Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Useful Idiot? Who, Me?

These people are occupied.

–White House correspondent Helen Thomas, commenting about Gaza and Israel

Last night on his radio show, Michael Savage must have played the tape of Helen Thomas telling the Jews in Israel to go back to Poland and Germany, or come to America, about a thousand times. His comments about Thomas were not what you would expect of someone of his intelligence and advanced scholarship (Ph.D., 2 Masters degrees, an educated and trained botanist and an epidemiologist, and historian and sociologist, author of many books). Savage referred to Thomas as “Hitler in a girdle,” and talking of her and Jewish anti-Israel abettors, as being “useful idiots” and “useful tools” for an “International Communist Conspiracy.”

I think that Savage and others should give Helen Thomas a break. She’s almost 90. She said that the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” referring to the land of Israel as being of the Arabs, and probably referring to the Jewish mass immigrations throughout the late 19th and 20th Centuries to the land of Israel. Savage made the point that the Jews were actually there thousands of years before that (at least as a majority). Well, if Savage wants to use that argument, then he would have to admit that the white Europeans came over to the North American continent and usurped and expropriated the lands here away from the natives who were originally here (presumably, for the same “thousands of years,” etc. etc.), but I don’t think he wants to do that. It’s complicated. Savage was also hypothetically comparing that to telling the black people in America to “go back to Africa,” which is an awful comparison. People have very good arguments on their side that lands in Israel were owned by Arabs, but were expropriated by the British Mandate and later the UN to house or relocate the immigrating Jews, but to compare that to Blacks who were brought over to America as property and made to be slaves? I don’t think so.

Savage is correct, in my opinion, that the leftist Obama supporters in America are “useful idiots” in promoting the Obommunists’ agenda in—and I’ll be blunt—organizing the government’s apparatus and its authority and power of compulsion over others to further enslave Americans more than they already are, and expropriate property and wealth from the working class and the producers to redistribute it (further) to the parasites, the professional bureaucrats, and the otherwise criminal class which is growing day by day now.

Now, I must object strongly to any characterization of ME as a “useful idiot” for Hamas, jihadists and Islamic extremists, etc., in my criticism of the Israeli government and what it has been doing to the Arabs and Palestinians of Israel and Gaza, and in my defense of the recent “Freedom Flotilla’s” right to pass through international waters and not be attacked by a gang of commando attackers (who actually began shooting from those helicopters), and the flotilla’s right to transport needed humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip, who are only getting a pittance of aid from the Israeli government. (Among other things, Karen Kwiatkowski wondered whether the Israelis had heard of tasers.) The people who are siding with Israel on this matter are really siding with the Israeli government, and do not know just how badly the government has been treating the Arabs there, and such ill treatment has been going on for many decades. I acknowledge that, while most of the people on board those flotilla vessels were genuinely there to transport aid for Gazans, that there were some “jihadists,” and Hamas supporters there, and that there may have been an intention among some there to deliberately provoke the Israeli military. However, if you are in international waters, and you are attacked, then you have a right to defend yourself. It may very well be that the real “useful idiots” are the Israeli government who may be playing into the hands of Hamas.

Many people who support the Israeli government are the same people who support the U.S. government’s war on terrorism abroad, and, like saying that what motivates the terrorists and extremists against the U.S. is because “they hate us for our freedom and our values,” they would be saying that what motivates Hamas and other Palestinian anti-Jewish organizations against Israel is because of their being Jewish. It may be that the extremist Islamist Arabs just “hate Jews” and “want to destroy them,” but, if you have any knowledge of post-1948 Israel and have a capacity for long-term thinking, you would understand that what motivates the Palestinians against Israel is because of how—and I’ll be blunt about this, too—the Jewish majority has been literally persecuting the Arab minority there, and such ill treatment has only been increasing in the last decade, and especially since nudnik Ariel Sharon forced the Jews out of Gaza in 2005. Within the Jewish Israeli community, anti-Arab racism/ethnicism/religionism has been on the increase, including the anti-Arab racism in Israeli schoolbooks, just as you would see the anti-Jewish racism in the Palestinian schoolbooks. Israel has become a society divided culturally, racially, religiously and ethnically. So what motivates the Arabs is primarily their reaction to the way they have been treated over generations now. It can compare to what motivates the Islamic terrorists against the U.S: it’s not because “they hate us for our freedom,” but because of many, many decades of intrusions into their territories and their societies by the U.S. government.

Many people in America get their information on the events in Israel from the Israeli media, who get their information, or more accurately, propaganda, from the Israeli government. Because of this, people just don’t know that the Israeli government have been literally preventing the Gazans from rebuilding their water and sewage treatment facilities, and, besides the economic sanctions imposed on the people of the Gaza Strip that have impoverished them, and the police state with which Israel has the Gazans locked in so no one can leave the area, the people there are living in unsanitary conditions with untreated water. I mentioned this a few days ago in this space, but I will repeat it. This is exactly like what the U.S. government did to the Iraqis in the 1990s following the elder President Bush’s invasion in 1990-91 of Iraq, the destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage treatment infrastructure, and subsequent sanctions and literally preventing the Iraqis from rebuilding the damaged infrastructure. And that was before the 2003 U.S. war on Iraq that further destroyed that country. The treatment of the Gazans by the Israelis now is as disgusting and rotten as was the treatment of Iraqis by the U.S. government throughout the 1990s!

There are some people who have been calling neoconservatives “useful idiots” for their support of the socialist military-industrial-complex, but it may be that the neoconservatives could be “useful idiots” for both the communistic one-world-government crackpots and the Islamic extremist nutsos as well. Just as the Israelis may be playing into the hands of Hamas as mentioned above, the American neoconservatives may have been playing into the hands of the Islamists and Al-Qaeda, by, instead of recognizing that the terrorists have been reacting to all the intrusions and trespassing into their territories by the U.S. government for many decades and thus stop doing that, the neoconservatives have been supporting MORE intrusions and invasions into the Middle-East with such actions not only eliciting MORE motivations against America but ending up wrecking the United States of America, which is what Al-Qaeda and other wackos want. Additionally, after the neoconservatives transferred their (alleged) hate of communism to Islamic extremists because of the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives have actually become the communists they hate by engaging in such a Big Government socialist expansionism of the centralized, bureaucratic U.S. government at home and abroad, expanding the reach of the U.S. government into other territories just as the Soviet communists did, AND the neoconservatives having the U.S. government spy on (and engage in assassinations, torture and indefinite detention without due process) their fellow citizens which the Soviet communists also did. Such actions have been feeding the One-Worlder wacko New World Order commie-fascists (like the Bushes and the Wolfowitz-Perle-Kristol-Podhoretzes, as well as the Krugman-Alinsky-Clinton Obommunists).

I hear so many conservatives preaching about “moral values,” but I haven’t been hearing any of them speaking out against the terrible, immoral treatment of the Palestinians especially in Gaza by the Israeli government, or speaking out against the CIA’s use of remote-control drone bombings and murder of innocent human beings in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Americans and Israelis Are Generally Good People, But Our Governments’ Actions Are Counter-Productive

There was an attack Monday by the Israeli military on a 6-ship flotilla, a part of the Free Gaza Movement, which was bringing much needed humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza. The humanitarian activists of the flotilla were warned by Israel to not attempt to get through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Israel had said that it would allow the transportation by land of the humanitarian aid, following inspection for security reasons. Israel had allowed some shipments of humanitarian aid to get to Gaza between 2007 and the Gaza War of 2009-09, but not since the war. On the one hand, we have an economically collapsed and impoverished Gaza and their desperate supporters who want to help the people there, and who perhaps should have listened to the Israelis’ warnings, and now over 15 of them are killed. On the other hand, we have an overly-militaristic and somewhat paranoid Israeli government that goes overboard in its attempt to protect Israelis from possible terrorist attacks, a result of government-monopolization of territorial security.

It is extremely difficult to know what to believe when both sides give differing accounts of specific events. And the videos I’ve seen are not helpful. Of course, Israel’s radio jamming and censorship regarding this fiasco doesn’t help matters. When the Israeli government has to do radio jamming and censoring, immediately that makes me suspicious. Why do they have to do that, except to engage in covering up information, covering up the truth, and helping their own propagandizing? And it makes me more skeptical of the legitimacy of reports that the Israeli government found a weapons cache on board the ships. While some have accused the flotilla of smuggling weapons to Hamas, the Turkish PM stated that the flotilla was inspected for weapons before being allowed to take off.

The flotilla contained 600 people, mostly activists.  However, there is reason to believe that, while most of the intent was to bring tons of humanitarian aid to the Gazans, some of the intent may have been to “bring attention to the Israeli siege of Gaza.” Which does deserve attention, in my opinion, as such a siege and blockage (one might describe more accurately as “sanctions”) have received condemnation from many major international human rights organizations. The Israeli government’s treatment of the people of Gaza has been described as a “collective prison.”

Meanwhile, Turkey accuses Israel of “state terrorism,” as reported by the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper, and Israeli PM Netanyahu claims the military acted in “self-defense,” according to the pro-Israeli government Jerusalem Post. The U.K. Guardian compares the Israeli action to Somali pirates. And Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald notes,

….The flotilla attacked by Israel last night was carrying materials such as cement, water purifiers, and other building materials, much of which Israel refuses to let pass into Gaza.  At the end of 2009, a U.N. report found that “insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory,” and also “blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare parts needed for repair get through the crossings.”

It hardly seemed possible for Israel — after its brutal devastation of Gaza and its ongoing blockade — to engage in more heinous and repugnant crimes.  But by attacking a flotilla in international waters carrying humanitarian aid, and slaughtering at least 10 people, Israel has managed to do exactly that.  If Israel’s goal were to provoke as much disgust and contempt for it as possible, it’s hard to imagine how it could be doing a better job….

Mondoweiss‘s Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz had this early report, and Moshe Yaroni calls the action “Israel’s Kent State”, an example of government’s overreaction to civil disobedience:

….We begin with the point that these were civilian ships and Israel boarded them with commandoes—soldiers who are disposed toward combat situations and are not meant to police unarmed civilians. They’re fighters, that’s their purpose. But the IDF claims that an assortment of international activists deliberately provoked a violent confrontation (using potentially deadly weapons, but which still leave them ridiculously overmatched) against heavily armed and trained soldiers in order to “lynch them.”

Does that seem remotely credible? It only seems so if you believe the activists on board these ships were willing to risk and actually sacrifice their lives in order to create a scandal for Israel. Of course, Israeli hasbara (propaganda) is well-practiced in casting all Arabs and Muslims as suicidal lunatics, aided by the suicide bombers who represent an infinitesimal percentage of those populations. But this collection of international activists, including many Jews, Americans and Europeans, apparently are also willing to give their lives, and rather cheaply, according to this story.

No, the IDF version of these events doesn’t begin to pass the laugh test.

When I first heard confirmed reports of this massacre, I thought of the Kent State shootings in 1970….

But at Kent State, the shootings resulted from high tensions and one person losing control, causing others to follow his lead. Was that the case here? I suppose one must allow the possibility, but the quick response of the government certainly gives the appearance that it was not that simple….

While the aid flotilla is of the Free Gaza Movement, which is an international human rights organization to shine the spotlight on the Israeli blockade of Gaza that prevents humanitarian aid from getting to Gaza, Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick nevertheless refers to it as a “Hamas flotilla” and the killed civilian activists as “Hamas supporters.” That is pure propaganda, given that the purpose of the flotilla primarily is to get the tons of humanitarian supplies to the Palestinians in Gaza, and, in fact, the Free Gaza website doesn’t even mention Hamas, except in some posted news items. And some of the more conservative opinion-oriented websites I’ve seen have the words activist and humanitarian aid in quotation marks, to show their blind trust in the Israeli government’s and mainstream media’s reporting on this fiasco.

The situation in Gaza is that the Israeli military caused much of Gaza’s destruction during the  ’08-’09 war, and with the blockade they have been preventing the rebuilding of the area as well as preventing basic medical supplies and foods to get into Gaza. It is very similar to the U.S. government’s bombing of Iraqi infrastructures including water treatment and sewage facilities, followed by U.S. and U.N.- imposed sanctions that prevented the rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructures and deliberately promoting disease including cancer and increased child mortality rates throughout the 1990s.

To some people, unfortunately, any criticism of the Israeli government just sticks in their craw, and is seen as literally blasphemous, as anti-Semitic, as “pro-terrorist.” They just cannot fathom the possibility that the Israeli government and military themselves are capable of committing terrorist acts, and of persecuting a segment of a population. Well, let me tell you something. The Jews do not own “being persecuted.” The Jews do not own “prison camps.” It actually can happen to people among other religions, other races and cultures, and it actually can be committed by Jews.

There is a problem among many people, however, and that is the inability to distinguish between people of a particular territory and their government. Neoconservatives such as Glick mentioned above do not seem to distinguish between the Gaza Palestinians in general and the Gaza territory’s governing agency Hamas. It is a tiny minority of extremist groups such as Hamas who have been committing the terrorist acts, and it is Hamas whose charter includes specific references to the destruction of Israel. Likewise, it is necessary to distinguish between the people of Israel and the Israeli government, just as it is necessary to distinguish between Americans and their government. It is not Americans who have been intruding and destroying Middle-Eastern countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but the U.S. government.

And it seems that so many war supporters in the U.S. do not want to recognize that a major motivation for the terrorism or terrorist attempts against the U.S. has been the terrorists’ reaction to the intrusive and violent actions of the U.S. government in the Middle-East. This analysis is not one of “Blame America.” Rather it is “Blame the U.S. Government,” a group of professional career politicians and parasitic bureaucrats who have no sense of long range planning, no sense of national sovereignty and no sense of morality. The same can be said of the Israeli government. The terrorist acts against the U.S. are examples of blowback for invasive and destructive U.S. policies, and terrorist acts against Israel have been blowback for the Israeli government’s destructive and immoral policies, particularly with Gaza. And we are already seeing the blowback of the Israeli government’s actions this week in Turkey.

A lot of people will feel offended by my description of the Israeli government’s apartheid of treating Palestinians or Arabs as second class citizens. They either do not know about it, or they do know but don’t care or feel it is justified. There is a double standard by those who say, “Never Forget” about the way Nazi Germany persecuted the Jews and others, but who look the other way when it is the Jews doing the persecuting. The problems we face are caused by State’s governments. It is the agents of the State who are doing the persecuting.

This situation this week is a typical example of the State vs. the people. The one big difference between governments and other institutions is that governments (or “States”) have the power of compulsion over others, and have government- and police-protected monopolies of various endeavors, especially territorial protection. That’s where we go wrong. First of all, no institution should have the power of compulsion over others, because that’s simply immoral, no matter how it is rationalized. And second, anyone who understands economics and basic human action knows that any monopoly which is protected by the State, by aggression, will be automatically corrupted by power, and thus its effectiveness diminished and its ability to provide actual quality of service smooshed. The bigger and more powerful the State, the more totalitarian will be its treatment of the people over whom the State rules. That is an inherent part of compulsory, monopolistic States. Israel is no different.

ACORN, “Stealth Socialism” and Desocializing America

I am not surprised that an Obama ACORN insider has exposed how the Obama ACORN agenda is one of “stealth socialism,” given how dishonest and immoral socialism is. However, even that’s not totally accurate, given that our society is already a socialist (and fascist) one, going back to even before FDR, with his New Raw Deal that gave us real time redistribution of wealth from workers’ paychecks to retired persons’ (and others’) bank accounts, and more recently from middle-class working Americans to already wealthy Wall Street executives and the UAW.

More accurately, what the Obama-ACORN stealth agenda is really aimed toward is a communist society. Communism is really the cumulative result of gradually increasing socialist government-imposed and mandated policies, finally becoming a society of total state ownership and control of all property and the means of production including the people, with no individual rights and requiring total submission of the individual to the will and power of the state.

The American Founders created a new country with the greatest amount of freedom in the history of mankind, and it all went downhill from that point onward with the creation of a federal government and a constitution. The Founders were actually capitalists, or advocates of free markets, voluntary exchange and voluntary association, and private property rights. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence tells us that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We need to re-capitalize America, return to the freedom that the Founders promised us. And there is no “stealth” involved in such a transition, because capitalism and freedom are honest and moral, and there’s no need to hide anything.

For example, Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve is an attempt to force openness in Washington. As Murray Rothbard asked, What Has Government Done to Our Money? But some people have accused Paul’s bill to audit the Fed as a “stealth” way to end the Fed, even though Paul has been out in the open about that, he wants to End the Fed! He wrote a whole book about that, for crying out loud! But his bill to merely audit the Fed has been gutted and shredded and thrown in with other larger bills whose writers are of ill intent, such as in the recent financial regulatory bill. However, that Chris “Countrywide” Dodd Senate bill yanked out the amendment to audit the Fed, and will further strengthen the Fed’s power and control over the banking industry and our personal and financial freedom. Not good. No audit means that this vulture of an institution will continue to work in secrecy, like many fascist regimes we have seen.

You will see how our entire government-controlled financial system is now collapsing, because it is government-controlled. President Abraham Lincoln’s Legal Tender laws forced Americans to have to use the U.S. government’s currency for trade and commerce, whether they liked it or not. This fascism was cemented further with that Federal Reserve. The politicians and bureaucrats of the federal government made sure that Americans would be enslaved by the forbiddance of any possible competing currencies, and the politicians’ and bureaucrats’ power and control was strengthened by forcing Americans to be dependent on that government-counterfeited-produced and distributed money. This dependence and enslavement is a major factor in the collapsing of the economy. It compares to how our security has been made weaker by forcing us to be dependent on government-monopolized control over America’s territorial protection. As competing security production is forbidden, politicians and bureaucrats monopolize the business of protection, and thus through military socialism they abuse the power they are given and misuse those government powers to provoke elements overseas, as a means of further expanding and strengthening the federal government and their positions of power. Justin Raimondo has a good piece today on our wonderful federal government’s ability to lie to get the American people to accept further expansion and further intrusions of the federal government, and further diminution of our liberty, and further destruction of other societies. You want “stealth?” You got it.

Capitalizing the nation, that is, freeing people of the intrusions and aggression of the state will not be by stealth, because freedom is not dishonest nor immoral as is the tyranny of our socialist state.

Murray Rothbard wrote How and How Not to Desocialize. He starts by declaring at the start: Do not phase in:

It is well known that the giant socialist bureaucracy will only seize upon such delay to obstruct the goal altogether. But there are further important reasons for speed. One, because the free market is an interconnected web or lattice-work; it is made of innumerable parts which intricately mesh together through a network of producers and entrepreneurs exchanging property titles, motivated by a search for profits and avoidance of losses, and calculating by means of a free price system.

Holding back, freeing only a few areas at a time, will only impose continuous distortions that will cripple the workings of the market and discredit it in the eyes of an already fearful and suspicious public. But there is also another vital point: the fact that you cannot plan markets applies also to planning for phasing them in. Much as they might delude themselves otherwise, governments and their economic advisers are not in a position of wise Olympians above the economic arena, carefully planning to install the market step by measured step, deciding what to do first, what second, etc. Economists and bureaucrats are no better at planning phase-ins than they are at dictating any other aspect of the market.

To achieve genuine freedom, the role of government and its advisers must be confined to setting their subjects free, as fast and as completely as it takes to unlock their shackles. After that, the proper role of government and its advisers is to get and keep out of the subjects’ way.

And Lew Rockwell has a 30-day plan for the desocializing (i.e. returning to freedom) of America. Here are some of my favorite of those days:

…DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities.

DAY FOUR: The minimum wage is reduced to zero, creating jobs for ex-federal bureaucrats at their market wage. All pro-union laws and regulations are scrapped. The jobless rate falls dramatically….

….DAY SIX: The Department of Commerce is abolished. Big business has to make its own way in the world, without subsidies and privileges at the expense of its competitors and customers.

DAY SEVEN: The plug is pulled on the Department of Energy. Oil and gas prices plummet.

DAY EIGHT: All regulatory agencies, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, are deep-sixed. Competition is legalized….

DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.

DAY THIRTEEN: Federal deposit insurance is scrapped. All insured deposits are redeemed from federal assets, which include the personal assets of high-level government employees. The threat of bank runs forces banks to keep 100% reserves for their demand deposits, and prudent reserves on all other accounts. There are no more inherently bankrupt banks propped up by the government, at taxpayer expense, and no more bail-outs….

….DAY EIGHTEEN: The Justice Department shutters its anti-trust division. Companies, big and small, are free to merge – up, down, or sideways. Stockholders can buy any other company, or sell their stock to anyone else. Marginal producers can no longer battle their competitors with bureaucratic weapons.

DAY NINETEEN: The Department of Education flunks the constitutionality test, and is kicked out. Private charities set up remedial reading and writing programs for the former bureaucrats. Federally subsidized sex education and other anti-family programs go out of business. Local school districts become responsive to parents or close, pressured by a fast-growing private school sector (which many more parents can now afford)….

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Porno artists have to earn their own livings, as the National Endowment for the Arts tries to raise its budget through sidewalk painting sales.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Foreign aid is outlawed as unconstitutional, unjust, and un-economic. Foreign politicians have to steal their own money. The World Bank, IMF, and United Nations close their super-luxurious doors….

In Connecticut, Blumenthal Isn’t the Only Degenerate

It appears that former Connecticut Republican Congressman Rob Simmons has “suspended” his campaign for the U.S. Senate to replace the overtly-corrupt Chris Dodd, whose actions as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee contributed directly to the nation’s financial collapse. Simmons wanted to replace Dodd in order to do even more damage to our economy. The CT state Republican convention gave Linda McMahon, a former World Wrestling executive (I’m not making that up), the nomination, although the other Republican candidate, investment analyst Peter Schiff, has said that he will attempt to get enough petition signatures to get his name on the August primary ballot.

Peter Schiff’s views mostly mirror my “libertarian” views, and he has said that he wants to dismantle much of the federal government because most of it is unconstitutional and violates our liberty directly and indirectly. Linda McMahon’s views are largely statist, she has no political experience and has spent the last 30 years in the “professional wrestling industry.” Her rhetoric has been somewhat conservative, such as advocating “cutting taxes and spending,” but after the information I’ve reviewed it appears as though she is very much like Scott Brown (i.e. a political opportunist who wants to get to a position of power for power’s sake).

Now, if what Peter Schiff has asserted is true, that McMahon’s people at the convention deliberately lied that Schiff dropped out of the race, in order to take his delegates’ votes and prevent Schiff from getting his name on the ballot, then my conclusion about McMahon is that she’s probably a sleazebag. Further information about McMahon reinforces that conclusion, such as her contributions to Rahm Emanuel’s congressional campaigns, Democrat governor of Virginia Mark Warner and 2 other Democrats running for Congress.

Also, McMahon has stated that she will spend $50 Million of her own money to get her elected if she has to. Now, if someone is so desperate to get her hands on the reins of power that she would spend $50 million of her own personal fortune, there’s something wrong with that character! (And the same behavior told us a lot about Willard Romney, who spent $40 million of his own person wealth in his drooling run for the presidency! And he wants to do it…AGAIN! Yeah, we should really elect someone president with THAT kind of judgment! But I digress.)

Can’t Linda McMahon perhaps serve her fellow citizens by establishing a school (in the dreaded private sector) in which promising children can be taught the important basics of reading and math, and especially economics and history, so the next generation won’t make the same stupid mistakes as ours is making? Or start some other kind of business that actually serves the public’s needs in some other area? Why waste so much money on a campaign?

You can call me an “elitist” if you want, but I find McMahon’s many years with the World Wrestling Federation, now called World Wrestling Entertainment, somewhat distressing. I don’t look down my nose at those kinds of entertainment that obviously deliver what many Americans seem to want and are willing to pay a lot of money for. But some aspects of it are a little disturbing, such as “simulated sex and rape scenes” and feigning a coma in a wheelchair, although the steroids scandal doesn’t seem to bother me, as it doesn’t bother me in the sports area.

However, after seeing an article at today by Glenn Jacobs who supposedly portrayed someone named “Kane” in the WWE, then perhaps I have been a bit prejudiced. That article, Property Rights, Liberty and Immigration gives us much understanding of the immigration issue and of private property rights, and issues pertaining to the relationship between individuals and the State. I will try to no longer be prejudiced regarding members or former members of the WWE.

But my conclusion nevertheless about Linda McMahon is, especially if it’s true that her supporters lied about Peter Schiff to take away his delegates, she shouldn’t win this nomination for that office. (I’m not one to make any endorsements, because I’m for getting rid of the federal government, because it is nothing but parasitic and dangerous, but you might want to contribute to Peter Schiff’s campaign.)

Now, one reason a lot of Tea Partiers and conservatives who are supporting Schiff have some reservations (as many did about Ron Paul in ’08) is his position on foreign policy. Schiff agrees with most of our Founding Fathers, that the U.S. government should not be a playpen for militarists who get off on expanding the U.S. federal government’s power overseas to trespass on other countries’ soil. Schiff believes that the U.S. government should not be used to tax Americans for redistributionist schemes to serve foreign countries, providing their defense and other welfare to people in other territories, because that is NOT why the U.S. government was founded. Schiff also believes that the U.S. military should not be used to invade and occupy other countries and prop up dictators and theocratic governments who oppress their people. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that Schiff understands that the reason for such an increase in terrorism and extremist hatred for the United States is not to do with Americans’ “way of life” or our freedom, but because those people in those other countries don’t like their territories being invaded and occupied by foreigners (U.S. government forces) who don’t belong there. By and large, that would be the biggest reason why the conservatives who might otherwise vote for Peter Schiff won’t vote for him: because they believe the propaganda that out government officials have been telling them especially these last 20 years since George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq in 1990-91.

You Want Financial Reform? End the Fed!

The Chris Dodd Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 that passed the Senate is yet another Orwellian “reform” legislative piece of crap that should have been titled, “Restoring American Financial Instability,” because all this will do is give the executive branch more power to usurp control away from the legislative branch of the federal government. After all, the one and only sponsor of this garbage (No co-sponsors—I wonder why), Chris “Countrywide” Dodd, and his congressional cohort Barney Stank are what caused the meltdown in the first place! The Powerline Blog cites Clean Government Now‘s comments:

– Financial Stability Oversight Council: 9 Mandarins who will “identify risks” and sweep anything deemed “risky” under the Federal Reserve’s purview. Chaired by the Treasury Secretary, this new Council of Trent will have strange and surprising powers. Mind you, we now have a Treasury Secretary who gleefully admits he “has never held a real job”. But not to worry, this new “Office of Financial Research” will be staffed with “highly sophisticated economists, accountants, lawyers, supervisors , and other specialists” according to the Dodd release. What is missing? How about someone who has actually worked in the securities industry or in banking? … To a Washington bureaucrat, stepping outside in a drizzle is a risk. Risk and reward are tied together and that is what people in the actual world estimate every day … again, with consequences.

– Ending too Big to Fail Bailouts: Almost all the TARP money that went to banks was paid back. And most banks never wanted the money in the first place. Who was really bailed out? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To the tune of hundreds of billions. Does this bill have anything to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? No. It has absolutely nothing to do with the entities that were actually bailed out. There are many dishonest provisions of the Financial Reform package, but the most dishonest one is the notion that it addresses in any way shape or form too big to fail. By getting Washington all that more in bed with Wall Street, you absolutely guarantee that too big to fail simply means: not connected enough to fail.

And thanks, Scott Brown! You Betcha!

This further ruining of America’s freedom and prosperity and further strengthening of the federal government goes to Senate-House reconciliation this week. I urge everyone to contact their congressman and senators to vote against the final legislation.

Goodbye, Blumenthal

It appears that Connecticut’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now Connecticut’s Liar General Richard Blumenthal. The New York Times—of all papers—has raked Blumenthal over the coals for his lying about his Vietnam experiences, or lack thereof (unless this turns out to be another Jayson Blair fiasco—I hope not).

(And it appears that 23-year-old Adam Wheeler is following in Blumenthal’s footsteps, and has a promising career in politics.)

Here is a classic interview by Glenn Beck (with fangs and claws firmly in place) of Connecticut Attorney Liar General Richard Milhaus Blumenthal:

More Bad Decisions By the U.S. ‘Supreme Court’

The ‘Supreme Court’ today ruled that juveniles can’t be sentenced for life in prison without parole for crimes other than murder. If they committed a crime other than murder, such as the home invasion burglary and armed robbery involved in today’s decision, then life in prison without parole is ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that, although I don’t particularly agree with the State’s having a monopoly in judicial decision-making.

The real solution to those problems is to get rid of all gun control, get rid of all restrictions on citizens’ rights to possess weapons and defend themselves. If the victim of the home invasion and armed robbery in today’s case were armed, then we wouldn’t have even had this case brought to the ‘Supreme Court.’

The court also rejected Cablevision’s challenge to a federal statute that forced the cable company’s systems to carry a broadcast TV station’s broadcasts. Solicitor General and nominee for said Supreme Court Elena Cajun argued on behalf of the government to reject the challenge.

Hmmm. So this means that it’s okay for the federal government to force a private communications company to include on their systems broadcast outlets that the private company may not wish to include. The camel is advancing into the tent, and this is just more cutting away of First Amendment.

An even worse decision today than those was SCOTUS’s decision that Congress may hold criminals ‘indefinitely’ if they are considered ‘dangerous.’ Nancy Lugosi thinks that Tea Partiers are ‘dangerous.’ However, according to the L.A. Times,

Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia set out the small-government theory of congressional power that has been voiced by those challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare mandate. Thomas said Congress has only the “powers enumerated in the Constitution,” and holding prisoners beyond their term goes beyond a specific enumerated power.

Hooray, Thomas and Scalia! (Unfortunately, they were in the minority, and we can safely predict that Elena Cajun will be in the ‘More Power to the Feds’ crowd.)

Obama? Freedom of the Press? (What a Joke!)

Barack Obama signs the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act into law today. Here’s the bill. The new law will have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issue a report to see

What steps the government of each…country has taken to preserve the safety and independence of the media, and to ensure the prosecution of those individuals who attack or murder journalists.

Preserve the “independence of the media“? The U.S. government preserving the independence of the media? (Good luck! Especially with Cass Sunstein who wants to ‘infiltrate’ Internet web sites and chat rooms, and otherwise vomit his Obama Regime propaganda even more than they already have with their flunkies and cronies in the mainstream news media!)

And this just a week after Obama states at a graduation ceremony that there’s too much ‘distracting’ (i.e. non-Obama Regime-approved) information out there (that must be suppressed by government force).

And the law will provide government grants to

promote and broaden press freedoms by strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations, promoting a legal framework for freedom of the press, or through providing regionally and culturally relevant training and professionalization of skills to meet international standards in both traditional and digital media.

Of course, will Madam Secretary Clinton offer government grants to libertarian or Tea Party-type media organizations? (Now, THAT’s the dumb question of the day!)

Well, look on the bright side. If the Obomber Administration does do something that effects in the suppression of anyone’s right of free speech, we can sue the administration with the very law that Obomber will have signed today.

The Ignorance, Irrationality and Violence of the Left and the State

There have been many reasons why people have used the political and coercive apparatus of the State,  particularly the federal government, to further a political agenda, to further their own careers in public parasitism, or to act out a particular fantasized plan that some feel the rest of the world ought to follow. For example, in recent years, there has been a mass psychosis of believing that the U.S. government’s past decade of invasions and occupations and expanding quagmires in Middle-Eastern countries could possibly protect America from Islamic extremists, rather than understanding that the people of those other countries have been reacting against many decades of the U.S. government’s invading and occupying those territories. The rational way to protect America would be to stop doing the invading and occupying that the U.S. government has been doing for many decades.

Further irrationality and psychosis has been the ramming through of a massive America-destroying fascist medical plan, one that was characterized as cost-saving yet will be deficit-causing and debt-increasing, and will totally paralyze the medical system as we know it. I think that while some of the motivations behind the passage of that plan into law were to give unions and other special interests special privileges, a majority of its supporters in congress were mainly motivated by irrational fantasizing and actually believing in a most psychotic way that centralizing and government-bureaucratizing the medical system will actually effect in serving more people with better and more efficient medical care. (Gag me with a spoon, as the Valley Girl would say.)

The people of the Left, politicians, activists, etc. have been continually enacting laws upon laws, and regulations upon regulations and taxes, taxes, taxes, that ALL of history constantly tells us will destroy the economy and prosperity, and further the impoverishment of the masses, yet they continue to do this out of a psychotic, irrational make-believe fantasy-world that is totally separate from reality. And when I refer to the “Left,” that includes Republicans and conservatives, because they have been supportive of all the social programs and regulations and interventions, and foreign interventions as well. Foreign interventionism comes from the Left. These are people who have been supporting the statism, socialism and fascism that has just about completely destroyed America. After the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires, there will be Pakistan and shortly Iran quagmires (and more murdering of innocents), and after all the bailouts and more bailouts and stimuluses, and the medical fascism law and soon ‘Cap and Trade,’ America will have been completely wrecked by people who live in a fantasy-world and who got to where they are with good rhetorical demagogic skills, but not with any particularly good intellectual skills, and certainly not by having produced anything of actual value to others.

It still really bothers me when I hear people especially conservatives refer to a certain group as ‘liberals,’ and refer to ‘liberalism,’ when they are talking about people whose philosophy and agenda are the exact opposite of what ‘liberalism’ really is.

I know, Michael Savage wrote the book, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, when he was really  referring to statism, socialism, fascism and communism. ‘Liberalism’ means (at least in my own definition of it) to advocate being free from aggression, particularly freedom from the aggression of the State, to ‘liberalize.’ The American Revolutionaries were ‘liberals’ and advocated ‘liberalism,’ which is why they approved the Declaration of Independence, which promoted the recognition of the rights of the individual to life and liberty, the right to ‘abolish’ tyrannical governments like the monstrous federal government we have now.

I’ve been using the word ‘leftists’ to describe the people whom Savage and Rush Limbaugh and others are talking about, and, to me, ‘The Left’ describes anyone who does not believe in the absolute rights of voluntary exchange and voluntary association and contract, and private property rights. A little earlier, I referred to foreign interventionism as being on the left. That would make the two Bush presidents be on the left. From the left is socialism, communism and fascism, whereas from the right is capitalism, which consists of associations and markets free from aggression and coercion.

Such an assertion, of the two Bush presidents being on the left, could be more understood first by noting that their actions of initiating aggression against other countries were just that: the initiation of aggression, against Iraq and against Afghanistan. (Afghanistan did not attack the U.S., the U.S. government attacked and invaded Afghanistan.) The initiation of aggression and violence against others, especially by agents of the State, is an act coming from the left. If you are actually able to step back and view those two Bushes from a distance, you will see their leftism for what it is, or was, in their socialist domestic policies, and see how connected domestic interventionism is with foreign interventionism, everything from the elder President Bush’s raising taxes and the 1990 version of ‘Cap and Trade‘ to the younger Bush’s prescription drug program, socialist Wall Street Bailout and his signing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The two Bushes were hardly ‘capitalists’!!

The statists and leftists have been fantasizing that intruding into the lives of fellow citizens will help those fellow citizens in some way, and intruding into the territories and cultures of foreign peoples will help them in some way. (It hasn’t helped.)

If only people could see that, while the Founders’ creating a new country of freedom, America, was a good idea, the creation of a federal government was a mistake from the very beginning. Centralizing control over a population of millions of people, over an area of thousands of miles, and bureaucratizing life to be controlled in a centralized DC just doesn’t work. It has never worked, and it never will, because of the impracticality and destructiveness of institutionalized monopoly, and the immorality of giving some people the power of compulsion over others. As Hans Hoppe noted, the idea of ‘limited government’ is just impossible (as Perry Como would say).

We have to get rid of the federal government, let the individual states have the independence and sovereignty that the Founders intended them to have. And do what Murray Rothbard suggested, “repudiate the national debt.”

In Defense of the Internet Blogosphere: Will Elena Kagan Approve of All the Censorship Fascism That Obama Wants To Inflict On Us?

Given that Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is anti-freedom of speech, as noted in my previous post, and knowing how hostile Obama himself is to free speech, and members of his administration as well, when they do start censoring the Internet as a further means of controlling the population (and particularly the honest, objective reporting you can find on the Internet nowadays and NOT in the mainstream media such the New York Times or CBSNews), they will probably be taking down blogs such as these:

Such as this post by business analyst and Mises Institute contributor Jim Fedako on Marxist teachers indoctrinating their students with their Marxist claptrap. Is this post something that Barack Obomber will want to censor, and would that be approved by a Justice Kagan?

“Marx is not all wrong”

Not my quote. And it isn’t from my good friends over at The quote is actually from a recent edition of Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education – published by Columbia University’s Teachers College, the ideological center of public education.

While economic Marxism is gone (or hidden behind the veil of Keynesianism), cultural Marxism is alive and well in most colleges and universities, along with all public schools.

Who else believes this nonsense:

The second reason is that Marx is not all wrong. Workers have become alienated from what they produce.

It’s 2010 and Marx’s theory of worker alienation is being championed by the teachers of teachers over at Columbia University.

And all that effort and indoctrination is not going to waste. Your child’s teacher is reading this nonsense and saying, “I better include that in my next lesson plan.”

And she will.

Or how about this post by Mondoweiss contributor Susie Kneedler, on NPR reporter Lordess Garcia-Navarro’s perhaps belated report on the Israeli military’s deportation of “infiltrator” Palestinians in the West Bank, with some lines in the audio report missing or deleted in NPR’s online edition. I wonder if Obama would censor this blog post on NPR’s possible bias especially to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and, frankly, I’m sure that our officials don’t want blogs to post anything to do with Israel during the ongoing situations between the U.S. government and Israel), and would a Justice Kagan approve of such Obomber censorship? Here’s an excerpt of that post:

Garcia-Navarro does document the horrific fear that Israeli government policies inflict on one woman and her family.  We hear the anguish in Palestinian Umm Qusay’s voice beneath the translation; and the broadcast closes with a line deleted from the online article: “Qusay says the wider implications don’t matter to her.  After waiting ten years to join her husband and children, she just wants to stay here.”

But Garcia-Navarro allows an Israeli military spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, to assure us that, “The amendments to this law actually help the Palestininans or the other illegal residents that are here.”  We hear Leibovich declare in sunny tones that, “There is a committee of judges which is reviewing the material and deciding whether to begin with the process of repatriation or not” [Leibovich’s emphasis].  Garcia-Navarro does not challenge the fairness of Israeli judges, let alone that of military courts, to Palestinian plaintiffs or defendants.

Well, to be fair to Lordess Che-Guevara, it’s really not her job as a reporter to “challenge the fairness of Israeli judges,” but to just report on what they’re saying or doing. But this point that Kneedler makes is certainly a valid one:

Garcia-Navarro’s description of Qusay’s husband as merely a “resident”—not a native –of the West Bank minimizes how Israel wrongs the family.

And the point about NPR’s cutting certain parts out of the on-air report in their online text edition is worthy of discussion. After all, NPR is government- (taxpayer-) funded.

NPR’s transcript changes many terms and the order of the actual Garcia-Navarro report that aired this morning.
I’ve included below choice bits of the broadcast that were not included in the online article.  Why were they removed? Their absence smoothes over the ugly facts of the original broadcast.  I guess we should also ask Lourdes Garcia-Navarro about the alterations.

[“After ten years of being separated, I came back to my husband’s home town, and now we are again in a difficult situation. Where do I go from here?”]

She’s not alone. Many [“tens of thousands of people in the West bank have gone into hiding afraid to leave their homes, afraid to leave their areas of residence, for fear of being arrested at a checkpoint and deported and put into prison for seven years…”]

[[Conclusion not on air:] About 365,000 Israeli Jews live in settlements in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, alongside 2.5 million Palestinians. Another 1.6 million Palestinians live in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

And one wonders whether Obama would censor this post by Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker, on how CNN censors out the artist Lars Vilks’s cartoon of Mohammed. Lifson includes the actual video of the CNN interview of Vilks, which shows the censoring.

America is tip-toeing across an important line: we are becoming dhimmis, infidels cowed into observing sharia law against our wills. We are engaged in submission. Mohammed may not be represented in our media. Ask Parker and Stone of South Park. Or, better yet, ask CNN, which covers up a cartoon of Mohammed, while reporting on threats against Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks….

….Vilks is being harrassed and threatened, as dhimmitude’s enforcers operate in Europe. AFP reports:

[Vilks], who sparked controversy in 2007 by drawing Prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog, was attacked Tuesday while giving a lecture at a university, police said.

“The man was sat in the first row and suddenly he rushed at me. He punched me in the head and I lost my glasses,” said Vilks, adding that at the very most he was “a little bruised.”

Police said around 250 people were present at the time of the attack at Uppsala University, north of Stockholm.

“When Lars Vilks arrived, five persons started to protest against him with screaming. They calmed down and the lecture continued,” police said.

“When Lars Vilks talked about religion and showed a film, 20 persons tried to attack him, probably offended by the film.”

What is at stake is nothing less than our liberty. Americans are giving up free speech when the subject is Islam. Jihad is gaining ground.

So, is CNN in fear of being physically targeted by fanatics? Or is CNN merely catering to the political correctness intolerance that has been plaguing our society for many years now? Or is this just another example of CNN’s bias. Since when has CNN ever been biased? Or Supreme Court justices. Supreme Court Justices are never biased. (Elena Cajun wants to be on the Supreme Court, and, according to some sources, has wanted that ever since she was in high school.)

But I really don’t understand this stuff with political correctness and intolerance of speech and censorship, which mainly comes from the left, based on the left’s Newspeak definition of ‘diversity.’ As long as people have different skin colors and all appear differently, that’s what matters. But everyone must think alike, and have the same views on social and economic matters. We can’t tolerate different points of view, etc. or else, we (the left) will shut you up and throw you in jail. In other words, something verbal, which can’t injure others, has to be extinguished, while the physical acts of apprehending someone who ‘offended’ others (and their weak emotional being) and physically throwing them in jail, or threatening to do so, is the acceptable policy of the left, the Obommunists.

The politically and socially intolerant left never heard of the old phrase, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” They oppose the philosophy of ‘live and let live.’

And this Obama censorship stuff really has to do with his wanting to stifle political opposition and the ‘anti-government’ types and Tea Partiers. However, a main reason that ordinary citizens have a right of Freedom of Speech is to protest oppressive government.The Tea Party protesters just don’t like the physical intrusions into their lives that policies such as ObamaCare would thrust into their private lives. They just want to be left alone, and decide for themselves how to live. (Of course, the little dictator in the White House doesn’t want to hear their views. He wants to shut them up.)

The people have a right to protest, criticize, satirize and insult government officials, primarily because, unlike people in the private sector, agents of the State have the power of compulsion and monopoly that private citizens don’t have.

Another Hurricane Elena?

There are various opinions being expressed about Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court Elena Kagan, and here’s what I think about that. Kagan is apparently anti-First Amendment anti-free speech, and anti-Fifth Amendment and Due Process, and pro-government indefinite detentions of suspected ‘terrorist abettors,’ and is supportive of Obama’s strengthening of executive powers (i.e. pro-dictatorship). It will be no shock to me to see the slimy, knuckle-dragging neanderthals of the United States Senate approve this one, like they did the ignoramus Sonia Sotomayor last year. But here’s what some others think:

From David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy: The Self-Pity of Elena Kagan

From a letter she wrote to the Daily Princetonian, as a senior at Princeton reflecting on the 1980 elections:

Looking back on last Tuesday, I can see that our gut response — our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused — was a false one. In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore. I can say in these moments that one election year does not the death of liberalism make and that 1980 might even help the liberal camp by forcing it to come to grips with the need for organization and unity. But somehow, one week after the election, these comforting thoughts do not last long. Self-pity still sneaks up, and I wonder how all this could possibly have happened and where on earth I’ll be able to get a job next year.

I’m not one to hold someone’s [update: ideological] views as a twenty-year-old against them [update: and therefore I don’t put much weight on the fact that she apparently yearned for a “more leftist left” to take power]. I do find it strange that a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton apparently couldn’t conceive of working anywhere but for a Democratic politician. Really, where on earth, other than the Reagan Administration, could she NOT get a job? Did she ever hear of the private sector? (She instead went to Oxford, then to Harvard Law.)

[Update: But I do think Kagan’s early interest in political power is potentially revealing.] I knew quite a few students at Yale Law who were like Kagan–they dreamed of being a Senator, or a Supreme Court Justice, from the time they were in high school or before. (Kagan’s high school friends say she wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice even then!) Some of them, unlike Kagan, were from political families, which is at least a partial excuse. In general, they were not my favorite people; among other things, you never knew if they were being genuinely nice, or saw you as just another potential supporter/donor for their future career.

I’m of the general view that people who lust after political power are the last ones who should get it, regardless of party or declared ideology. People who start lusting during their adolescence or before are perhaps the worst of the breed. But, as Hayek reminded in the Road to Serfdom, when it comes to politics, the worst tend to rise to the top. I hope Kagan is an exception.

UPDATE: Why am I suspicious of people who lust after political power, especially people who do so from a young age? Because these are people who tend to think that they know better than the average person how the average person should run their lives, and therefore want to exercise authority over them. The very fact, in fact, that they want to exercise authority over other people is troubling. Such people, for self-evident reasons, tend not to have libertarian political instincts.

David Brooks, though of course not concerned about the libertarian angle, has related thoughts.

From Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator: The Socialist Judge: Elena Kagan and the Teachable Moment

The issue — the issue — of this confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice should be not Ms. Kagan, but socialism. Socialism, the philosophy she professed such admiration for in her 1981 Princeton thesis titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.”

“The Final Conflict.” Think of that.

Why focus on an undergraduate college paper written almost thirty years ago?

Because we are in the middle of a massively controversial presidency led by a man who has exhibited every intention of “transforming” America in the socialist image — leading the country away from its capitalist heritage. This Supreme Court nomination does not, after all, come in a vacuum. Since taking office, the Obama administration has taken control of everything from car companies to financial institutions to banks to your health care.

And no, the obvious intent of Princeton’s Sean Wilentz, her thesis adviser and himself a notable progressive, is not missed. In saying in the New York Times that “to study something is not to endorse it” Wilentz telegraphs that is exactly what Kagan — and he himself — thought then and now of socialism. They liked it. They like it still. A lot….

….What about free speech? Already stories are appearing that Kagan “argued to the court in September that Congress has the constitutional right to forbid companies from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.” Socialism is, of course, famously hostile to corporations and the rights of private individuals, a hostility that comes out in Kagan’s animus to free speech by corporations in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This was the case, of course, for which President Obama famously scolded the Supreme Court as it sat before him during his State of the Union address…..

‘Market Liberalism’ and The Declaration of Independence

A couple months ago, I wrote this post about Sheldon Richman’s discussion of not using the word ‘capitalism’ to describe ‘free markets’ because ‘capitalism’ now tends to connote business-state collusions. I think that a good phrase for what we’re talking about might be ‘voluntary exchange’ (that describes freedom from aggression and coercion), but, in those aforementioned discussions, particularly on this Mises Blog post, it seems that some people might want to have an ‘ism’ to replace ‘capitalism,’ or just keep the word ‘capitalism.’

I rather like the phrase ‘market liberalism.”Market’ refers to the economics and ‘liberalism’ refers to ‘freedom from state aggression, coercion and intrusion into individuals’ private personal and economic lives.’ At least, that’s how I define that. Unfortunately, the word ‘liberalism’ has been perverted by the perverts of the left to mean ‘freedom to aggress against one’s neighbors, having a right to the wealth and property of others,’ etc. (i.e. meaning ‘socialism,’ ‘fascism,’ communism, statism, etc.), and such inaccurate misuses continue by people in media and the general population. I have addressed my opposition to that misuse of the words ‘liberalism’ and ‘liberal’ in the past. The use of those words has been in the context of the very opposite of what they really mean. In a free society, goods and services are produced and delivered via voluntary exchange and voluntary contract, and are free of the force, coercion and intrusion of the State. That’s the essence of ‘liberalism.’

There are reasons why market liberalism has morality on its side while the State’s intrusive controls of socialism and Obommunism do not. One of the most important reasons is that market liberalism respects the rights of the individual to one’s own life, liberty and property, including the right to voluntary association and contract. The Declaration of Independence is clear about those rights as being natural, inalienable rights. In fact, in my opinion, and in the opinion of Ronald Cherry who had an article in yesterday’s American Thinker online,  the Declaration of Independence should have the status of being the document upon which the laws of our society should be based, and not the U.S. Constitution. As Dr. Cherry noted,

…In order to save the fruit of the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence must be recognized and enforced as law. Amending our Constitution will also be necessary — for example, limiting federal taxation and requiring federal spending not to exceed federal revenue. It appears that neither of these changes is likely to emanate from the federal government any time soon. However, “We the People” do not need the federal government to define our sacred human rights or their associated moral laws. According to the Declaration, those truths and laws are self-evident….

…..All American laws which are destructive to an individual’s sacred, equal rights to life, liberty, and private property are un-Declarational and must be nullified — if not by Congress or the Supreme Court, then by states and local government. The concept of “Declarational” law must find its way into the American mind and into all levels of American government…..

It is a moral society in which those natural, inalienable individual rights to life and liberty are not to be violated by agents of the State or by one’s neighbors, and it is an immoral society in which those natural rights are violated by the State and by one’s neighbors. Democracy has given us the latter. Through democracy, the laws of society are no longer natural, absolute laws, but are man-made, and crimes against one’s fellow human beings such as theft and trespass are institutionalized through those man-made laws, through all the agencies, bureaucracies, and armed police forces of the State. And the U.S. Constitution has created the pathway, via the implicit overturning of the Declaration of Independence and via democracy, to the oppression, militarism and self-destruction of what used to be a culture of diversity, and the State’s institutionalized enslavement of the individual.

We need to repeal the socialism and fascism that the Constitution has wrought, and restore The Declaration of Independence as America’s foundation of ‘law of the land’ to protect individual liberty, individual sovereignty and natural rights of voluntary exchange, association and contract.