Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Does the First Amendment Still Protect My Right to Call Government Bureaucrats “Nazis”?

There is yet another article regarding the police state run amok now. At the U.K. Guardian, Jennifer Abel writes about the TSA airport goons and storm troopers moving on to our non-flying alternatives, the roads and highways with TSA VIPR Teams, and the bus stations and train depots. And it isn’t just train depots (as in Amtrak which compares to air/long-distance travel), but local subways and regular metro buses now.

Why are these Nazis harassing innocent civilians for no good reason? Because they get off on it, that’s why. And no, there’s no evidence of any terrorism anywhere to be found, they will not find any terrorists anywhere (except for the phony ones that the FBI lures into it, like they did Tarak Mehanna, etc.) The real terrorists here are these goons, as they harass and threaten innocent people for no good reason, and the high-and-mighty government bureaucrats who have unleashed them on us. These are the real criminals, as they threaten, search and interrogate innocent civilians without any just cause, without reasonable suspicion.

You see, for government bureaucrats and police to stop or approach anyone in a non-criminal way, one would have to have some actual reason to suspect an actual individual of some actual crime.

If you don’t suspect someone of anything, then you leave him or her alone. That’s the American way.

Unfortunately, Jamit Napolitano, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and Bob Mueller do not know their history, or they do know about it but don’t care. These people love power, they love putting the masses into disarmed submissiveness and helplessness, they love to rule over their serfs. And their underlings, all the little Nazi bureaucrats and police who follow their orders, also love their power trips as well.

I know some people are bothered by my use of the word, “Nazi,” and in recent months I have toned that down quite a bit. However, America really is turning into Nazi Germany, whether you want to face that fact or not.

After the airport TSA and their radiation scanning cancer-giving and groping and child molesting, now it’s on to train stations and bus depots, and the subways, malls, sporting events, for more illegal searches without suspicion, more child (and adult) molesting, more criminal assaults against our persons, property, papers and effects.

So where does all this lead? Does it stop there?

No, of course it won’t stop there. In Nazi York City, for instance, they already have NYPD going into apartment buildings to stop and frisk innocent civilians without suspicion in their own buildings! as well as the illegal stopping people on the streets and frisking them that these Nazi police have been doing.

But do you think this Nazi Germany stuff is going to end only with city apartment buildings? Get ready for these Nazi criminals doing these things to innocent people in the suburbs as well, and with suspicion-less, intrusions at your door and your being compelled to have to let them in, regardless of absence of warrant or absence of reasonable suspicion. Because “there might be terrorists.” Or “there might be drugs.”

Or there might be someone who didn’t separate the recycling from the regular garbage. (You think I’m kidding?)

Yes, it’s all coming.

Thanks to the sheeple who have voted overwhelmingly for their senators and congressfelons who gave us the Patriot Act and NDAA, and so forth. And it’s not really just George W. Bush who started all this. We can thank Ronald Reagan as well, who encouraged the drooling Oliver North, working out of the White House basement as he formulated his dream of military martial law in Amerika.

Each subsequent generation of Americans seems less and less understanding of the concepts of presumption of innocence and the right to be left alone. Each generation is less and less educated in history, and have no idea how Nazi Germany became what it was. Or the Soviet Union, for that matter. They find the police state acceptable now. Treating our fellow Americans like criminal suspects is now acceptable.

The terrorism meme has been a fraud and a sham. The real terrorists are these government bureaucrats and their Nazi police criminal underlings.

Turning America into Nazi Germany is not the way to prevent terrorism, for those of you who are concerned about that. The way to prevent those so-called Islamists and jihadists, and “home-grown terrorists,” from wanting to commit acts of terrorism here in America is for our government to STOP attacking and murdering foreigners and occupying their countries!

If that wasn’t really the case, regarding what went on before 9/11, then why did Ron Paul — several times — predict that because of the wars, sanctions, occupations and incitements by the U.S. government against foreigners especially throughout the 1990s, that there very well could be a terrorist attack on our shores because of it? He was right.

You see, when you start wars against other countries and slaughter their people who were of no threat to you, those are called provocations. When you provoke your neighbors across the street with aggression, trespassing and murdering their families, they might very well want to retaliate.

But because of the narcissistic, neanderthal attitude of so many Americans now, when Ron Paul points out the Golden Rule, and that we wouldn’t like it if foreign governments started wars against us on our shores, occupied our territories and murdered our people, he gets booed! Only ignorant, self-centered morons would boo the idea of equal under God and equality under the rule of law.

And there are still those out there who believe the lies of our government as far as justifying their turning America into Nazi Germany, and there are many, many Americans who are completely ignorant of actual history of the actions of our own government, and who live in denial, and who accuse those who point out the truths of history of being “on the side of the terrorists.”

No, I am not on the side of the terrorists, and I am not on the side of aggressors, criminals, and bureaucrats whose hired guns the police and military continue to commit crimes against our lives, persons, property and our freedom.

Paywall Obstructions and Copyright Obsessors

What has really been bothering me lately is those online editions of newspapers who insist on a paywall. These dinosaurs of the old media don’t understand the Internet, and I doubt they ever will. Much of the Wall Street Journal online, for example, is behind a pay wall. So if I find an interesting article that I’d like to link to, but it insists that you subscribe, then I won’t link to it. I know that many other bloggers and online writers are the same way. Why should I cause readers to waste their time clicking on a link, when chances are that they don’t have an online subscription and they probably won’t start one at that time, just to see one damn article?

But the print media dinosaurs suffer from the same kind of shortsightedness that government bureaucrats have. You see, when I link to a website, such as WSJ or the New York Times, and readers of this blog click on a link to read an article, that is giving those newspapers new readers, who will also be seeing (and maybe clicking on and maybe even patronizing) the advertisements. For the New York Times, it’s new readers (thanks to my and others’ links), and new clicks on their ads. But the dinosaurs don’t see that. In fact, because of paywalls, they will get fewer clicks, fewer readers, and thus lower ad revenues.

Because of modern day generations of present-oriented narcissists who lack the ability to see things in the long term, they make policies and create obstructions to their businesses that go against their own interests in the long term. Phenomena such as paywalls do just that. And so does copyright.

Unfortunately, the music industry people who support SOPA (and other legislation to “protect IP” on the Internet) don’t understand that they are acting as useful idiots for government tyrants who want to use IP-protecting legislation to censor information and commentary on the Internet that they don’t like.

Those IP-related Internet bills are solely for the government to suppress political dissent. I wish more people understood that.

Now, in the past when I had been looking for a Monty Python video to post here (such as this one depicting an ObamaCare-like doctor, and this one), I noticed that, on YouTube, the Monty Python people seemed extremely uptight about people posting their videos. They felt they were getting “ripped off.” Now I see that they have their own YouTube page, and it appears that since they launched their YouTube page, sales of their DVDs had hit the roof.

But there was never any need to have their own YouTube page to “get their money back” that they irrationally believed was getting “ripped off.” You see, if someone on the Internet posted a Monty Python video, there are a lot of people now who have never heard of them, particularly those age 30 and younger. When someone posts a video of that sort, and viewers to that web page or blog like what they see, they will then go to Google (or whatever search engine they prefer) and get more information, and they will probably find “shopping results” that include that sells Monty Python DVDs.

I guess what I’m saying is that when people post Monty Python videos on blogs or other websites, the bloggers are giving Monty Python (or similar kinds of video makers) free advertising.

I wonder if viewers of Family Guy who saw the episode that made fun of Carol Burnett’s cleaning woman character from her TV show (for which she unsuccessfully sued them) then searched to see who Carol Burnett is (let’s face it, many people under 35 probably don’t know who Carol Burnett is). There are many YouTube pages with classic scenes from the old Carol Burnett Show.

Below I’ll post the skit with Carol as a patient seeing a psychiatrist (played by Harvey Korman). Buy Carol Burnett Show DVDs here.

1965 Interview of Atheist Dissident Madeline Murray (Before the “O’Hare”)

Last week Jacob Hornberger posted this commentary on the “God Bless the USA” in public schools controversy. And just a few days ago, Michael Graham featured a discussion of a Winchester, Massachusetts government school that would not allow a production of Miracle on 34th Street, but will be showing the kids The Hunger Games.

Santa Claus is “offensive,” but violence, sadism, and cruelty are just fine with government school bureaucrats.

I agree with Jacob’s conclusion, that to resolve these kinds of issues we need to abolish government-run schools, and let people choose among whatever privately-run schools in which they want their kids to enroll. That would free the market and there would then be many more providers of educational products available. In a freed market, the schools who promote actual education, provide truthful information and common sense are those that would succeed, while the ones who promote social and political propagandizing and indoctrination would obviously go down the drain.

These discussions reminded me of the Madeline Murray O’Hare controversy of the 1960s. I posted this about a year ago, but only the first segment. Here it is again, along with the other segments that are also available at

This interview by Jerry Williams of well-known American atheist Madeline Murray (before the “O’Hare”) took place in 1965. It was just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that forcing kids in “public” (i.e. government-run) schools to read from the Bible was a violation of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Now, I am not an atheist, but I sympathize with people who stand up for their right to hold their minority views.

During the interview, Madeline Murray describes (in Part 1) how she was beaten several times, along with her children and her 74-year-old mother, in their home by the police, and made to go to the hospital.

So, given how violently some people react to any questioning of their religious views, their belief in God, or how violently some people react to any resistance to their trying to force their religious views down other people’s throats, I’m glad that religious fascist Rick Sanitorium has dropped out of the presidential race.

I am afraid that the growing trend toward intolerance of minority views, whether they be Jews, Muslims, atheists, and intolerance of questioning various political views such as ObamaCare or minimum wage and affirmative action, may mirror this kind of violent intolerance of earlier times, especially under the rude, authoritarian regime of Barack Obama.

(Unfortunately, on the Jerry Williams website, some of the links are out of place, so I rearranged their order more accurately, I think.)

Click on link, opens media player window

Part 1:

Part 2: (for some reason, it goes silent from about 6:00 to about 19:00)

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

America’s Self-Contradictory Constitution and Bureaucrats’ Illegitimate Monopolies

April 11, 2012

Copyright © 2013 by (Link to article)

In my previous column I included some ways to protect ourselves from the tyrannically intrusive ObamaCare monstrosity, via the U.S. Constitution. However, in the same piece I questioned the Constitution’s legitimacy and its logic.

The Constitution contains a self-contradictory structure that monopolist government bureaucrats and the police have been ignoring for many decades.

In fact, it is the very Constitutionally mandated monopolies that bureaucrats illegitimately have that violate our God-given rights.

Here are some examples of the Constitution’s inconsistency: Part of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment states that “(no person) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Note how it does not stipulate, “except during a war,” or “except during the U.S. government’s War on Terror.” That is because the Founders believed that there should be no exceptions to this rule.

And also, the Fifth Amendment specifies “in any criminal case,” but not in other cases in which police (or military) or other private civilians could very well not be investigating any criminal case, but could just be on a Gestapo-like fishing expedition.

The right to presumption of innocence is part of our natural, inalienable rights, and history has shown that government power-grabbers are not particularly concerned for the people’s right to presumption of innocence.

A century of government central planning has created generations of shortsighted, irresponsible rulers in America. With rule by emotion and not reason, we have police, legislative and court bureaucrats who do not seem able to see things form the point of view of an individual being criminally victimized by agents of the State.

The Fifth Amendment also states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It does not forbid the government from taking private property – it only states that when covetous government bureaucrats do take your property, with or without your consent, they are supposed to compensate you for it.

There is no provision in the Constitution that protects one’s person and private property from a criminal intrusion. There is a hint of that in the Fourth Amendment, with the phrase, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” But federal, state and local governments have repeatedly committed person- and property-invasion crimes against innocent civilians, and courts have repeatedly defended those State crimes.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is loaded with monopoly powers assigned to government that violate individuals’ God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It gives so much monopolistic, centralized power to the federal government that many of the Founders knew that such powers would be misused and become the Leviathan tyranny the federal government now is.

In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” But who the hell is a government bureaucrat to interfere with or intrude into an individual’s private contracts?

This immediately violates the individual’s right to establish voluntary contracts with others. Contracts among individuals are the sole business of the parties to such contracts, and not the business of government bureaucrats. My philosophy is that if it’s none of the neighbors’ business, it’s none of the government’s business.

A federal government with its artificial authority over an entire territory implies that the government owns the territory, and that the bureaucrats employed by the government have some sort of territorial ownership rights of control, a very communistic structure if there ever was one.

And who the hell are government bureaucrats to “coin money”? That’s also part of Article I, Section 8. Money is an important commodity and it is the individual’s right to choose by what means one wants to trade with others. Giving government control of the people’s money gives the government the power to steal from the people.

In contrast, the market would be efficient in the “regulation” of various media of exchange, that is, were the market freed from monopolistic, governmental bureaucratic intrusions.

Murray Rothbard explains the myth of “efficient government service.”

And Hans-Hermann Hoppe covers the origin and stability of the State, and noted the absurdity of a society with government monopolies and the absence of a contract between the people and the State.

The truth is, there’s really no need for a “Constitution” to maintain peace and civility in a free society. Just follow the rule of law, by forbidding the initiation of physical aggression, forbidding theft and fraud, and forbidding trespass.

Assigning a monopoly power to an institution – government – in which the people are compelled by law to use, with threats of violence to enforce such a relationship, is immoral and criminal in nature, and violates the individual’s right to choose which services one wants to use.

In a free, civilized society, no one should be above the law, and no one has any legitimate authority over anyone else without voluntary consent.

And regarding any actual need for a centralized government with power and authority over the entire territory, I have addressed that here, and here.

But everything in a society, particularly one as large as the United States, really must be controlled locally.

There are those who agree with localization, but worry about “national defense.” But in reality, the original purpose of the federal government’s Constitutionally mandated territorial security monopoly has long been forgotten. The bigger and more powerful the federal government had become, the more each temporary ruler has used such powers to intentionally act aggressively, inhumanely and belligerently against foreigners, the more they have done nothing but provoke foreigners to act against the people of the United States. I have addressed the federal government’s central planning monopoly in territorial protection here, here and here. (And for more, see this, this [.pdf], and this.)

And here Hans Hoppe analyzes the association between democracies and war.

And we have been seeing, day after day, how the local governments’ monopoly in community policing and security not only gives the government-monopolized police the power to be above the law, but many times now government police have been getting away with crimes of murder, assault, theft, rape, property destruction, and terrorizing innocent civilians. (Just see any of these LRC articles by Will Grigg to find many examples.)

And because of the power of local and state governments, as well as the federal government, to artificially make just about every civilian behavior a crime, no matter how harmless and innocent, the police are arresting people really for no good reason (except mainly to raise revenue to fund local and state bureaucrats’ six-figure salaries that they probably would not be getting in a freed market). This is what America has come to: lawlessness and criminality mainly committed by the agents of the State.

In a community in which policing were done by voluntary groups and individuals, and by competitive firms, all individuals would have to live under the rule of law, all individuals would be equal under the law, and no one would be allowed to be above the law. (And that would also apply to George Zimmerman, whose initial act of stalking Trayvon Martin was questionable at best.)

Currently, many government-monopolized police do not obey the rule of law because they have monopoly status in which they are above the law. The truth is that such an unequal, artificial relationship between civilians and armed government bureaucrats seems to naturally lead to a system of institutionalized criminality.

And now, thanks to the passive, sheeple-like compliance and submissiveness on the part of the American people, these local government bureaucrats (as well as the federal bureaucrats) have more and more armed power, and our liberty and security are going down the drain (along with our economic prosperity that we used to have, thanks to the monetary and financial monopolists in Washington).

Monopolists are not accountable. No “Constitution” holds monopolists accountable – that’s a fantasy, a dream that can never come true, because of human nature, and because no human being is an angel.

Giving people artificial armed power and authority over others has been the Founders’ biggest mistake. But can we reverse this? Well, where there’s a will, there’s a way, that’s for sure.

Eventually, Americans will have to face these truths and stop kicking the can down the road toward the necessary restructuring. And better sooner than later.

And no, there can be no Perestroika, or “reform,” of government monopolies and central planning. It all needs to be abolished, as the Soviets did, and decentralization and localization must occur.

Americans need to take back their freedom, not just with their right to self-defense and their right to bear arms, but by removing monopolies from government bureaucrats.

Gary Johnson? Who? The What? Libertarian Party? What’s THAT?!!

Market Ticker guy and modern Tea Party founder Karl Denninger has this post on the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson. Denninger writes and complains about lack of principles there, but he not once mentions Ron Paul, one of the most principled libertarians around.

Now, Denninger seems approving of the LP’s requirement to sign a loyalty oath for LP membership. I think that’s rather childish. I will not proclaim any loyalty, certainly not to any political party, but I am loyal and faithful to the principles of libertarianism, and to liberty, and to the Non-Aggression Principle. I am loyal to the rights of the individual to life, liberty and property, free markets and freedom of association and freedom of contract. But I don’t have to sign something to prove my loyalty, that’s ridiculous.

Why Denninger does not mention Ron Paul, who knows. I think it might be because Denninger still supports government control over our money, while Paul supports monetary freedom, the right of the people to choose their media of exchange in an open and free marketplace.

And I don’t really believe in political parties, anyway. As I have mentioned here and here, George Washington spoke unfavorably about political parties. In his farewell address, Washington stated,

…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy…

…Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Now, on these elections, I agree with Justin Raimondo in his recent Open Letter to Ron Paul.

The best thing that could happen would be for the GOP to split, with your (Paul’s) supporters hiving off, leaving the GOP remnant to become a primarily southern-based regional party. This is their future, in any event, in spite of your energetic efforts to “save” them. Unfortunately – for them and for us – they don’t want to be saved.

And they don’t DESERVE to be saved!

Paul needs to seriously consider running for president as an independent candidate. I don’t even know about the Libertarian Party, given that organization’s problems throughout its entire 4-decade existence. Many of the Party leaders and insiders are a bunch of hacks, and are statist-lites, just as with the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

Ron Paul has such a following that he can easily get his name on the ballot in all fifty states as an independent candidate, in my opinion, despite the totalitarian-like ballot restrictions in some of these especially more communist states.

And for those who are constantly saying, “Anyone but Obama,” and think that a President Romney is going to be any different or any less socialist than Obama, you are living in a dream world. Romney is perhaps one of the most unprincipled of politicians I’ve seen, the epitome of “weathervane pol.”

The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare

April 6, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by (Link to article)

No, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare and the individual mandate will not matter, especially when, as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states have a right to nullify the individual mandate – or all of ObamaCare if they want to.

The statists who rule over us, and their apparatchiks and propagandists, want to assert that the “Civil War settled everything” on issues of nullification and state secession. Those authoritarians suggest that President Abe Lincoln’s U.S. government war on the seceding states “settled” the states’ (and their individual inhabitants’) attempts at independence and the freedom to exercise their right to self-determination and the right to control their own lives.

The statists say that the federal government is supreme and the entire population must obey the will of our high-and-mighty federal rulers. But such an assertion goes against the principles of the American Revolutionaries.

Economic Historian Thomas Woods addressed these issues in his book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. In an article that appeared last year, Woods addressed specific points made by the critics of nullification.

Of course people have a right to buy or to not buy health insurance. And yes, that right to choose is just as inherent and God-given a right as are the rights to self-defense and free speech. Just because the Bill of Rights does not list such a right to choose to buy or not to buy health insurance does not mean that such a choice is not a right.

The Bill of Rights could not possibly enumerate all the rights we as individual human beings have, or such a list would never end. This was addressed by the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Some people believe that the federal government is empowered to tell the people what to do, and that federal bureaucrats are our bosses. But the reverse is true. The states had formed the federal government as an agent to act on behalf of the states’ interests. The federal government is employed by the people of the states. The people of the states are the federal government’s boss.

And it was especially Lincoln’s war against the people that reinforced the reversal of that original relationship into a centralized, federal dictatorship. President Barack Obama’s communist-like recent Executive Order to seize all of America’s resources, including food, agriculture, water and labor resources during non-emergency peacetime was a huge step further down America’s descent into totalitarian tyranny.

Obama’s recent Executive Order – in addition to Obama’s command that all Americans must buy health insurance – was just the most recent in a long list of federal power-grabs since Lincoln’s War on Independence. Here are just a couple more examples:

  • The order via legal tender laws that all Americans must use only U.S. government-issued currency as their sole medium of exchange. And this despite the fact that the Federal Reserve‘s central planning manipulators have distorted prices, caused massive swings in the business cycle, caused constantly high unemployment levels, and devalued the dollar and its purchasing power. Such authoritarian dictatorial policies have greatly diminished freedom and enhanced the bureaucrats’ power to steal from us poor slobs.
  • The order that all Americans must participate in the federal government-run retirement scheme known as Social Security, against the will and better judgment of individuals. The promises made by the government could not possibly be kept in such an inherently flawed and treacherous scheme. It is immoral for anyone to interfere with an individual’s right to save, spend or invest one’s earnings or wealth however one wants.

Regarding the Supreme Court, just how has this gang of nine protected our liberty or our rights (particularly, as noted in the American Declaration of Independence, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)?

Just recently the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police strip-searching arrestees of minor technical violations such as parking tickets and so forth. In a typical judicial monopoly departure of common sense and in statist loyalty to police power, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” Obviously, Kennedy isn’t aware of how local police neanderthals are known to arrest as many civilians as they can in the name of revenue collection quotas (and for jailer pervs to get off on power trips strip-searching innocent people).

In his apparent love for the TSA and his reference to all Americans as potential terrorists, Justice Kennedy went on to state that, “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.” Hmmm. So we therefore better let the police strip-search Grandma or some teenager on her way to a part-time job, to use Kennedy’s obediently childlike reasoning.

And last year, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police criminally breaking into private property, and without a warrant, based on an officer’s belief that residents are flushing marijuana down the toilet (“destroying evidence”). “Oooo, someone has marijuana in his own home, we better break in and get him!” This decision shows just how much government schooling has influenced even the highest public officials in the land.

The common sense opinion by Justices would be to nullify the actual law that police are illegally trying to enforce, such as laws against harmless and victimless drug possession. And this common sense approach should apply to the Court’s decision on ObamaCare as well.

I am assuming that a President Ron Paul’s Supreme Court Justices would not only strike down bad laws or policies such as ObamaCare based on violations of particular Constitutional protections, but that they would also outright nullify bad laws based on common sense, the Constitution notwithstanding.

After all, the U.S. Constitution itself has been a flawed document from the beginning, and the product of Hamiltonian centralists who got the Leviathan monstrosity they wanted, despite the Anti-Federalists’ protests. As we have seen, from Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush/Obama, and from the Supreme Court, the FBI, the CIA and police departments all over America, the Constitution has been ignored time and again. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has observed, the Constitution is itself “unconstitutional” in its multiple self-contradictions.

What the Constitution actually did was, instead of being a document whose rules and provisions were to protect the rights and liberty of the individual, it empowered a centralized, federal government to rule over the masses, and gave such an institution monopoly powers. Those monopoly powers go against the very core of the rights of the individual and the individual’s freedom to choose amongst various competitors in various industries, in health care, retirement planning, food and nutrition, and many other areas.

19th Century individualist Lysander Spooner observed that the Constitution has “no inherent authority or obligation,” and that the Constitution’s alleged contractual obligations are to those who signed such a document, but not to others. (Members of the “Supreme” Court need to read more Lysander Spooner and less Barack Obama and Paul Krugman.)

Now, regarding Obama’s SovietCare and the idea of insurance mandates or government takeovers of the medical care industry (which has been Obama’s intention all along), Lew Rockwell noted that this socialized medicine is really “subsidizing sickness.” To me, health insurance discourages people to take care of themselves toward prevention of illnesses in the first place. An insurance mandate orders people to not act preventatively, and it implies that they should increase risky behaviors and lifestyles.

Unfortunately, rather than advocating personal responsibility and removing governmental restrictions on our medical freedom, politicians such as FDR, LBJ, Obama and Nancy Lugosi have gone the other way in diminishing our medical freedom and becoming more and more intrusive in our private personal matters.

But Hans-Hermann Hoppe had this better four-step solution to the health care situation in America:

  1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market…
  2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs…
  3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about…
  4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

As Hoppe noted, “only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.”

But, regardless how the Supreme Bureaucrats decide, and in addition to our exercising our right to nullify federal dictates, the real solution to protecting ourselves from clueless bureaucrats and their totalitarian medical intrusions is this: DON’T GET SICK!

Conservatives Do Not Believe in Personal Responsibility

In my post yesterday I noted that George Zimmerman was the aggressor between him and Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman felt that Martin was “suspicious,” based on Martin’s wearing the hoodie, and based on Zimmerman’s perception of Martin as “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman was the aggressor because he made the choice to actively stalk Martin. We can believe that it was a stalking, because, according to Martin’s girlfriend on the cell phone with him, Zimmerman was making Martin feel threatened. And, according to Martin’s girlfriend, Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.

While I do not see this as a race thing — just an aggression thing — there are some people who would be screaming “murder” and “death penalty” were Zimmerman (who stalked, threatened, shot and killed Martin) black and Martin (the victim) white.

Further reason to charge Zimmerman with either murder or manslaughter (or something) is that analysts have stated that they believe that the one yelling “Help!” that could be heard was Martin, not Zimmerman. Add that to these comments that were heard spoken by Zimmerman on his 911 call to police: “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something” and “these a******s they always get away.” So, this young guy leaving a store, walking not running, is, according to Zimmerman, an “a*****e.”

So in my post yesterday I was saying that the final result of Zimmerman’s aggression-stalking was his killing Martin, and for no good reason. Martin was running away from Zimmerman, because Martin saw that someone was following him and he felt threatened. (Duh.) So given that Zimmerman initiated this whole thing with his stalking and then acting aggressively against someone who had not shown any sign of criminality on his part, it is Zimmerman who is the responsible party. He started it. This reminds me of examples, on a much grander scale, of how politicians, police and bureaucrats who initiate acts of aggression do not take responsibility for it.

I don’t think that conservatives will be calling on Zimmerman to take responsibility for his aggressive actions. Conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility. For example, most conservatives support the War on Drugs. They believe that the nanny state must assume a communist ownership of the people and their bodies and must forbid people from putting certain chemicals into their bodies. Conservatives do not believe that the individual should be free to choose what chemicals to put into one’s own body and then take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions (with alcohol as well as drugs).

And conservatives tend to be blind, obedient and faithful supporters of the government-monopolized police. Day after day, however, we read of one cop after another involved in fatal shootings and other assaults against presumably innocent civilians, and they get away with it with impunity. The cops are above the law because they have a monopoly in community policing and security and monopolists are not accountable. Conservatives who don’t believe in personal responsibility just love this way of life. They love authority and armed power and might, and surely oppose the right of the individual to presumption of innocence (except for George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, as we can hear from those neanderthal talk hosts on the radio).

The thought of requiring cops to be responsible for their unwarranted aggression, even when they become actual murderers as well as criminal abusers of innocents, gives conservatives much anguish. No, let the government police get away with murder.

But on a grander scale in comparison to one individual choosing to stalk, chase, threaten, shoot and kill another, as George Zimmerman allegedly did, we have politicians who start wars on false pretenses and destroy entire countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as they engage in many incidents of bombings and shootings and drone bombings and murders of innocent civilians. But, as Jacob Hornberger noted in this recent article, conservatives do not believe that presidents who start wars of aggression as did George W. Bush, should take personal responsibility for those crimes of starting wars of aggression and murders of innocents.

But in my opinion, anyone who initiates aggression against others, no matter whether it’s on an individual level such as between Zimmerman and Martin, or on a grand level such as with Bush starting wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, is the aggressor, and a criminal. And he should be made to take responsibility for his criminal acts of aggression.

The way to have a peaceful, civilized society is to forbid and punish the initiation of aggression.

Can America’s Descent Possibly Be Reversed?

March 30, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by (Link to article)

My articles for LRC have been increasingly difficult and frustrating to write. More recently I have been trying to get people to understand America’s current police state. Yes, I have received some favorable emails when my articles have appeared, but there are also ones from those in denial, who refer to me as “nuts,” “conspiracy theorist,” and so on.

Now, to say that America is becoming like Nazi Germany is not an exaggeration. But too many people glance over such assertions in disbelief, perceiving such things as absurdities. They are in denial, and just do not want to believe what’s going on.

In my article on martial law, I emphasized that public officials are obligated to disobey unlawful orders, even those issued by the President of the United States. If the President orders suspension of civil liberties and basic rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, then governors, mayors, state troopers, police officers and military personnel must disobey those unlawful orders. Those officials have sworn to an oath to obey the Constitution, not to obey the President of the United States.

But we’re at war!” some people cry. No, sorry. Regardless of what the warmongers say, there is no time ever to excuse violations of the people’s rights and their liberty, during war or peacetime.

America is dangerous now, but the reason isn’t because of Islamic terrorists – it’s because of government bureaucrats, central planners run amok.

The problem is that bureaucrats who MUST have war and expanded powers, including suppression of civil liberties, will change the laws to suit their narcissistic needs for more power.

And America is dangerous because too many amongst the general population are no longer raised with a sense of moral values and personal responsibility. Americans seem to get easily swept up into a national fervor for war, for killing and death. Just look at these past ten years of destruction that our government has caused overseas, and the American people’s passive acceptance of it based on the government’s emotion-driven propaganda.

One item of evidence of America’s decline in decency and values is how America’s youngsters are so bloodthirstily drawn to the latest pop culture phenomenon called The Hunger Games, #1 on this week. Because of modern Americans’ craving for war and sadism, and because of their widespread support for the Bush-Obama wars of the past decade, Americans have become even more desensitized to violence.

But this series of books supposedly has an anti-war tone or message. However, I wonder how many people who have read the books (or have seen the movie) are more “anti-war” than they were previously.

In continuing their apparent militantly exceptionalist attitude, and with much ignorance as well (especially of Muslims), many Americans now seem to have an insatiable craving for violence, sadism, cruelty, torture, murder, blood and death.

Fifty or sixty years ago, when America was perhaps a little more decent and moral in general than it is now, in no way would so many parents have let their kids see this movie or read the books.

Like The Hunger Games, America has a corrupt, degenerate central government that has grown into a monstrous Leviathan, consisting of professional bureaucrats and politicians who seem to delight in pitting one group of Americans against another, with class warfare and governmental-provocation of racial conflicts, and struggles between police and civilians. It is as though Washington’s political class wants to see conflicts between armed government agents and everyday civilians, via the drug war, the “war on terror,” and thousands and thousands of needless regulations and laws that could cause the most innocent amongst us to be on the receiving end of a criminal S.W.A.T. team raid.

And now, Barack Obama is taking full advantage of the post-9/11 police state apparatus that the Bush-Cheney Administration set up. This is being used, in the name of “keeping us safe” and along with the massively intrusive ObamaCare in the name of “keeping us healthy and insured,” to gain even more control over the people’s lives, their fortunes, their businesses, associations and contracts.

Recent Unconstitutional Acts by Barack Obama and Congress:

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the President the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely anyone the president says is a “terrorist,” or a “terrorist supporter,” without providing any evidence against the accused.

NDAA is a clear and present danger to American liberty, a codification of dictatorship, and a treasonous act of turning the U.S. military against the people. And it is the reason why author Chris Hedges is suing Barack Obama.

Some legislators are claiming that they weren’t aware that in NDAA they voted for such removal of due process of Americans, but in fact, they knew exactly what they were doing.

And just recently, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the President’s self-granted power to assassinate Americans based on the President’s own judgment of guilt, without due process, without presenting any evidence of any kind.

But every human being who is accused of something has an inherent right to require that the accuser show evidence to prove such alleged guilt. No circumstances are too important – not wars, terrorism, and not economic collapse – that the government or Presidents be relieved of their burden to show evidence against the accused. recently compared these Washington policies to similar police state policies of Chile’s dictator General Augusto Pinochet during the 1970s. The NDAA law could now be considered as Washington’s reactionary and desperate response to political dissent and economic collapse.

Obama’s most recent extreme overreach was his signing the Executive Order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) order, which gives the President complete control over all resources within the U.S. territory including water and agriculture, energy, transportation and food, during war or emergency. But this revised version gives the President such supreme powers in peacetime.

In this new example of totalitarianism the President also seizes control over the nation’s labor forces, and it is not merely a demand to conscript Americans into the military, but to conscript Americans to serve in other non-military labor capacities, and during peacetime as well. (Hmmm. Sounds a little like communism, if you ask me.)

And with the FEMA camps, there is plenty of evidence that the U.S. government either foresees or is planning for some sort of catastrophic event, economic collapse, or civil unrest. In an intensive investigation by former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, the investigators found one “residential center” (video here, starts at about 25 minutes) with locked doors, barbed wire fencing facing the inside of the property, and a children’s playground. Officials at the center refused to give information about what the place was for. Investigators also found stacks of hundreds of thousands of coffins and plans for mass graves. Investigators found plenty of evidence that camps and rendition sites are to be used to deal with possible massive political dissent in America. (more here, here, here, here, here, and here)


No doubt many readers dismiss all this as “conspiracy theory,” and FEMA probably has its explanations such as preparations for possible biological warfare, mass epidemics, and so forth. (And we all know, after Katrina, just how competent FEMA is in managing disasters.) That all these acts by federal U.S. government bureaucrats – NDAA, NDRP, the power to detain or assassinate Americans without showing evidence against the accused, the FEMA camps and prison-like facilities – could actually be meant for devious purposes by political power-grabbers is something that most people just would not want to acknowledge. The thought that the U.S. government and U.S. military could be designating the American people as the enemy is a frightening thought.

Now, some people believe that Obama is using his new military dictatorship and detainment camps on behalf of various left-wing groups, such as the Weather Underground, to “transform America” into communist rule. But many of these police state policies and Homeland Security intrusions were begun by the Bush Administration and even by previous administrations, such as Jimmy Carter who first signed FEMA into existence, and the Reagan Administration that included Oliver North acting out of the White House basement and who eagerly called for martial law at the drop of a hat.

However, we also have seen testimony from the 1970s by an FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground, and who described how academic types such as Bill Ayers were allegedly plotting to bring down the U.S. government to make way for foreign communist regimes to occupy America, and that resisters and dissenters would be “eliminated.” Here is a brief video of the FBI agent’s descriptions:

Now, here is what I would say if I were really conspiratorial: I would suggest that the neocons’ aggressions overseas, with invasions and occupations, sanctions, and destroying Muslim countries to create blowback against America and to expand U.S. governmental powers abroad and at home, were to intentionally weaken America’s security and economy to help those leftist organizations. But I’m not saying that. (Although, those incompetent neocon central planners sure have been useful idiots for those leftists, at the very least).

But then, there really could be reason to suspect the neocon architects who screwed up the Middle East as having possible communist sympathies, given that several founding members of the neoconservative movement had been unapologetic “former” Trotskyites who seemed just as devoted to spreading their vision globally as were the communists.

These Cheney-Wolfowitz-Kristol neoconservatives are certainly not “conservative.” Their policies are fascist, with their passion for coveting the wealth and natural resources of foreigners and seizing control over so much property and resources in their own country.

But in my opinion, fascism is really communism with a mere façade of “private property.” Like the communists (and the Nazis), the neocons have been invading country after country (as has been their plan, especially in the Middle East), some covertly. Since 1990 the invasions and occupations have been more overt and for the purpose of expanding U.S. government bureaucracies and military and for U.S. government hegemony worldwide. (Hmmm. They sound like communists to me.)

Ben O’Neill’s recent article on the West’s economic structure tells us of the government-corporate complex, the breakdown of the rule of law, and how the political elites strive to maintain and strengthen their political and police powers at all costs.

The one major commonality between the neoconservatives and the Obama leftists is that both groups love central planning. But it is central planning that has been the cause for much of the destruction of modern civilization, in the Soviet Union, the current European Union and the United States. The left and the neocons have their utopian views of the ideal society, both being authoritarian, with total government control over the people.

As O’Neill points out, the central planning elites use war and conquest to foment nationalist fervor from the masses to get them to passively accept the elites’ massive intrusions, predations and crimes against them. The latest hysteria is the rush to war with Iran, based on propaganda that the government spoon-feeds the masses, despite Iran’s being completely surrounded by U.S. military bases and Israel having hundreds of nukes.

Obama has taken on the neocons’ warmongering abroad and domestic police state, combined with his seizing control over just about every aspect of daily life in America (e.g. ObamaCare). Now many Americans are leaving the country in droves, even though the government has been making it difficult for the people to leave, just as it was with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

This East German-born woman describes how the communists took everything away from the people and attempted to indoctrinate them to love the communist State. America was not meant to be this way.


The way out of this is to accept the fact that compulsory central planning leads to tyranny, and that we must decentralize America in order to save it. The Soviet Union learned the hard way.

But at least some states are trying to defend themselves from federal tyranny through nullification, of ObamaCare, and now of the NDAA law especially. So at least there’s some hope. (In this video, Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains the dangers of centralization and the advantages of small states.)

In our current situation of de facto martial law, now is a good time to remind governors, mayors, police, national guardsmen and military that any federal orders to arrest or detain Americans without charges or evidence, any suspension of one’s civil liberties and right to due process, are unlawful orders that military, state and local officials are obligated to disobey. If you know you have done nothing wrong, you have a right to defend yourself against unlawful arrest or detainment, and a right to resist being brought against your will to rendition camps.

Some Misc. Thoughts (Warning: Some Political Incorrectness)

I’m really getting sick of all this.

Controversial TV personality Bill Maher donated $1 million to an Obama for reelection PAC. Many are in an uproar at the hypocrisy of Maher who referred to Sarah Palin as a c-word among other insults, while Rush Limbaugh was pressured to apologize to a Catholic university law student for referring to her as a “slut.”

But, in my opinion, here is what Maher has done: Bill Maher has now financially endorsed the continued daily Obama-drone murders of innocent civilians overseas. Bill Maher has spent 1 million dollars in his endorsement of the NDAA law that gives Obama the power to have the military arrest and detain indefinitely any American Obama says is a “terrorist” or a “terrorist supporter,” even without any evidence to prove it. And Bill Maher has, of course, endorsed and paid for Obama’s power to murder anyone he calls a “terrorist” anywhere in the world, including Americans, including in their own homes, without showing any evidence to prove it.

Jim Davies has this piece at Strike the Root on the “God Question,” that links back to a previous article at that website. I think that Jim Davies might be one of those types who has the assumption that no god or creator exists (and my reference to God is as Creator). I have tried to make the point that, if you want evidence to show that a creator exists that created life then you can look in the mirror.

We really have two choices, in my opinion: Either we were created by some being of higher intelligence (yes, I know that we evolved from earlier forms, but I believe we were still created), or life as we come to understand it just happened to occur through random matter and particles just happening to come together to form such complex things as our heart and circulatory system, our brain and eyes and optic nerve, and concepts such as consciousness and thought and emotions. Do you really want to suggest that such complex things just happened to come to be out of total randomness and spontaneity? Well, to believe that would have to be out of faith, given the odds against it.

Aside from that, I don’t think it is constructive to ridicule people who believe in God or Creator, or to ridicule someone who believes there is no god and no creator. And I don’t particularly view my above assertions as out of any religious beliefs, because I am not particularly religious. In fact, to this day, I can’t understand how so many people still take the Bible as “The Word.” In my opinion, as I have noted here, the reason we have many decades of conflicts now associated with Israel is because of the Christian Zionists’, the Jewish Zionists’ and the Political Zionists’ century-long insistence that Israel or Palestine and ONLY that one territory MUST be the place for Jews worldwide, and based solely on their Bible, and for no other reason.

Sibel Edmonds has this post asserting that the black population in America would be up in arms over Obama’s re-colonization of Africa were he a white president doing it. I agree with that. Thanks to America’s government-controlled schools, and the imbeciles they produce, most Americans — black, white, and all points between — are clueless.

Electing a black president, the 1964-65 Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and other race-based laws and programs have done nothing good for race relations in the U.S. In 2008, Obomber had no record of achievement, but was good at reading off a teleprompter. Many people voted for him just because he was black, and they said so publicly. As long as each generation continues to pass along a collectivist way of thinking, this ignorance, this crap, will never end.

Racism is of collectivism. But America was founded on principles associated with individualism, individual freedom and individual rights. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said we should view people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Obama is someone of low-class character, and I’m not afraid to say it, just as George W. Bush is of low-class character. Anyone who STARTS a war is of the lowest, criminal class in my opinion. Starting wars against others, initiating war of aggression where YOU are the aggressor, is evil and is the beginning of new problems that beget even more problems. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Only evil, imbecilic morons START wars! And they don’t really think in the long-term of possible or likely consequences. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu (a.k.a. Nutty-Yahoo) will probably START a war on Iran, for no good reason, which will result in much blowback against Israel by Iran and/or the surrounding Muslim countries who will attack Israel on behalf of their fellow Muslims in Iran.

Many people have asserted that TPTB want there to be race riots in America with the chaos that an economic or societal collapse could bring about. TPTB want black people to blame white people, they want white people to blame black people, they want a war on immigrants, and they want what may be an increasing war between government/police and civilians. Anything to “Divide and Conquer.” TPTB want America to destroy itself as a nation, and then say that the “freedom experiment” didn’t work, and that multiculturalism and the “melting pot” don’t work. (And Bill Maher is funding all this with his waste of $1 million!)

The real cause of society’s problems has been the State, its aggressions against civilians, and its interferences in the people’s private, personal and economic lives. The problems of society will never end until you have real freedom, where all associations, relationships and contracts are voluntary, and coercion, force, and aggression are not allowed. A civilized, healthy and prosperous society will be one in which no individual may be permitted to be above the law, and there are otherwise no restrictions on anyone’s life as long as they do not initiate aggression against others. And that includes NO MONOPOLY by anyone in territorial protection or in community policing and security.

Another Chapter in the Story of Government Criminality

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (a.k.a. “Blago”) is now going to a federal prison in Colorado, for his conviction of attempting to sell or trade Barack Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat in exchange for cash or some high political appointment.

At the first trial, Blago was convicted of 1 count out of 24 counts against him, that of lying to the FBI. The prosecutors held a second trial, and at that trial he was then convicted of 17 of the charges related to the senate seat and related to extortion of state funds. Prior to the trials, Kevin Gutzman, author of James Madison and the Making of America, believed that federal prosecutor based the charges on a corruption of language related to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Between the two trials, Allan Stevo thought that Blago should sue the feds for defaming him.

And well known civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate, author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, added, in a more honest assessment of what our “justice” system has become (or perhaps always was),

It is only because of the nature of the instructions given to the jury by the trial judge as to the meaning of what is essentially a meaningless statute, the leeway given to prosecutors to make arguments to the jury that seek to criminalize politics-as-usual, and the failure of appellate courts to rein in the abusive uses of vague statutes, that Rod Blagojevich can be convicted for doing what just about any other political figure does from time to time.

And Becky Akers, columnist for, had been perhaps the most succinct in her observations:

Show me the politician who doesn’t swap favors and peddle influence as tirelessly as normal people breathe.

Despite the preening of Blago’s smug prosecutor, self-righteous judge and the State’s cheerleaders in the media, condemning the poor slob to 14 years’ imprisonment is equivalent to exterminating one rat out of the millions spreading plague in medieval Europe: it’s the teeniest, tiniest start on curing what ails us. Judge James Zagel should round up the rest of the elected or appointed leeches and herd them off to the pokey, too, then follow and lock the door behind himself.

As I’ve noted many times now, the whole system of compulsory government and our very communistic State ownership of the entire territory and State monopoly of territorial protection and the administration of justice — which is a flawed system and doomed to crash and burn — what we get are prosecutions based on politics and political cronyism and favoritism and not based on actual justice. Besides questionably criminal offenses by merely corrupt pols, the feds now are also going after totally innocent civilians who are minding their own business and trying to peacefully go about their everyday lives. The feds are the criminals now.

Western Governments: Symbols of Advanced Human Civilization

Many thanks now to the U.S. government’s “War on Terror,” the excuse for bureaucrats to further expand an already bloated federal government for the sake of power grabs of the elites and not anything to do with protecting 300 million Americans from terrorism. We now live in a banana republic dictatorship, in which the President may arrest and detain indefinitely, or murder anyone he wants and for any reason, without being required to show any evidence against the accused. Those who criticize the imbeciles of government and those who dissent from the Establishment Rule are being targeted. They must be silenced.

Speech and the freedom to express one’s views, even those that a majority of people perceive to be loathsome views, are no longer rights as protected by the First Amendment. The American culture’s modern phenomenon of political correctness, in which the littlest comment might offend someone and is therefore to be suppressed or punished, is a side effect of the government’s increasing war on dissent and criticism of the Regime.

In his column today, Andrew Napolitano asks, Can the Secret Service Tell You to Shut Up?  This is in reference to the bill passed in Congress and signed into law by Herr Obama to allow the Secret Service to, according to The Judge, “designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.” (Why didn’t Rand Paul vote against this totalitarian crap? Just asking.)

And in the People’s Republic of the U.K., a young, presumably Muslim guy was arrested and charged with “racially aggravated public-order offense,” for his angry tirade on a Facebook page. The kid expressed anger at the attention that British soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan received, whereas no one seems to notice the innocent families, the women and children murdered in Afghanistan on a daily basis. His language may have been “abusive,” and the government is concentrating on the alleged racial aspects of his tirade (which don’t exist), just because the kid is brown-skinned and the soldiers were white. And the media attention this is getting in U.K. seems to be concentrating on that racial tension as well. But this is really another in the governments’ war on free speech and the right to criticize the government and its crimes against innocents.

Governments initiate aggressions against its own people, against foreigners on other territories, and the bigger and more powerful the regime (such as the U.S.) the more intrusive, aggressive, brutal, dictatorial, repressive and murderous it will be. It is a natural consequence of allowing some people — government bureaucrats, police, soldiers — to be above the law, the same law, the rule of law, that all other non-government subjects must obey and follow.

In the “War on Terror,” the government has also been cracking down on the investigation and reporting on the illicit actions of the government. Governments and their bureaucrats especially do not want to allow journalists to uncover and expose the crimes of these governments, so they will expand their dictates against speech, the Press, and investigations.

One latest act of suppression of the Press by Herr Obama, according to Glenn Greenwald, has been Obama’s personal role in the imprisonment of a Yemeni journalist who helped to uncover that it was the U.S. military under Obama’s direction, and not the Yemeni military, that launched a drone attack that murdered many women and children (and not “militants”), as the State’s stenographers including the New York Times erroneously reported. Obama is cracking down on those reporters who dare to uncover the truth about who is doing what and to whom.

Meanwhile, the Left and progressives are silent as far as criticizing Obama is concerned, as opposed to their outrage at George W. Bush, even though Obama’s crimes have been more egregious. The Left have been intentionally suppressing the truth about Obama, as Conor Friedersdorf pointed out this week.

Ans as the Obama Administration continues to prosecute people for providing “material support” to terrorists, Glenn Greenwald also notes that Washington is filled with very influential hacks and elite bum-kissers who themselves are apparent terrorist-supporters in their cahoots with the Iranian group, MEK, or Mojahedin-e Khalq. Meanwhile, Obama and his minions continue to terrorize Americans at airports, on the highways with VIPR teams, federal S.W.A.T raids on innocent raw milk producers and farmers who provide actual food for their neighbors. And Obama and his minions continue to terrorize and murder innocent Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, and probably soon Syrians and Iranians.

But we better crack down on those who protest government encroachments, abuses, and violence. We better suppress speech of those with whom we disagree. Such as abortion protesters. According to this article, the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t like seeing protesters who are pro-life. So those who protest the murders of innocent unborn human beings, and those who protest the murders of innocent foreigners are to be silenced, arrested, and imprisoned.

My, how our society has advanced and progressed. A pro-death, anti-life society.

A recent poll asked people if they thought Obama was a Muslim. Many people thought so. The truth is, Obama is neither Muslim nor Christian. He is a statist. He, like millions and millions of Americans (and Brits, Chinese, Iranians, and more), worships the State. The State is their god. Don’t you dare go against the State. Don’t you dare question or criticize the State. And, God forbid, don’t even think about uncovering actual evidence of the crimes of the State, or you’ll be punished. Just ask Bradley Manning.

Private Businesses Have a Right to Establish Own Rules and Dress Codes

The British government bureaucrats say that people don’t have a right to wear a cross or crucifix at work, and two workers have taken them to court. However, it doesn’t seem that anyone is mentioning the real issue here. You have a right to free expression of your religion, of course, but not on someone else’s property or at a place of employment which is privately owned by someone else. The owner of the company has a private property right to establish whatever rules that apply to employees, and if the employees or prospective employees don’t like the rules, they should be free to go work somewhere else.

That case is totally different when a place of employment is publicly owned, however. In that case, it gets more complicated, in which, if an entity is publicly owned, everone has a right to express oneself in whatever way they wish. And that is another good reason why property, businesses and so forth should not be publicly owned.

A completely different situation is when the government establishes rules for everyone in society, other than just basic laws that should be absolute: No physical aggression except in self-defense, no theft or fraud, no trespassing. But if the government were to pass a law that said, “You can’t wear a cross” or, in the case of the fascist French government,  an Islamic headscarf, that is definitely a violation of the individual’s right to practice or express one’s religious beliefs in public.