Government Wall, the other more overt socialists want the government to run just about everything else. What they, too, want is a police state. What do they do if people don’t want to submit to the socialists’ plan for funding and participating in a government-run health care scheme? The socialists send the armed police after the people. What do the socialists do if people don’t obey their government edicts and diktats on firearms ownership, or financial regulations or continuing to use cash, gold or bartering against the rules? The socialists send the armed police after the people. That’s their police state.

But contrary to today’s proud self-proclaimed socialists who want to control every aspect of the lives of the people, and throw the serfs in jail if they don’t comply, or today’s not-so-self-proclaimed socialists in immigration who want to arrest and jail “illegal” immigrants who neglected to get a bureaucrat’s permission to travel or move to a better area, the true purpose of America was supposed to be FREEDOM!

And centralization such as in Soviet Union, European and United States always goes against freedom. Decentralization promotes freedom.

For example, in a free society people are free to come and go as they please, without anyone’s authorization. As long as they are peaceful. If you don’t suspect some individual of violating the person or property of others, then you leave him alone. Don’t punish peaceful, innocent people for the actions of others. The American Revolutionaries, so-called Founding Fathers, would never have wanted a Government Wall on the border of their new “America.”

Besides the freedom to come and go as one pleases, a free society also means the freedom to own and possess whatever material property one wants, as long as one is peaceful and acquires the property honestly, including any kind of weapons or means of defense one wants. No permission from bureaucrats, no registration, no license.

I could go on and on, but the free society that was envisioned by the American Revolutionaries was with respect to self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of movement, and so on.

But those guys didn’t realize what a mistake they made by empowering a centralized government in Washington over the people of the states. The Anti-Federalists were right to be skeptical. If today’s Trump-worshiping nationalists were around at the time of the Revolution, they would never have even considered the Anti-Federalists’ skepticism and their views against centralization of power.

And now, America is too big to be one single country with one single culture, from coast to coast and border to border. It’s just too big. So, we need our own Brexit, too. We need to decentralize, just as the European Union needs to do, just as Soviet Union did.

But I don’t have that much hope for that, for any return to freedom because too many people among the population reject that freedom, on the left and the right, and all points between. Just look how juvenile the Democrat voters are, drooling with hatred of Donald Trump, as well as the nationalist Trump followers, drooling with hatred of foreigners. They are all in agreement that government central planning should continue, and they oppose private property and free markets.

News and Commentary

Ray McGovern says, Send the Mad Dog to the corporate kennel.

Jacob Hornberger on Maria Boutina’s prosecution: a disgrace.

Ryan McMaken on governments targeting private religious schools.

Jack Burns on child slavery in Amerika: kid gets arrested, handcuffed, thrown in jail for missing school.

Lawrence Reed says that C.S. Lewis saw government as a poor substitute for God.

Laurence Vance says that no one should receive federal grants for college.

Thomas Knapp on a GoFundMe campaign to privately finance Donald Trump’s border wall.

And Richard Ebeling asks, The Brexit dilemma: markets or politics?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a very thought-provoking speech recently, The Libertarian Quest for a Grand Historical Narrative, at the annual meeting of his Property and Freedom Society. It would be very difficult for anyone to match Hoppe’s expert defense of freedom and property, and his exposing the State for what it is. Video below.

Here are some excerpts from Hoppe’s speech.

Early on in the speech Hoppe clarifies the truth about free market capitalism versus socialism.

Contrary to still popular myth in leftist circles, then, capitalism did not cause misery, but it literally saved the lives of countless millions of people from death by starvation and gradually lifted them up from their previous state of abject poverty; and labor unions’ and governments’ so-called “social policies” did not help in this regard but hampered and retarded this process of gradual economic improvement and were and still are responsible for countless numbers of unnecessary deaths.

Hoppe gives some historical perspective and references the Ten Commandments.

And here is then another quote I wanted to provide here:

For surely, slavery and serfdom have not disappeared in the democratic world. Rather, some increasingly rare ‘private’ slavery and serfdom have been replaced by a near-universal system of ‘public’ tax-slavery and serfdom. As well, wars have not disappeared, but only become of a larger scale. And as for excessive punishments and witch hunts, they have not gone away either. To the contrary, they have multiplied. Enemies of the State are tortured in the same old gruesome or even technically ‘refined’ ways. Moreover, countless people who are not a murderer, a thief, a libeler, an adulterer or a rapist, i.e. people who live in complete accordance with the ten biblical commandments and once would have been left alone, are nonetheless routinely punished today, up to the level of lengthy incarceration or the loss of their entire property. Witches are no longer called that way, but with just one single authority in place, the “identification” of anyone as a “suspect of evil-doing” or a “trouble-maker” is greatly facilitated and the number of people so identified has accordingly multiplied; and while such suspects are no longer burnt at the stake, they are routinely punished by up to life-long economic deprivation, unemployment, poverty or even starvation. And while once, during the Middle Ages, the primary purpose of punishment was restitution, i.e. the offender had to compensate the victim, the primary purpose of punishment today is submission, i.e. the offender must compensate and satisfy not the victim but the State (thus victimizing the victim twice).

Hoppe then goes on to comment at length on Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature. It appears that Pinker doesn’t get it as far as the distinction between aggressive violence and defensive violence is concerned. Pinker also seems clueless about the ideas of private property and property rights, as well as the big picture of basic moral scruples.

Property and property rights do not systematically figure in his analyses. Indeed, the terms do not even appear in the book’s 30-page subject index. For Pinker, violence is violence, and the reduction of violence is progress, regardless of whether this reduction is the result of the successful suppression and resignation of a people by and vis-à-vis another, conquering people, or the result of a people’s own successful suppression of aggressors and conquerors.

Pinker does not follow his own logic to the bitter end, but it deserves to be pointed out to reveal the full depravity of his thought. According to him, a smoothly run concentration camp, for instance, guarded by armed men who do not murder the inmates and prevent them from killing each other, but who supply them with “happiness drugs” to keep them quietly working on for the benefit of the guards until their natural (non-violent) deaths, is the perfect model of peace and social progress, while the violent overthrow of the guards by the concentration camp inmates is, well, violence and de-civilization.

Hoppe continues at great length to analyze and criticize Pinker’s cognitive dissonance and moral depravity. Hoppe really goes in depth on this subject.

After demonstrating the relationship between the State and violence, Hoppe asks,

But how much evil can a single, deranged individual do without the institution of a centralized State? How much evil could Hitler have done within the framework of a State-less society such as the Middle Ages? Would he have become a great lord, a king, a bishop, or a Pope? Indeed, how much evil could he have done even within the framework of a thousand mini-States, such as Liechtenstein, Monaco or Singapore? Answer: Not much, and certainly nothing comparable to the evils associated with WW II. It holds not, then: ‘no Hitler, no Churchill, no Roosevelt or no Stalin, and then no war,’ as Pinker would have it, but rather: ‘no highly centralized State, and then no Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin.’

The above is quoted from the transcript from Hoppe’s recent speech at his Property and Freedom Society, which meets annually.

Here are Parts 1 and 2 of the whole speech:

Important Articles, News and Commentary

Allen Mendenhall on Hayek’s case for decentralized communities.

Glenn Greenwald writes about the latest phenomenon in Amerika of employment hiring policies and government laws being imposed prohibiting the boycotting or criticizing of Israel, including having to sign loyalty oaths (to Israel, but not to the U.S.).

Zero Hedge with an article on U.K. spy Christopher Steele admitting he was hired to help Hillary Clinton challenge the 2016 election. So the information in the Steele dossier was false, and it was Hillary who was colluding with the Russians against Donald Trump. But will the anti-Trump Mueller people care about the truth? Nope.

Law professor Jonathan Turley on former FBI director James Comey’s lack of ethics and professionalism.

Doug French says ignoring the bureaucracy isn’t the same as dismantling it.

Alexander Adams discusses the FBI spying on writers.

Robert Wenzel on Wall Street Journal joining Trump in calling for the Fed to stop raising interest rates.

And Health Impact News on medical kidnapping, Big Pharma, and the U.S. foster care system.

Prisoners of the National Security State And Corrupt Prosecutors

Law professor Jonathan Turley blogged about conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi’s being pursued by “special counsel” Robert Mueller, and noted that Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Herr Mueller for attempting to pressure Corsi to intentionally give false testimony.

Turley writes, “There is no strong legal basis for such a challenge.” Hmm, you mean it’s illegal to lie under oath, but it’s not illegal to lie under oath if the prosecutors threaten you otherwise? Is that what Turley is saying here?

Turley concludes, “Prosecutors and police will often push witnesses with accusations and demands. However, if the charge is based on independent grounds, courts are leery of speculating on motive. After all, if Mueller’s team truly believes that Corsi was a critical player with Wikileaks, they are allowed to press a witness on that theory.”

Some of the commenters wrote, “Come on Turley, if you had any reasoned compassion (or stones), you’d see the justice in hunting the wolf and the routine injustice done by federal prosecutors.” And, “Yep. Looks like Turley pulled back the curtain and gives inside baseball type look at our criminal justice system: if persecutors have theories then they can move with unfettered zealotry on potential witnesses with culture of defense attorneys and judges turning blind eye on this type of abusive behavior.” And, “The truly sad reality is how comfortable our constitutional scholar host is at describing how lawfare works without a hint of the injustice of it.”

Some of the commenters then go on to say that Turley’s initial description of Corsi might be biased.

I have a feeling that liberal progressive Turley could be more sympathetic to Corsi and less sympathetic to the prosecutors if Corsi were not a conservative. But I could be wrong. I probably am wrong, because Turley has generally been quite objective in defense of those who are the victims of government overreach or of prosecutorial misconduct.

On those issues, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about Trump campaign minion Paul Manafort and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and about Trump current lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments on the Mueller fishing expedition.

After summarizing Giuliani’s record as a sleazy, corrupt prosecutor in New York during the 1980s, and noting some of Giuliani’s grandiose and frankly deranged treatment of his victims at the time, Judge Napolitano then writes, “The courts have ruled many times that prosecutors, FBI agents and police may lie, cheat, threaten, intimidate, coerce and deceive to extract cooperation and obtain evidence from witnesses. This is the dark side of the criminal justice system. It requires a strong stomach. It can be used against even the president.”

And by “to extract cooperation and obtain evidence” he probably means obtain false confessions or false testimony against others in exchange for leniency, or based on threats of false prosecution, probably for made-up crimes such as “insider trading” or “process crimes,” such as “lying to prosecutors” for merely recalling something inaccurately.

Government judicial system apparatchiks use the system to go after someone they don’t like, or based on political differences, such as the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing already unconstitutional FISA spying authority to either find dirt on their political opponents of the Trump campaign or make it all up, such as with the Steele dossier. That is what this whole made-up “Russia collusions/hacking the election” is all about.

Government apparatchiks, with a monopoly over the administration of justice, also go after innocent people for reasons other than political ones, including advancing an agenda of bamboozling the public to accept more governmental intrusions into their lives and a police state. Such as the FBI infiltrating mosques to motivate young Muslim males to want to commit “jihad” in order for the FBI to thwart terrorist plots that the FBI themselves concoct.

Or the CIA using software to not only hide their own cyber “fingerprints” but to leave fake fingerprints, such as spoofed IP addesses, etc. to make it look like Russians or others did the hacking, phishing, or otherwise computer intrusions.

Or NSA stealing industry secrets, and NSA or Britain’s GCHQ in an “information ops” campaign to “manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations,” using made-up stuff to discredit individuals and companies.

Sadly, because of our government’s apparatchiks exploiting what James Bovard has called “Battered Citizen Syndrome,” the people continue to blindly accept the criminal racket in Washington. Any one of us could be the next victim of bureaucrats’ political witch hunts and crusades.

The current national security state- and Democrat-led “witch hunt” fiasco is yet another example why letting our lives be ruled by elites with a monopoly in “justice” is not good. We should probably dismantle the whole thing.

Why Hasn’t the Libertarian Party Been Successful?

In a tweet linking to Ben Shapiro, Justin Raimondo says that the reasons why the Libertarian Party isn’t more successful have more to do with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld than John McAfee. Shapiro asked why the LP isn’t more successful, after he linked to a vulgar tweet by former LP Presidential candidate John McAfee.

The truth is that the Libertarian Party just has not been successful (except for little pockets here and there with some LP elected state officials) since it began as an official political party in 1971, because generations of Americans have been brainwashed to believe that statism and government are supreme, freedom not so much.

According to Wikipedia, the 1972 LP Presidential nominee John Hospers received only 3,674 votes, but he did receive one Electoral vote. By 1980, Ed Clark received almost 1 million votes. But it went downhill from there, and then up again. In 1988 Ron Paul received a little more than 400,000 and it remained roughly around that number until Gary Johnson in 2012 with 1.2 million and Johnson in 2016 with 4.4 million. I’m not sure I believe that last number. Bob Barr and Gary Johnson de-libertarianized the Libertarian Party more than anyone could ever dream of doing.

So, the real reason for the LP’s lack of success since it began is the fact that, when there has been an opportunity to bring the principles of the so-called Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the federal government in Washington, most people among the masses reject such principles.

Accepting those principles of those founding documents requires dismantling the empire and the warfare state by closing down ALL foreign U.S. military bases overseas and bringing all the U.S. troops back to the U.S. (and ultimately putting them to honest work in the private sector), end all U.S. tax-funded foreign aid and let private Americans and groups donate to foreigners if they want to, and end all U.S. government collusions with foreign regimes (a.k.a. foreign entanglements). Most Americans are ignorant, gullible sheeple and they believe the propaganda of the Washington warmongers. In the early 1970s, despite the truth telling of the Pentagon Papers, the American people still voted for war criminal Nixon by a landslide. Most Americans would not have been able to tell you what the Pentagon Papers actually revealed. They would not have even believed that their own government officials in Washington knew during the 1960s that the Vietnam War could not be won but continued to send troops there to die for no good reason anyway. And in 1990-91 the American people again believed all the propaganda of George H.W. Bush and approved his starting a new war of aggression, now against Iraq, for no good reason.

And accepting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights also requires dismantling the welfare state, including Social Security, Medicare, and all private property-trespassing laws and policies that the Founders would never have approved of. It would mean repealing all income tax laws, because those involve transactions that are involuntary and intrusions into the privacy and personal lives of the people. It would also means repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and ending that bureaucracy, ending the federal money monopoly and declaring separation of money and State and separation of economy and State. But the sheeple would never stand for all those things, which the Libertarian Party platform has endorsed since the beginning of the Party.

The sheeple are brainwashed to believe that dependence on government and the police state is a given, a fact of life that is inherent in society. No, it is not. And I am sorry if some people are offended by my use of the words, “sheeple” and “brainwashed.” I calls it like I sees it. If the shoe fits….

So that is mostly why the Libertarian Party hasn’t been successful. One other minor reason is the elitists of the mainstream media who look upon libertarians as “tinfoil hat-wearers,” and refuse to cover them as they cover the total clowns of the two major parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. Clowns, corrupt criminals, morons and misfits. THOSE are the ones who get free coverage by the mainstream media elitists. And look who they helped get elected President with such free coverage.

In the “Capitalism vs. Socialism” Debate, Freedom Is Found in Capitalism, Not Socialism

George Reisman has 13 illustrations of the benevolence of capitalism. It is a must read, in my view.

It is quite lengthy, but here are some excerpts that caught my eye:

(6) … in a market economy … private ownership of the means of production operates to the benefit of everyone, the nonowners, as well as owners. The nonowners obtain the benefit of the means of production owned by other people. They obtain this benefit as and when they buy the products of those means of production. To get the benefit of General Motors’ factories and their equipment, or the benefit of Exxon’s oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, I do not have to be a stockholder or a bondholder in those firms. I merely have to be in a position to buy an automobile, or gasoline, or whatever, that they produce.

Moreover, thanks to the dynamic, progressive aspect of the uniformity-of-rate-of-profit or rate-of-return principle that I explained a moment ago, the general benefit from privately owned means of production to the nonowners continually increases, as they are enabled to buy ever more and better products at progressively falling real prices. It cannot be stressed too strongly that these progressive gains, and the generally rising living standards that they translate into, vitally depend on the capitalist institutions of private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and economic competition, and would not be possible without them. It is these that underlie motivated, effective individual initiative in raising the standard of living.

(10 ) … capitalism is in actuality as thoroughly and rationally planned an economic system as it is possible to have. The planning that goes on under capitalism, without hardly ever being recognized as such, is the planning of each individual participant in the economic system. Every individual who thinks about a course of economic activity that would be of benefit to him and how to carry it out is engaged in economic planning. Individuals plan to buy homes, automobiles, appliances, and, indeed, even groceries. They plan what jobs to train for and where to offer and apply the abilities they possess. Business firms plan to introduce new products or discontinue existing products; they plan to change their methods of production or continue to use the methods they presently use; they plan to open branches or close branches; they plan to hire new workers or layoff workers they presently employ; they plan to add to their inventories or reduce their inventories.

Ironically … socialism, as Mises has shown, is incapable of rational economic planning. In destroying the price system and its foundations, namely, private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and competition, socialism destroys the intellectual division of labor that is essential to rational economic planning. It makes the impossible demand that the planning of the economic system be carried out as an indivisible whole in a single mind that only an omniscient deity could possess.

What socialism represents is so far from rational economic planning that it is actually the prohibition of rational economic planning. In the first instance, by its very nature, it is a prohibition of economic planning by everyone except the dictator and the other members of the central planning board. They are to enjoy a monopoly privilege on planning, in the absurd, virtually insane belief that their brains can achieve the all-seeing, all-knowing capabilities of  omniscient deities. They cannot. Thus, what socialism actually represents is the attempt to substitute the thinking and planning of one man, or at most of a mere handful of men, for the thinking and planning of tens and hundreds of millions, indeed, of billions of men. By its nature, this attempt to make the brains of so few meet the needs of so many has no more prospect of success than would an attempt to make the legs of so few the vehicle for carrying the weight of so many.

But as Dr. Reisman notes at the beginning of the essay, freedom is the essential element in free-market capitalism. So, I will add that besides economic freedom which is necessary to raise the standard of living for all, there also needs to be personal and political freedom as well. The freedom of speech and the Press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and the right to be secure in one’s person, papers, houses and effects are important freedoms for a prosperous as well as free and civilized society.

In the U.S. we seem to be losing more and more of those personal and political freedoms, as well as the economic freedom that existed here prior to World War I and the imposition of the income tax-theft.

In Orwellian China, what they have now is some sort of “Social Credit Score,” in which almost everything the people do is monitored by the government. Their traveling behaviors, the trains they take or their behavior as a pedestrian following or not following the street lights, their social media expressions, and so on.

If they get a score of “untrustworthy,” those people are barred from trains and planes, and are “unable to move even a single step,” as the bureaucrats have stated. So I assume that the people of China are not or will not be able to “vote with their feet,” if they are not physically able to travel out of the country. How will they be able to travel out of such a tyrannical dictatorship hellhole? The former East Germany would shoot people trying to escape. Those trying to leave the former Soviet Union were considered deserters and traitors, according to Wikipedia.

Hmm, not being able to “vote with their feet” to leave tyranny reminds me of the uncapitalistic national socialist Donald Trump, except his restrictions and the government Wall he wants to surround his utopian closed society are presumably to keep people out and prevent foreigners from going to a better place as they attempt to flee tyranny. (But what will future Washington administrations use the Wall for, Donald? Hmmm?)

So, despite whatever capitalistic reforms China has attempted to make in recent years, it seems to want to become more like North Korea, rather than more like the U.S. (I want to say, “the former U.S.,” given how down the totalitarian drain Amerika has gone. Oh, well. We have the college campus craziness with the suppression of dissent from PC idiocy, and the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the world who want to turn America into a socialist utopia, which, if you read the above Reisman article you will understand how such a utopia is literally impossible and historically always failed.)

If Donald Trump really wants to have the U.S. compete with China, he should dismantle all impediments to Americans’ freedom, especially economic freedom, not increase such impediments as he keeps threatening to do. Dump the tariff-taxes, get rid of the unconstitutional bureaucracies whose purpose is mainly to live high off the hog on the wealth those bureaucrats suck away from the workers and producers of society. Just as the area around Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest part of the country (because of all the parasites associated with U.S. government and all the wealth they siphon off the actual producers of America), the bureaucrats in China are also of great wealth.

As far as the increasing Orwellian government surveillance and molestation of the people and their private lives and movements in the U.S., what we need to do is have some sort of private agency, or agencies, to make government bureaucrats, including all lawmakers, law enforcers, judges, and executives like governors and Presidents, report all their activities and submit to 24-7 monitoring by the people, rather than the other way around. We really need to make it very uncomfortable and unprofitable for anyone to be a government official of any kind, which should help to ensure a freer and healthier society.

Nullification, Decentralization, Separation, Divorce, Dissolve, Dismiss the Regime

Why are many of the people on the left of such an authoritarian mentality? They are so authoritarian in their worship of the federal government and its illicit powers and feared losing the power so much they disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and engaged in so much obvious cheating during the recent mid-term elections. (Not that Republicans weren’t engaged in cheating or at least questionable behavior as well, such as in Georgia.)

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Sen. Cruella Harris began interrupting Chairman Grassfed as soon as he began the hearings, and it went downhill from there, especially with “Dr.” Ford who “Must Be Believed At All Times!” and Kavanaugh screaming how much he loves beer and telling us what a moron he is by keeping calendars going back to 1982. (Who does that?)

Meanwhile, informed people with a brain actually objected to Kavanaugh based on his terrible rulings rubber-stamping tyranny, and his being a corrupt bureaucrat. But no, the fanatics on the left are concerned about abortion. That’s what they care about. And “Free Health Care for ALL!”and all that.

The fanatics believe that the Supreme Court is the God of government, that those 9 robed bureaucrats have the absolute final say on our freedom (and our enslavement). So it’s so important that they have to interrupt hearings, harass senators who voted for Kavanaugh, and cheat in elections. What a life.

But, as Tom Woods points out in a recent article, especially in his quoting of James Madison, the federal judicial branch is the final decision-maker on constitutional conflicts only between the branches of the federal government (judicial, legislative and executive), but NOT the final decision-maker on conflicts between the federal government and the states.

As Woods has explained in the past, the states, after all, created the federal government, not the other way around. The people of the states are the “boss” of the feds, and the agents of the federal government are the states’ “employees.” Unfortunately, that has been turned around by authoritarians (especially reinforced by Lincoln) who believe that whatever the federal government says, goes. “You will report to us your earnings, where you work or whom you employ, we will take a portion of your wealth whether you like it or not, we will spy on you and know the personal details of your private life and you will not know what we are up to, we’ll just mark everything ‘classified,’ and so on…”

So that stuff that the bureaucrats in Washington have been doing, that fools like Brett Kavanaugh have been rubber-stamping out of loyalty to the Regime and its racket, is unconstitutional, illicit, and criminal. This is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Which is not very well written, by the way. It should have explicitly stated that the people of the states shall nullify any federal government rule, law or order on them whose enforcement they conclude would be in violation of their liberty, persons or property. Otherwise, the Founders needlessly created a federal government and ratified a questionable Constitution, going against the very principles of their Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson and others endorsed that idea of nullification which many people on the left now ignorantly perceive as having to do with racism or “slavery,” even though some states engaged in nullification during the Civil War period when they nullified Fugitive Slave Laws (which Lincoln strongly endorsed and enforced, by the way).

As Woods wrote in an essay in his Liberty Classroom, “nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void.  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?”

But as I wrote in this article, we are now slaves of the federal government.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Concocting a centralized, ruling federal government was a mistake made by the Revolutionaries. Besides the social fascists and authoritarians on the left, now we have a Donald Trump who claims that his job is “running the country,” which, as Richard Ebeling pointed out in this very informative new article, is a “claim to abrogate the liberty of each and every member of that society to have the freedom to run their own life as they peacefully and honestly see fit in voluntary and mutually agreed-upon association with their fellow human beings for their respective betterment as they define it.”

One of the latest examples of the absurdity of this centralized power apparatus in Washington is that the bureaucrats are going to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because he provided the means for whistleblowers to expose the criminality of the federal bureaucrats and their goons. Whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning with the Iraq War Logs, the Afghanistan War Logs, the diplomatic cables leaks, the “Collateral Murder” video, and all the rest.

As I wrote above, the criminals of the regime classify whatever they can to avoid embarrassing disclosures, evade transparency, get away with murder, and punish whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, by the way, was viciously persecuted by Obama’s regime, not Bush, with 3 years of solitary confinement pre-trial and a kangaroo trial and sentencing. (Although I think the main reason the SJW-in-Chief Barack Obama then commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence was because Manning is a “transgender.” Those are the things Obama et al. really care about.)

You see, as many people have noted now in the Obama DOJ and FBI’s surveillance abuses and how the Obama administration was so bad with civil liberties and freedom of speech and his war on the Press, we now have Cruella Harris and Pocahontas and all their moonbat followers drooling to take the apparatus of power back so THEY can once again use the spying powers against enemies and enforce their beloved police state on the people.

So, as I had written several times now, including this article from 8 years ago, the Amerikan sheeple need to let go of their dependence on the regime in Washington and we must go our separate ways.

On the Wars, the Government Military, More Reasons Against Central Planning

Gareth Porter writes about America’s permanent-war complex.

Murray Rothbard on World War I as fulfillment: power and the intellectuals.

David Stockman discusses how Woodrow Wilson ruined everything.

Joe Jarvis writes about why the most expensive military ever still can’t win a war.

Aaron Merat with the story on the wild wild story of the MEK: terrorists, cultists, or champions of Iranian democracy?

And Health Impact News asks, Did a military experimental vaccine in 1918 kill 50-100 million people blamed as “Spanish Flu”?