Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

My Thoughts on a President’s Self-Proclaimed Authority to Murder Innocent Human Beings

Here is a very telling interview from PBS that I heard rebroadcast on WGBH radio last night, regarding the recently leaked memo that described the Obama Administration’s legal reasoning for giving the President the power to murder innocent people without due process.

You can hear the ACLU representative clearly articulate the very serious implications of the U.S. government’s murder-of-innocents policy, while the Columbia law professor — who is also a fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations (!) — expresses a very inarticulate, lame case for the government to have this kind of immoral, dangerous power. The Columbia law professor is stuttering and stammering because he knows that his defense of this police state is entirely immoral and criminal. They enter at about 4 minutes in the video.

And shame on all those bureaucrat-groupies in the media out there who for over 11 years have been obedient stenographers helping to rationalize the State’s Orwellian war on peace and freedom, a.k.a. the “War on Terror.”

Whether the totalitarians and their gullible, obedient defenders like it or not, all human beings have a natural human right to presumption of innocence and due process. If someone is going to accuse you of something, then you have a right to require that individual to show evidence against you. If the accuser can’t or won’t provide evidence against you the accused, then you are still innocent, and any harm the accuser inflicts on you is a criminal action.

No exceptions. No “secret” or “classified” stuff, no “But there’s a war going on,” is important enough to allow anyone to have the power to be judge, jury and executioner. (Maybe in a third-world banana republic, maybe.)

There are those who want to say that the “War on Terror” is different, and that in this case we must make exceptions. No, sorry.

There are those who believe that this war is not what our government has been telling us it is (although, if that were true, we certainly wouldn’t know that given the submissive beltway news media today), and some people believe that the “War on Terror” is really a hoax, and that the whole thing is illegitimate.

I know, there are many chickenhawks, many un-American ignorant politicians who love the government but hate the moral values and principles of freedom upon which America was founded, I know. They want to arrest, detain indefinitely or murder those who question the legitimacy of this illegitimate “War on Terror.” But it is they who become the real terrorists when they support or implement a policy of murdering anyone anywhere that the President or some other bureaucrat decides should be murdered, without showing evidence, without letting the accused see the evidence and challenge it, without giving the State’s victim the right to defend oneself against the accusations.

Criticizing U.S. government foreign policy, by the way, was exactly why Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by Obama. Obama’s action was nothing but murder and a violation of the victim’s right to life, but Obama’s rationalization was to silence a critic, a violation of the victim’s First Amendment-protected right to criticize obviously bad and immoral policies.

And the so-called “conservatives” who preach about “Christian moral values” have been taking the side of the corrupt State against Christian moral values, and shame on them.

In fact, this whole police state since 9/11 was planned well before 9/11. We have had people in power who just love power, who love a police state and with them at the controls. They love it. Just look at the idiots who were grilling former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominee for Secretary of Defense. And when they question John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA Director, watch the senators act like little puppy dogs as they jump up and down Brennan’s leg and lick his face. They know what power the next CIA Director will have, given that Obama will turn the “War on Terror” more within U.S. borders. (See this must-read Arthur Silber article on the psychopathic John Brennan.)

Do you really believe that this State-sponsored, State-perpetrated terror and murder program will be reserved for only foreign territories? Reckless, immoral Obama and his CIA drones have been killing countless innocent civilians [.pdf] in Pakistan and other countries for years now. He is bombing villages, wedding parties, funerals, even rescuers of victims of the drones. Those entirely innocent human beings are terrorized by Obama’s drone-murder bombings.

For those who are chortling and saying that old phrase, “It can’t happen here,” in June of 2010 I wrote an article, Tea Partiers May Need the ACLU Soon. After 9/11, once then-President George W. Bush started two unnecessary and counter-productive wars, and especially put all the due process-trashing policies in place, and Obama strengthened and escalated the policies, our totalitarian future was perfectly clear.

I hate to say “I told you so.” Currently, the John Boehner Establishment elitists have been throwing the Tea Party congressmen off committees, really snubbing and trashing those people. The John Boehner Establishment elitists join the Left and the Obama communists Weather Undergrounders Administration in the elitists’ silencing and banishing of the Tea Party people.

There is little difference between the neocons such as the Bushes and other warmongers and warvangelicals, and the Obama lefty moonbats and communists.

And in March of 2010 I wrote an article, November 2010: More Rearranging of Deck Chairs. But I hate to say “I told you so.”

Now, as much as I don’t like the U.S. Constitution, and as flawed as the Bill of Goods Rights is, most of the early Americans who wrote those documents understood from experience that all human beings have a right to presumption of innocence and due process. It doesn’t matter who is accusing you of something, whether it is your spouse, your neighbor, or the President of the United States. In a just, moral, and civilized society, the accuser must be required to present evidence against the accused and prove the allegations, and the accused has a right to defend oneself against accusations. Otherwise, we are giving these bureaucrats the power to merely snuff out those they don’t like or whose existence is an inconvenience to them.

And, like it or not (all you “liberals” out there!), these government bureaucrats’ assertions without evidence that presumably innocent human beings are “terrorists,” or “criminals” without the targeted people being allowed to defend themselves is one of the main reasons why the Second Amendment was written — to protect ourselves from the aggressions of the State.

I think that a lot of people are in denial when they say that “It can’t happen here.”

Dismantle the Totalitarian Monster and Take Control Over Your Own Lives

February 4, 2013

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

In recent months some people have said that my writing has seemed “depressing,” “angry,” “sarcastic,” “vitriolic,” etc. I know. But I’m a realist, and it’s not easy for me to just look the other way when I see trouble, sense danger, or smell a rat.

Unfortunately in today’s modern, supposedly advanced society, there are just too many rats to keep track of.

But mostly, a lot of my writing is out of fear, and that’s because of the direction our society has taken in recent decades.

Each day the police state, the surveillance state, and the bankrupting trough-gorging and selfishness among government bureaucrats escalates. How can you look the other way?

Actually, a lot of people are in denial of the gradual breakdown and collapse of society, because it really is horrifying, and I don’t blame them.

We have the selfish private-wealth coveters in Washington – Republican and Democrat, conservatives and liberals, socialists and libertarians – conjuring up schemes on a daily basis on how to steal more from the people, how to further benefit from the public trough. The most selfish, covetous people in our society are located in Washington, D.C. and surrounding suburbs, in my opinion.

Many people are in denial of this, of what kinds of people those with government-tentacles really are.

And the people are also in denial of the inherent recklessness and ruination of government-monopoly, centralization and central planning.

It doesn’t work. That is, our current system of central planning was doomed to failure from the get-go.

I have tried in many past articles to explain this, but it seems that the only response is … crickets.

The system of government centralization and monopoly can’t and won’t work. When you give bureaucrats the power to order you to only use the one government-issued currency (legal tender laws), and give monetary central planners control over a centralized monetary system and banking cartel, you are giving these people the message: “Please, please cause inflation and unemployment, please put people out of work, please take my hard-earned money and my savings, please enslave me, I beg of you!”

Okay, enough of that.

But we did have Ron Paul, who tried to get the word out, and I know he continues to do so. Unfortunately his suggestions to abolish the Fed, the SEC, DEA, the FBI and CIA, DHS and TSA, the Departments of Education and Energy (and, one hopes, the FDA and HHS as well) and others, fell on deaf ears. More crickets.

Most people just do not want to know the truth about those central planning revolving-door crony schemers and shysters, and the agencies and bureaus they have been given with which to trespass into the lives, homes, businesses and bodies of innocent people.

And the gullible population really believes these fiefdoms-for-non-productive-busybodies are necessary – or, a “necessary evil.”

Barf. Me. Out.

Sorry. And now we see that in the U.K. doctors are being forced to report to the government their patients’ private information such as drinking habits, waist size, weight, cholesterol, and other data that are none of the government’s damn business. Obviously, this is yet another overreach that will probably be adopted by the U.S. government, and for the purposes of more intrusions, more police S.W.A.T. team raids of innocents.

And it will not end with “waist sizes, weight, and drinking habits,” in the U.K. or in Amerika. With the DHS “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, and the prospects that the further-dumbed down population combined with ObamaCare/Soviet medicine and the decline in quality of doctors, Dr. Brownshirt will be glad to report your political beliefs to government bureaucrats, especially if you express “anti-government” views.

Yes, it will come to that, especially given how the whole government-controlled education system indoctrinates the youngins to be obedient to government and to view with suspicion those who dare express independent thoughts.

If we really lived in a land of freedom, the doctors would refuse to be doctorcrats, and would most assuredly declare to those government bureaucrats: “No, I will NOT report my patients’ private matters, their weight, their habits, or anything else that is none of your business!”

In a truly free and civilized society, the doctors would protect their patients’ privacy and security from bureaucratic intruders, pure and simple.

From the medical police state to national security nonsense:

I’m hearing on the radio these auditions for the part of Secretary of Defense. All those spineless weasels on both sides, the questioners from the Senate Foreign Belligerence Committee, and the applicant.

So we have the one trying out for the part, Chuck Hagel, totally backing down from defending his earlier statements and positions previous to these auditions, those statements and positions which he was just recently defending. Talk about a gutless wonder.

That means he is perfect for the role! (Perfectly mealy-mouthed, that is.)

And his auditioners, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the rest of them. Are they really, sincerely concerned for Israel and the Israelis? Please. They are concerned for themselves and their own reelections, getting the campaign donations from AIPAC and other lobbying organizations, and maintaining their grasp on power in the senate, and accumulating as much of a government pension for whenever they are finally dragged into retirement.

Oooh, anyone who dares to criticize Israel and the Israeli government is run out of town these days in modern “advanced” America. But I won’t go there. Not here. It’s very upsetting to see how in 21st Century America the most presumably intelligent and open-minded people become the most intolerant when it comes to Israel and any criticisms of it. Even Alan Dershowitz – the supposed defender of the First Amendment – has become part of that crowd of intolerance. But I digress.

Obviously, especially since the end of the Cold War, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have not been concerned for the defense of the United States as much as they have been concerned for expanding the size and powers of the U.S. government, and the size and powers of their own fiefdoms, and that’s it.

So, unless this huge population of over 300 million – spanning over 3 million square miles – finally understands the inevitably disastrous results of centralizing government power into the hands of a few, and the impossibility of central planners in Washington to administer any service or function for such a vast territory and a huge population, then yes, the whole system is doomed to finally collapse on its own weight, and chaos will result.

Statism is a sickness, and Americans have some healing to do, that’s for sure.

(See Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed for more info.)

So, I admit that some of my recent articles have contained some “vitriol” and may have sounded “depressing” or “bitter.” But each day there is one new frightening news item after another, one new “Oy vey” moment. Oh, well.

Do I still hear those crickets?

Don’t Rely on Politics or Politicians

This morning on WRKO Jeffrey Kuhner interviewed the “Lone Republican,” Boston Herald columnist Holly Robichaud, who wrote a column very critical of Scott Brown’s late decision to not run for the U.S. senate seat that was left open by John Kerry. The special election is June 25th.

I normally don’t link to the Boston Herald, because they archive their articles after only a week or so, and you have to pay to see it after that. And I am sure that most readers here are not interested in going through some pay-registration thing just to see some article I have linked. As I have noted in the past, these print dinosaurs still haven’t assimilated to the Internet. I am not going to link to something that won’t be there after only one week, while my post that is linking remains for an indefinite period. In other words, the Herald should want other blogs and websites to link to them, to get more readers to their site, more clicks on their ads, free of charge. But I digress. For this particular Robichaud column, I will make an exception.

Anyway, Ms. Robichaud wrote in her column, among her criticisms of Scott Brown,

… he has disenfranchised far too much of his original base. First to go was the Tea Party. He lost its support during a speech when he denied the party’s contribution to his victory. Brown kicked to the curb the fiscal conservatives when he voted for Dodd-Frank and President Obama’s phony jobs bill. He chipped away at his lunch bucket supporters when he voted for Obama’s fiscal cliff deal that raised payroll taxes. More recently, Brown jilted Second Amendment enthusiasts with his support for an assault weapons ban ….

And Ms. Robichaud in the WRKO interview was again very critical of Scott Brown, who, had he given the state Republicans more advance notice of his decision not to run, they could have had time to get more money and get signatures for ballot petitions. The Republican candidate (if there is one) will oppose either Rep.Ed Malarkey (D-Loonyland) or Rep. Steve Lynch (D-South Boston). The party primaries are on April 30th.

But, like many other misguided souls who naively get involved in politics, Ms. Robichaud has typically put way too much faith in a political hack who has presented himself as just a “regular guy,” who believes in freedom, justice and the American way (or something like that).

In the radio interview, Robichaud expressed her disappointment in Brown, stating that his delayed announcement of non-candidacy has been a “betrayal” to the party. She said, “I have stuck by him…” and “I stood by him,” etc. And in her Herald column, she wrote in the first paragraph, “With less than 23 days to get 10,000 certified signatures for the ballot, the timing of his decision is like leaving a bride at the altar.”

Now, now, now.  If she feels like a bride left at the altar by Scott Brown, perhaps it is time for some introspection and reexamining her understanding of the importance and necessity of politics and politicians.

But you see, as the late Jerry Williams pointed out many times on his radio talk shows, politicians are a different breed of human being.

What attracts most politicians to the world of government and The State is power and control, becoming a part of the apparatus in society that has artificial authority given to it, that has monopolies in security and ultimate judicial decision-making that the entire population is compelled by law and by force to have to use. It gives this certain class of people — the Rulers — the right to be above the law, and the power to have the rest of us schmucks show obedience and submission to them. And that’s it.

Scott Brown is no different from the typical sleazebag pol, like Romney, McCain, Ed Malarkey, John Kerry etc. etc. Brown was a state representative who took advantage of a special state senate election to replace then-Sen. Cheryl Jacques, and then as a state senator, he took advantage of a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. In other words, Brown is really a political opportunist who likes government power.

My guess is that Brown voted for the Dodd-Frank atrocity because he foresaw Elizabeth Warren (the architect of Dodd-Frank) as the Democrat nominee in the 2012 U.S. senate race, and Brown wanted to say that he supported that legislation as a means of removing a possible issues-related political weapon that Ms. Warren could have used against him in that race. He did not vote for Dodd-Frank out of principle, in my opinion, because no one could have done that, given what a load of crap it is.

But putting faith in these kinds of people in the world of government and politics is really a waste of time, energy and resources. It is better to spend such time and money advocating the dismantling of all these intrusive, immoral and unconstitutional government programs. And if you must support any politicians, only support those who really will dismantle (not “reform”) all these communist socialist bad policies. (Like Ron Paul.)

Regarding the pols themselves, and those who hang out with them and those in the Press who act as their stenographers, and those who place themselves in the category of “elite,” or “intellectuals” (Hah! I’m not describing Scott Brown as an “intellectual,” not by a long shot!), as I wrote in my article Politics or Principle, “Too many people just seem to be attracted to the addictive power of the State, and tend to join in the popular witch hunts against those who advocate a society of actual independence under the Rule of Law.”

And in that article I quoted Hans-Hermann Hoppe from his article on Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State. I was mainly using Hoppe’s article to point out that the change from the natural elites and genuine intellectuals to the kinds of power-grabbers, opportunists, parasites and phonies we have now coincided with the increase in size and power of government:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that the “natural elites” of earlier times achieved status and success through their own natural abilities and talents, were characterized by wisdom, bravery and farsightedness, and acted as “judges and peacemakers” out of a genuine sense of duty to others, and often without financial compensation. But their status changed as democracies evolved:

The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families’ tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten. Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state’s continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but “nouveaux riches.” Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else.

Because of the monopolization of law and justice in modern democracies, Hoppe argues, the role of the “natural elites” was taken over by the State apparatchiks as the expanding power of the State was further encouraged by the intellectuals.

On the other hand, while the natural elites were being destroyed, intellectuals assumed a more prominent and powerful position in society. Indeed, to a large extent they have achieved their goal and have become the ruling class, controlling the state and functioning as monopolistic judge.

This is not to say that democratically elected politicians are all intellectuals (although there are certainly more intellectuals nowadays who become president than there were intellectuals who became king.) After all, it requires somewhat different skills and talents to be an intellectual than it does to have mass-appeal and be a successful fundraiser. But even the non-intellectuals are the products of indoctrination by tax-funded schools, universities, and publicly employed intellectuals, and almost all of their advisors are drawn from this pool.

Irrational America

February 2, 2013

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

My previous article – on our society’s growing fascism – may have had a bit much “vitriolic rhetoric.” But sometimes I am extremely frustrated with the irrationality and cognitive dissonance which pervade America.

There are many examples of such irrationality, from the Sandy Hook story and gun control to the Aaron Swartz persecution to foreign policy. It’s everywhere.

For instance, the government’s stenographers of the news media are mirroring the gun grabbers’ zeal to steal innocent people’s means of self-defense away, based on the emotionalism surrounding the Sandy Hook school shootings.

But only on non-mainstream outlets or alternative websites do we hear about the prescription drugs that many of these recent mass shooters had been taking leading up to their rampage.

Are so many people now so unthinkingly submissive to their government bureaucrats’ disarm-the-public campaign that they refuse to see what really may have caused someone to lose control and shoot innocent people?

Why is no one in the mainstream news media asking whether the Sandy Hook shooter(s) had been taking prescription meds?

I just can’t believe that Big Pharma’s influence on the general population and the media could be that strong. Is it really that bad?

I really believe that we are living in a very real, modern Twilight Zone.

The late Rod Serling would find a wealth of material just in today’s news stories for his scripts.

Unfortunately, tragedies such as Sandy Hook are exploited by those who believe in the two-tier society of armed government police and government military, and a disarmed civilian population.

The more serious irrationality in America is that some of the gun-grabbers’ supporters are in denial of the possibility that their own government could turn against them.

But many Americans may finally begin to question their support of the current government monopoly of armed local policing and “national security” when Obama calls for a martial law in the case of economic collapse and civil unrest.

Now in America, it is beyond just denial and irrationality, but pure gullibility, especially since 9/11. The Bush and Obama administrations have started or continued two illegal and counter-productive wars, and domestically have instituted policies which have blatantly violated the rights of innocent Americans.

But why do so many Americans – in a society as advanced and developed as America supposedly is – so gullibly believe and accept what government bureaucrats tell them, no matter how illogical, impractical, far-fetched or implausible?

The government claims to have the legal and moral authority to arrest and detain indefinitelyeven kill – anyone these government bureaucrats assert is an “enemy combatant” or a “terrorist,” without showing any evidence against the accused, and the people just trust these government officials with such powers!

Really? You trust Obama to have those powers? Barack Obama? (In a Twilight Zone episode, maybe.)

Removing your right to due process and presumption of innocence – only those who are really loony-tunes could approve of this. Unfortunately, America has many of them now.

And many of the well-fed and well-paid apparatchiks of the courts have been rubber-stamping these crimes committed by our governments, federal, state and local.

There are some exceptions, however, such as Judge Katherine Forrest who struck down Obama’s indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. But after the Obama Administration appealed the decision, sure enough a crony three-judge panel – all Obama appointees – came along to reinstate it.

It was really important to Obama to have the power to arrest and indefinitely detain innocent Americans without due process.

And people approve of the current system in which government whistleblowers are persecuted in order to protect the real criminals in power.

The overclassifying of documents is a means of protecting secrecy and an excuse for pursuing the whistleblowers.

And the modern police brotherhood punishes the good cops who defend the victims of the bad cops’ violence.

But many people today are still brainwashed to believe that all police are good and right and if there was a search of someone’s home then it must be because he did something wrong, or if there was a S.W.A.T. team raid in someone’s home then it must be because the residents were criminals.

Radley Balko is featuring a “Raid of the Day” on his blog between now and June, when his book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces, will be released. Most of those raids featured were botched or at the wrong house. But some of them went “right” (whatever that means).

Also, Will Grigg’s many articles now on LewRockwell.com and the website CopBlock detail one story after another of government police criminality.

The government police are the one group in America, in my opinion, who now get away with committing many serious crimes against innocent people.

But despite the rise in the ranks of punks and bullies, and the assaults and murders committed on a daily basis by today’s police, and despite the thousands and thousands of federal, state and local laws and ordinances that cops loyally and unthinkingly enforce, and the abuse of authority by government police, most people nevertheless support them and hold them in high esteem. That, to me, is very irrational.

Yet whenever I mention the idea of de-monopolizing community policing and security away from the government and toward market or voluntary organizations, people think I’m nuts.

But empowering this one group of people – government police – to have the authority of the law and the State, and for themselves to be above the law, and for only them to be armed but not the rest of the community, is irrational. That’s nuts!

The current growing police state is a result of such irrationality.

So it is too bad that so many people don’t understand that the 2nd Amendment was written into the U.S. Constitution to protect individuals’ and a civilian population’s inherent right of defense from the rulers and their armed goons.

The craziness just goes on in America as legislators continue to invent “crimes,” and police and prosecutors waste time and public funds to enforce them.

Our crazy society has bred many zealous prosecutors now such as those persecuting the late Aaron Swartz in order to make “an example” of an innocent man whose actions harmed no one.

The Aaron Swartz prosecutor, by the way, is the same one who was attempting to steal the Motel Caswell from its owner because there had been some drug-related arrests there.

But despite the Judge’s recent ruling in favor of the owner Russell Caswell, the prosecutor has stated that she may appeal the decision. Can you believe this? She wants to “send a message.”

This whole case had to do with the criminal drug war being waged by very stupid or corrupt (or both) people, especially the feds. Yet the hypocrites don’t go after drunks or prescription drug addicts – not that they should. (Oh, but they do go after those cold medicine junkies out there, of course!)

According to WBUR,

The idea to go after the Motel Caswell sprung from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the trial revealed. The DEA has an agent who testified his job is to seek out targets for forfeiture by watching television news and reading newspapers. When he finds a property where drug crimes occur he goes to the Registry of Deeds. Finding the Motel Caswell had no mortgage and was worth almost $1.5 million, the DEA teamed up with the Tewksbury Police, who were offered 80 percent of the taking, the agent testified.

I ask you, is this America, or the Twilight Zone? Just the craziness of that one prosecutor’s office would also be a good script for Rod Serling. A whole season’s worth, in fact.

It is amazing to me how the American people can support this kind of outright criminal activity, and this irrational drug war!

Are Americans just a bunch of unthinking, clueless sheeple who actually believe that the State owns our bodies and should have the power to determine what people may or may not put into their own bodies?

Alas, most Americans do not believe that people have a right to self-ownership, the right to own their own lives and bodies, the right to be the initial owners of their own labor, to establish voluntary contracts with employers or customers and sell their labor as they see fit.

Americans do believe that they have a right to use the armed force of government to covet and take wealth from their neighbors via tax-theft redistribution schemes, unions and labor laws, corporate lobbying, criminal “forfeiture” seizure-theft laws etc.

And Americans do believe in this “exceptionalism” thing, in which we Americans are superior to foreigners and that our government has some divine right to trespass and occupy foreign lands and covet the natural resources of foreigners. But how dare any foreign government attempt to occupy our lands and covet our natural resources!

And despite NATO’s history of criminality, many people actually still view NATO with respect (and the awful UN as well).

And I wonder what Rod Serling would think of the many modern Americans who hold in high esteem the opinions of globalist crackpots like Zbignorant Brzezinski and the Council on Foreign Relations. Yech!

Sorry to sound like I’m down on America or Americans, it’s just the hypocrisy and irrationality that gets me.

But we’re talking about a culture in which a substantial number of people are deeply bothered by someone burning an American flag, yet have no problem with dehumanizing an entire population (such as the Iraqis) to rationalize the slaughter of a million innocents, or have no problem with the aforementioned government police and S.W.A.T. teams getting away with murdering many innocent Americans every day for no good reason.

We now have a police state in which 5-year-old children are being suspended for making harmless toy guns, while other kids in government schools are literally being tortured by the Amerikan Nazis and psychopaths who run these damn schools!

Oh, we’re “exceptional,” all right.

And ours is a society with a Supreme Court Chief Justice who bends over backwards to rubber stamp a clearly unconstitutional and invasive order by Congress and call it a “tax.”

So when Obama completely disarms the population and then declares martial law, I’m sure the Chief Justice will rubber stamp that, too.

And don’t forget the phenomenon of the American texting zombies. They’re out there. Everywhere.

The texting zombies will bow in submission to Herr Obama and obey his orders, no matter what, that’s for sure.

In irrational America, a substantial number of people support the TSA groping and molesting little girls and grandmas, but look the other way while the feds encourage young Muslims to commit jihadi violence just to say “we’ve thwarted terrorism.”

And most Americans will support Congress’s continuing to raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, increase their selfish spending sprees and kick the can farther down the road to bring America down to total impoverishment and chaos.

I could go on, of course.

So, can you see why I’m frustrated with all this?

(With apologies to the late Rod Serling.)

More Comments on Sandy Hook

It’s been over a month now since the Sandy Hook school shootings, and we still don’t know whether or not the shooter(s) had been taking prescription drugs, such as psychopharmaceuticals. But I have these thoughts regarding this story.

Now, I can only go by the articles and videos I’ve seen about the Lanza family history that led to the Sandy Hook shootings. But my own personal conclusion is that the tragedy could have been prevented had Adam Lanza not been labeled with some syndrome or disease early in his life and placed on some prescription drug (as he probably was).

Do you think that the Lanzas’ separation in 2001 and divorce in 2009 could have had very negative effects on Adam Lanza? Could those things possibly have been contributors to the development of the problems he had while growing up?

I don’t know for sure whether or not Adam Lanza was on prescription drugs, because the people in control of that investigation won’t tell us (yet), but some people close to the family had said he was.

As an alternative to early labeling and possible drugging of a child, family therapy – that includes each member of the immediate family in attendance – could have been helpful to Adam Lanza even if the parents were going through a divorce. It is possible that the Lanzas tried family therapy with Adam, but we don’t know.

However, during the Lanza’s 2009 divorce, Mrs. Lanza was ordered to attend and had completed a “parenting education program.” (Sounds like something coming from a government bureaucrat, not a rational human being.)

As opposed to those pop culture psycho-trendy treatments these days, family therapy has been helpful to many people. A great book on family therapy is The Family Crucible: The Intense Experience of Family Therapy, by Augustus Napier and Carl Whitaker.

Drugs – prescription and otherwise – stifle an individual’s emotional growth, personality and self-expression, in my view.

But the pharmaceutical industry has profited greatly from many people’s problems, that’s for sure.

Keep Marijuana Illegal, Only If You Believe That the State Owns Your Body

On the radio this morning was a discussion of the legalization of marijuana. It seems that the talk show host was against it. He brought up all the stoned people who would be walking around or driving on the roads. That sure was the case when they ended prohibition of alcohol — all those drunks out there now. Why, every time I look out my window, one person after another walks by completely plastered, bumping into the light post and saying, “Excuse me, sir,” and all the constant traffic accidents caused by those drunk drivers — there are at least three of them every half-hour. So, we better not legalize marijuana, it’s bad enough that alcohol was legalized. And so on and so forth.

Another point I want to make is that, if you believe that the government should have the power to determine what you may or may not put into your own body, then it is not really your own body. If you own your own body, then of course you have the right to put into it whatever you want, as long as you take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions and your actions. But that’s not the situation we have now, is it?

I know that I’ve brought up some of these radical ideas before, but I guess it’s time to do so again. So, not only do we not live in a “free” society, but it really is the opposite of that, a completely State-owned, government-owned society. Just about all people really believe that America is a “private-property” society, when no, not really. Only on paper and superficially are property, industry and the means of production owned privately, by individual and group private owners. But in reality, everything is publicly government-owned. That includes all businesses, everyone’s homes, and, given that the means of production includes the people, the people themselves. I’ve explained that here in my article on the true communist nature of today’s conservatives, and, as I wrote here regarding the immigration issue,

The conservatives support the federal government’s central planning of the population as far as who gets in and who doesn’t. And with such central planning, they thus support the collective ownership of the entire territory. However, when the collective assumes ownership and control of an entire territory, then everything within the territory goes with that collective (or State) control.

It is impossible to empower a collective population with that kind of group territorial ownership but at the same time say that each individual, each parcel of “private” property, and each business within the territory is privately owned, and that each private owner has ultimate control and sovereignty of one’s property, business, and one’s life. In reality, each individual is merely “renting space,” and is owned by the collective.

Actually, the more I witness the increasing power of the government — especially the federal government — the more I see that, the idea of “collective” or public ownership of everything within the territory is itself a superficial notion (like that of “private” property). It really is the government — the State — that has the ultimate ownership of everything, including the people, and that includes every aspect of the people’s lives, their homes, their business, and their own bodies. (Which aren’t really “theirs,” are they?)

But regarding marijuana, that seems to be a very unhealthy drug to ingest. There are many different dangerous chemicals in marijuana, some found to be cancerous. It negatively affects your cognitive abilities, and affects people’s memory. (More recent research here and here.) And alcohol is bad for your cognitive abilities as well. As far as smoking marijuana (or cigarettes too) is concerned, what one is doing is inhaling directly into one’s lungs the waste of burning garbage, frankly. Our lungs do not want burning garbage to be inhaled into them, as they need clean air to function best. People don’t realize how sensitive the lungs really are. But whatever, it should be the individual’s choice, and one’s responsibility for its consequences as well — that is, if we really do want to have a society in which the individual’s right of self-ownership is respected by others, and in which the individual’s life and person are not enslaved and owned by the State.

Some Misc. Items

I just had some comments regarding my article that was on LewRockwell.com on Monday, on America’s escalating fascism under Dictator Obama. There weren’t as many emails regarding that one as with other ones. Sorry I can’t reply to all emails.

Sometimes I write a piece that has a bit much “vitriolic rhetoric,” and other times it is more straightforward, without the snide remarks etc. In this one, I seemed to have overdone it on the “vitriolic rhetoric” mainly only in the first 6 or 7 paragraphs, and sorry about that. But the remaining paragraphs seemed to be much better. I think that these fascists and communists in control are really terrifying now, and it’s perhaps getting on my nerves, I don’t know. The criminals in charge are the real terrorists, if anyone around here can be accurately described as a “terrorist.”

Also in that article, in the first parts referring to Massachusetts, I had several links to the Boston Globe, but when checking links, because the Glob was then requiring registration (which it wasn’t doing originally), I had to replace all those links! No. More. Links. To. Boston. Globe. Sorry, Globe, you suck. These @#$%^&^ print media dinosaurs still can’t assimilate to the Internet! And the Boston Herald sucks too, as they archive their articles within a week or so, and then you have to PAY for them! Stupid idiots. Well, when fewer other websites and blogs link to you, you will get fewer clicks on your ads, you bozos! But they don’t get it.

So anyway, in my article, I included a reference to Obama’s half-brother, George who lives in Nairobi. I didn’t mean for any kind of “racial” references in referring to George Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick (regarding my references to Massachusetts bureaucrats). There was nothing going on there having to do with anyone being black, whether or not that day was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

I really don’t give a damn what someone’s skin color is. If these bureaucrats are fascists, then I don’t like them. The two Bush presidents started three wars against other countries from 1991 and ongoing, countries whose people were of no threat to us, despite the government’s propaganda. The two Bush presidents have caused many hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents, waged a sicko-psychopathic torture campaign to get false confessions, and have caused blowback against America. I don’t like them either. Who cares what their skin color is. “It’s what’s inside that counts.”

If you want to call someone a racist, call Obama a racist. He is waging a racist drug war, in which police and prosecutors are concentrating mainly on throwing black Americans in prison for no good reason. The drug war incarceration rate for black people is higher than that of white people. You can Google that. But do Black Americans know or care about this? Many people, black or otherwise, do not know of the criminally racist policies of the Dear Leader who just got re-installed as Dictator-in-Chief. And despite his rhetoric on immigration, Obama has deported more immigrants than all other presidents. (i.e. he’s FOS)

But the reason that Obama supporters don’t know what their guy has been doing — his racist war on drugs — is because the news media do not report on these matters. Like the reporters’ comrades who embed themselves with the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the local reporters seem to delight in joining local police forces in their arrests, S.W.A.T. team raids etc. of those unfortunate enough to be victims of the government’s crimes against them. Many news reporters seem to go with the assumption that the police and prosecutors are good and right and their victims are bad and wrong. The government should be arresting people for possession of a plant, and for ingesting some substance into their own bodies!

Reporters do not seem to be asking questions as far as “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and especially “why.” They just seem to obediently go along with what they are reporting on like unthinking Goebbels stenographers. Perhaps the news reporters and editors of today can learn the concept of objectivity and the history behind their role of keeping the government in check, as they no longer seem to be teaching those things in the journalism schools.

So in his prosecuting the racist drug war, I guess that makes the Dear Leader a racist. But the sheeple don’t know this, and they don’t care. It’s Obama’s image that matters, and his teleprompter’s speaking abilities.

Some people believe that Obama is an anti-white racist as well. He spoke of his grandmother as a “typical white person.” Can you imagine a white politician speaking of a black woman as a “typical black person”? And also, besides running guns to gangs in Mexico that caused many deaths, AG Eric Holster has said that he won’t prosecute black defendants for voter intimidation. Holder defended his decision by expressing outrage at those who suggested that the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia in 2008 could compare to the voting rights struggle for “my people.” (See Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by J. Christian Adams.)

And another thing about Obama, he did spend 20 years in the church of his very close minister, the paranoid anti-white racist and anti-Semite Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In 2008, many critics of Obama asked why Obama would continue attending the sermons of such a hateful, ignorant moron as Wright. Naturally, the news media wouldn’t cover any of that. Now, I happen to be Jewish, and I really couldn’t care less if someone wants to engage in name-calling if they are anti-Jewish, whatever. “Sticks and stones,” and all that. But if there were a white version of that Rev. Wright, the presidential candidate attending his church would have been ostracized and run out of the primaries immediately. Duh. There’s that double standard in this banana republic. And I am also reminded of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s reference to Jews as “Hymies” and New York as “Hymietown” during the 1984 presidential campaign. (But I won’t mention the 1969 Life Magazine article that quoted Jackson as saying that, as a hotel waiter, spitting into white people’s food gave him “psychological gratification.” I’m sure you can Google that if you’re not familiar with it.)

Anyway, We certainly do not have the “colorblind society” that one might think an evolved and modern society would have. Do we have a society in which people are not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”? No. Today, there is hate going both ways, and based on race, religion, ethnicity and other superficial factors. And we have “affirmative action,” which is not “affirmative, ” but in which people are accepted to colleges or hired at jobs based mainly on their skin color. Many people believe that Obama achieved his college acceptances based on that, and I believe that too. He himself has admitted that he was a druggie in his younger years. And there obviously is a good reason why we still haven’t seen any of his school transcripts. And millions of Americans voted for him in two presidential elections solely because of his race. I think that’s racist, but I hope I’m not going to be called a “racist” merely for telling the truth about these things. Also in recent years there have been those flash mob riots, in which black youths attack mainly white victims, and because they are white. The news media don’t report on all that because “we are a nation of cowards,” who don’t like to hear the truth about what’s going on. Another thing that concerns me is how, as I have noted here and here, the Obama Administration and FEMA are getting ready for mass detention camps. Given that Obama is heavily influenced by the racist, anti-Semite preacher mentioned above, well, that concerns me. As I have noted, I happen to be Jewish.

Treason?

Mac Slavo posts this regarding a Facebook post by Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow that Obama’s new litmus test for military is whether they would fire on U.S. citizens or not. The ones who say no are let go. If this is true — and I would love to see some of these military leaders or commanders who supposedly have balls to come right out and say so — then Obama must be impeached and tried for treason.

End the Growing Neanderthal Rule in America: Repeal Drug Laws, Decentralize and De-Monopolize Community Policing

Today, Radley Balko begins a series of daily posts featuring one police raid each day. In today’s post, he tells of a S.W.A.T. team raid in Miami:

Today’s featured raid is the March 1996 raid in Miami, Florida that claimed the life of 73-year-old retired salesman Richard Brown.

The police in Miami had received a tip from an informant that Brown, who had no criminal record, was selling drugs from his small apartment. So they sent the SWAT team. The police claimed at the time that Brown began firing at them as soon as they entered his home. So they fired back.

And they fired back.

And they fired back.

By the time they were finished, they had pumped 123 rounds into Richard Brown’s apartment—nine of them into Richard Brown…

You see, when you receive a “tip,” Mr. and Ms. Police Officer, one thing that you need to do first is check for a criminal record of the one who has been “tipped” on. So far, you know that Mr. Brown is 73 and has NO criminal record! That should be the end of discussion! Further investigation is needed before any contact might occur with the new “suspect.” Someone who is 73 and has no criminal record is obviously not going to be engaging in illegal activity. I say “obviously,” because people with a brain can see that. (What if he was 23 and had no criminal record? Well, the police can do some kind of investigating first, before they go raiding and murdering.)

The police never found any drugs. They did find something else, which they weren’t expecting: Brown’s 14-year-old great-granddaughter Janeka, whom he had raised. They found her cowering in the bathroom. When the raid began, Brown had told the girl to take the phone into the bathroom, to call the police, and to wait until it was safe. So she waited, prayed, and trembled as bullets dug into the walls around her. When she finally came out, she saw the bloodied body of the man who had adopted and raised her slouched in his bedroom closet. Janeka Brown would later receive a $2.5 million settlement from the city of Miami.

No, she shouldn’t have received $2.5 million from the city, i.e. taxpayers who are not responsible for murderous, incompetent knuckle-dragging neanderthals’ irresponsible behavior. She should have received $2.5 million from each and every one of those “law enforcement” officers, from their personal bank accounts and their own personal assets. That is what real justice would be, in my view.

The story gets more juicy after that. More and more dishonesty and corruption, lies and deceit came out in this case, and this isn’t just Miami, or New York, or Chicago, it’s everywhere in the corrupt, decaying Banana Republic of Amerika.

Another Obama Inauguration as Amerika’s Fascism Continues to Escalate

January 21, 2013

Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

The Amerikan people have spoken: “We love and adore our Dear Leader. We want more fascism, more government control over our private lives, more theft of the workers and producers, more spying, more war, more drones, less freedom, more destruction and more death.”

I wonder if Barack Obama invited his half-brother George Obama to the inauguration – remember George Obama? He’s the president’s half-brother who apparently lives in a shanty in Nairobi, the one President Obama doesn’t seem to have helped out very much. However, George defends Barack’s lack of being his “brother’s keeper,” so I guess it doesn’t matter very much. (But it’s just more important that Barack Obama spend $50 million on his inauguration, that’s all.)

As all this is going on, Barack Obama’s comrade, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick says he wants to raise taxes even higher on the workers and producers of the Bay State, on top of their federal taxes that have just gone up (thanks to the selfish degenerates in Washington).

This new tax-theft scheme is intended to fund Patrick’s education and public transportation agendas and expanding of rail service. (Rail service hardly anyone will use, that is.)

In other words, Patrick might as well be saying, “Please let me siphon off more of your hard labor so that I can pay my union buddies in the state-construction racket to thank them for reelecting me and to further my own selfish political ambitions.”

Nothing new here. “Good for you,” as Elizabeth Warren might say.

Governor Patrick – a genuine Michael Dukakis on steroids if there ever was one – is surrounded on Beacon Hill by other self-centered degenerates, as top legislators give their non-productive staff members raises to add to their salaries they don’t deserve, some of which apparently in the 6-figures, and this on top of the state auditor’s staff who had been given a 16% raise. (The state auditor’s office is in charge of getting rid of “waste, fraud, and abuse.”)

Gov. Patrick the fascist also just signed the bill to fingerprint “teachers, workers at child care centers, school bus drivers …” and “everyone seeking to adopt children or become foster parents as well as employees of school departments who may have direct, unmonitored contact with children,” with that information placed into a state police database and “forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

Obviously, Patrick is no friend of civil liberties, due process or civil rights. He is a “liberal,” after all.

And attempting to fill the shoes of his fellow anti-due process governor from New York, Patrick has filed a bill to further restrict gun ownership in Massachusetts, and to “require the state to send all relevant mental health records to a federal gun license registry,” as well as “training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students.”

But how about training students to recognize symptoms of mental illness in teachers? Hmmm? There’s a lot of that going around these days.

Too bad Muffy Healey, Patrick’s 2006 Republican opponent, lost that election.

Like Connecticut, Massachusetts already has the strictest gun control laws in the country. Connecticut’s strict gun laws did nothing to save those 27 victims at Sandy Hook. Neither will Gov. Patrick’s proposals or Obama’s proposals – they will in fact cost lives, if history is any indication.

There are very few murders per year by use of those “military-style” assault rifles, as compared to pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet. But what the fascists want to do is further disarm the population and make people even more defenseless against murderers, wife-beaters, and rapists who use pistols, shotguns, knives, hands and feet.

Previous to Patrick’s newly introduced anti-private gun ownership proposals, the governor of New York had exemplified the purely irrational emotionalism of the gun control crowd, as he screamed and wailed to “end the madness” in his recent State of the State address. His emotionally-charged bill to make people defenseless was rushed through the legislature, just as was George W. Bush’s reactionary Patriot Act in 2001 and Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010.

That act of legislation – now the law in New York – requires mental health practitioners to report to the government those patients that the doctor thinks may be a danger to others. And Obama’s new proposed Executive Orders includes this: “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

However, many of today’s physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors, especially the younger ones, were brought up in the modern, government-controlled schools, which have dumbed down the people and discourage critical thinking skills. The schools now label kids who act normally with an abundance of energy as “hyperactive,” or label kids who question their authorities’ dictates as “defiant” or suffering from “ADHD.”

Or, some of the teachers and parents are afraid to discipline misbehaved kids or to give them a failing grade when they deserve one, in an attempt to avoid “hurting their feelings.” So, many of the secondary schools and colleges are accepting or giving passing grades to total incompetents.

Therefore, I am not completely confident in the judgments of our modern and future doctors and mental health practitioners, quite frankly.

And after the school authorities label kids as “defiant,” “autistic,” or “psychotic,” the authorities dish out the psychopharmaceutical drugs, such as Ritalin and SSRI anti-depressants, like candy.

I have heard several of the people being interviewed or speaking on panels regarding the Sandy Hook shootings who have stated that alleged shooter Adam Lanza “should have been medicated,” given Lanza’s problems. However, it appears that Lanza may have been on some form of psychopharmaceutical drugs, and for many years, as asserted by the Lanzas’ hairdresser and a former babysitter.

As has been the case in many mass shootings now, it’s the opposite of that – they were medicated, but shouldn’t have been. Alleged Aurora theater shooter James Holmes is now thought to have been on medication, but the documents filed by police, who supposedly had seized pill bottles from Holmes’s home, had been heavily redacted and no specific name of drugs was disclosed.

Many of the school shootings in more recent years were committed by people on anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medication. Some may have been suffering from withdrawal symptoms after stopping their medication.

It is already known that some anti-depressant prescription drugs such as SSRIs and anti-psychotics can cause severely aggressive behavior. But, rather than addressing these prescription drugs, the chicken littles instead want to disarm innocent people and make them even more vulnerable, especially women. And the fascists want to seek out “mentally ill” people and either disarm them as well or perhaps even put them on psychiatric drugs. But who is to decide who is “mentally ill,” and is there really “mental illness”?

But given the lack of good judgment of many health practitioners these days, requiring doctors and counselors to report possibly dangerous people to the government could itself be dangerous.

In fact, already in the U.K. the Cameron Regime has been having doctors report on patients who may be “vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.” The U.K. has also engaged in the disarming of the civilian population and thus causing a rise in violent crime there (contrary to the assertions of one CNN nudnik who shall remain nameless here).

Also in the U.K., cameras being placed in private homes, government-sponsored “parenting classes,” the government monitoring all emails and website visits in the U.K.?

Yes, I know, that’s England and not America, but government-controlled education has dumbed down a lot of people in a lot of countries.

So why not have doctors reporting on patients, based on the doctors’ own subjective biases, lack of critical thinking abilities and their ignorance as well?

As I have noted before, already in the U.S. we have a DHS and FBI wanting people and businesses to report on others as “suspicious” for what are really normal behaviors. But today, thanks to years of government-controlled education, behaviors that are really harmless are now viewed as “suspicious.”

According to the FBI and DHS, some of those “suspicious” behaviors include: buying food in bulk amounts, believing in “individual liberty,” distrusting “centralized federal authority,” and “supporting political movements for autonomy.”

For many ignoramuses now, “autonomy” and “independence” = “criminality” and “terrorism.”

Being critical of the government is now being seen as “treasonous” or dangerous by some, even though it is our very own incompetent and corrupt government bureaucrats who have been acting criminally and treasonously in many ways, in my view. Just ask Bradley Manning, Brandon Raub, Susan Lindauer and William Binney.

But the psychiatric police state is here, and it won’t involve just mental health professionals but all health care practitioners whose treatment includes their asking patients for very personal information. Because of how our society has declined culturally, intellectually and socially, I am not surprised to have personally already seen doctors of an emotionally and intellectually immature character. Obviously, with Obama’s Soviet medicine, worse is yet to come. There just don’t seem to be very many Dr. Georges around anymore.

If you are not very familiar with your doctors or counselor, it would be wise not to share information with them about your political views, especially “anti-government” views, which many readers here happen to have, or whether or not you own a gun.

You see, thanks to the government-controlled schools and modern Amerikans’ lack of critical thinking skills, we have historically-ignorant people who really have no idea what the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. A lot of anti-gun rights people (and some pro-gun rights ones as well) actually scoff at the idea that our own government could turn against us.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing! “Liberals” want the civilian population to be disarmed, but they want only government police and government military to be armed, and heavily armed at that! And this despite all the police brutality, the S.W.A.T team raids at the wrong addresses, and criminal behaviors committed by police and prosecutors all over Amerika, as we have seen on a daily basis in the news, on websites such as LRC and on YouTube. Many police are drugging up on steroids, and the military doctors are screwing up the soldiers with prescription drugs including those SSRI anti-depressants and stimulants.

As I have noted here, and in my articles about America’s descent and the coming civil unrest, yes, there have been moments in history in which the U.S. government has turned the guns against the people. And you think that all the atrocities committed by our military, the murdering of innocent civilians overseas, can’t happen here on the Rulers’ command? All you have to do is see one article after another on our police state in Amerika, and see exactly what the people in charge are doing to our society.

So Obama is being inaugurated into a second term, and one can reasonably expect it to not be as wonderful as his first term was.

The State vs. Aaron Swartz and the Government-Journalism-Internet-Complex

A lot of people have had a lot to say about the late Aaron Swartz, who, while being prosecuted and persecuted by the U.S. Department of “Justice,” committed suicide just recently at age 26.

According to the NYT, Swartz was charged with “wire fraud, computer fraud, obtaining information from a protected computer and criminal forfeiture.”

Glenn Greenwald describes the case against Swartz. But as Greenwald notes, the alleged “victims” didn’t even want to press charges; it was the damn zombies of the U.S. “justice” system doing this, and for no good reason.

Nobody knows for sure why federal prosecutors decided to pursue Swartz so vindictively, as though he had committed some sort of major crime that deserved many years in prison and financial ruin. Some theorized that the DOJ hated him for his serial activism and civil disobedience. Others speculated that, as Doctorow put it, “the feds were chasing down all the Cambridge hackers who had any connection to Bradley Manning in the hopes of turning one of them.”

Boston-based media analyst Dan Kennedy had this post on Swartz and the zealousness of U.S. attorney Carmen Ortiz. Some of the commenters seem to be defending the State’s actions, perhaps lacking in understanding of the specific case in question, and/or a lack of understanding of “intellectual property.”

Sadly, there are many people, especially statists who think they are “liberal,” who support the State’s “intellectual property” laws but at the same time support the State’s schemes of confiscating private wealth and redistributing it to those to whom it does not belong, i.e. against economic freedom as well as intellectual freedom.

For a better understanding of “intellectual property,” see Sheldon Richman and Stephan Kinsella.

In the case at hand, Swartz had not “hacked” or broken into anyone’s personal Internet accounts or passwords, or compromised anyone’s private personal information or security, nor was he accused of those things. If he committed any crimes, they could have been considered to be trespassing into an MIT closet, as well as possibly violating JSTOR’s Terms of Service, as Greenwald observed.

But in reality, all Swartz was doing was promoting true Internet and intellectual freedom, which is something the State does not like. The State does not like the First Amendment and all that it stands for, and will do what it can to suppress information, especially that which is critical of the State itself and which expresses the illegitimacy of the State’s various intrusions, violations and crimes.

Kevin Carson writes, regarding the Swartz case,

So the people who hounded Aaron Swartz to his death did so, not even in the realistic hope of victory, but out of the same vindictive impulse that drives a defeated invader to inflict one more indignity on the violated country on its way out. Aaron Swartz was not the last man to die for a “mistake,” but — let us hope — the last atrocity inflicted by a criminal aggressor.

Now, I was surprised to hear on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour last night (rebroadcast on WGBH radio) Margaret Warner interviewing Kevin Poulsen of Wired. It sounded like Poulsen was defending Swartz, which was a surprise to me given Poulsen’s past controversies, although it was probably because the two were friends as Swartz had worked with Poulsen at Wired.

But back around the beginning of the government’s case against Army Pvt. Bradley Manning,  Poulsen was the one at Wired who had apparently suppressed 75% of the chat logs between Manning and Adrian Lamo, the one who turned Manning in to the government, as Glenn Greenwald wrote in this lengthy post from 2010. And Greenwald updated that in this post regarding the “worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired,” and Wired‘s “severe journalistic malfeasance” in withholding the chat logs.

But in 2011, when Wired finally released the full chat logs, Greenwald asserted that they “provide vital context and information about what actually happened here.  To say that Poulsen’s claims about what Wired withheld were factually false is to put it generously.” Those posts regarding the chat logs are must reads if you haven’t read them before.

To me, there was the implication that Wired may have intentionally withheld portions of the chat logs which could have put Manning’s alleged actions into the more accurate context of his merely wanting to expose the military’s crimes and that the American people had a right to know about them, and thus showing that he could not have been doing anything close to “aiding and abetting the enemy” or revealing actual classified information. But, if that were the case, what would Wired‘s motivation have been to withhold such vital contextual information?

Beware the Government-Journalism-Internet-Complex.

When it comes to the truth, Internet freedom and intellectual freedom, and attempting to separate oneself from the State’s monopoly, Aaron Swartz was the real deal.