Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Conservatives Do Not Believe in Personal Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can America’s Descent Possibly Be Reversed?

March 30, 2012

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Unconstitutional Acts by Barack Obama and Congress:

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

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

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

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

But every human being who is accused of something has an inherent right to require that the accuser show evidence to prove such alleged guilt. No circumstances are too important – not wars, terrorism, and not economic collapse – that the government or Presidents be relieved of their burden to show evidence against the accused.

Infowars.com recently compared these Washington policies to similar police state policies of Chile’s dictator General Augusto Pinochet during the 1970s. The NDAA law could now be considered as Washington’s reactionary and desperate response to political dissent and economic collapse.

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Some Misc. Thoughts (Warning: Some Political Incorrectness)

I’m really getting sick of all this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Chapter in the Story of Government Criminality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Governments: Symbols of Advanced Human Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Questioning Zionism and Present-Day Israel-Related Views

Israel is unfortunately one of those taboo subjects that you may not talk honestly about in the current age of Politically Correct Intolerance. You especially may not speak critically of Israel or the Israeli government, or else be referred to as “anti-Semite” or “anti-Jewish,” or, in my case, “self-hating Jew.” Utter the words “Zionism” or “Zionist” and you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

It is like how some people would call someone a racist for criticizing Barack Obama just because he’s black, despite his obvious incompetence, corruption and crimes against the people. And you are not permitted to look at the American “Civil War” with skepticism or criticize the racist Abraham Lincoln or you will be called “racist” or “pro-slavery.”

A further example, regarding Israel, note how the buffoons of the United States Congress stood and applauded and cheered for each and every syllable uttered by Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Totally disingenuous old farts. (Except for Ron Paul, of course, who actually wants all Israelis, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, etc. to have their freedom, and believes that their rights ought not be restricted as they are in Israel, just as they are here in the USSA.) Many of these Congresspeople are subservient to the Israel Lobby, and receive a lot of money in campaign contributions from pro-Israel organizations. The most powerful and influential pro-Israel organization is AIPAC, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Just to clarify, as I wrote previously, the “Israel Lobby” is not any singular organization with some particular leader in charge. The “Israel Lobby” mainly refers to unconnected groups, organizations, lobbyists and fund-raisers for Israel. Two of the most prominent organizations are the ADL and AIPAC. There’s no “Zionist conspiracy.” There is no single organization called “The Israel Lobby,” but that is how these unconnected groups may informally but accurately be described.

Now, the most recent cases of intolerance of speech regarding Israel include Alan Dershowitz (of all people!), who is going on a crusade to get MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters fired, for Rosenberg’s outspoken views on Israel, his views against war with Iran, and his use of the term “Israel Firster.” Some people can’t face the fact that there actually are those who view Israel as of primary importance and who view the U.S. as secondary.

AIPAC pushes for war with Iran, a country that has not attacked the U.S. or Israel, and this push for war against Iran is despite the blowback against America that such a war will cause, just as was the case with Iraq twice (and Afghanistan as well). MJ Rosenberg is honest about this and merely wants readers to know the truth. But Dershowitz wants to shut him up.

Another case of intolerance is the attempted prevention of an appearance in San Francisco of a controversial anti-Zionist jazz artist, Gilad Atzmon, by the Israel Lobby, the ADL in particular.

I’ve written many times now on Israel and Zionism, and I’m sure I have lost readers at those times, simply because many people have long-instilled views on Israel and beliefs in myths regarding Israel and Zionism. When bringing up the history of Zionism and the formation of the current state of Israel (which, until 1948, was referred to as “Palestine”), many people just don’t want to hear it. They know what they know, and much of what people know, or think they know, or what they have been told since childhood, is emotion-driven and not rational and not truly informed. For a lot of people, any questioning of their long-held views or of Israel is not to be tolerated. But it is an emotional thing, that’s for sure.

But it is important to question long-held beliefs and challenge assumptions that we may have regarding the things that we were told while growing up, and that we are told by our governments, the media and our leading cultural figures. Regarding Israel, not knowing and understanding the history behind the conflicts and merely holding such beliefs that might be based on distortions and myths and misinformation, is a major contributor to today’s worsening crises. This is why we have allowed our leaders to start wars, and, if the truth were told, the wars have been for no good reason.

One of my favorite articles is Murray Rothbard’s article from 1967, following the Arab-Israeli War, or the “Six Day War” of 1967, in which Rothbard discusses a brief summary of the history of political Zionism. In the article, Rothbard notes that among the several factions of the political Zionists, those who wanted to find and establish a “safe” homeland for Jews, the group that won the final debate were the extremists.

Why should they have been considered “extreme”? Because they insisted on Palestine as the place for Jewish settlement, and would consider no other place in the world. It was to be Palestine, and only Palestine. Not only that, but with the insistence of only Palestine as the new homeland for Jews worldwide and such a territory to be a Jewish State (i.e. a theocracy), and given that, as Rothbard pointed out, the land was not virgin land but was already inhabited by Arabs, the establishment of such a new State had to be one of conquest.

The current state of Israel was the creation by Western governments of an artificial State within a territory that was already inhabited, through coercion, conquest and expulsion of many of the indigenous inhabitants. It was not a formation of a State through voluntary means, not through voluntary contract and voluntary property transfer, not through natural order by any stretch of the imagination. And the way the Israelis have been treating the Palestinians over the past century has been atrocious.

As I have observed before, because of the tremendous amount of propaganda by Western governments, lobbyists, and the media, we have generations of misinformed and stubborn people who do not want to hear the real facts of Israel’s history and of how the Arabs are treated there. Thanks to decades of propaganda and censorship, many people actually believe that “Palestinian” = “terrorist,” or “primitives,” and they do not want to hear otherwise, or, if they hear someone talking about “Palestinians” in any kind of positive way, such talk is dismissed as being “pro-terrorist,” “anti-Israel, or “anti-Jewish.” And again, bringing up the history of the illicit formation of the current state of Israel is taboo, because generations of people know what they know, and they don’t want to hear otherwise.

Murray Rothbard was not one to be known as a “propagandist.” On the contrary, he was very careful with accuracy in his reporting and analyses in economics and history. Rothbard pointed out, regarding the first half of 20th Century Zionism,

Because of the Arabs resident in Palestine, Zionism had to become in practice an ideology of conquest. After World War I, Great Britain seized control of Palestine and used its sovereign power to promote, encourage, and abet the expropriation of Arab lands for Zionist use and for Zionist immigration. Often old Turkish land titles would be dredged up and purchased cheaply, thus expropriating the Arab peasantry on behalf of European Zionist immigration. Into the heart of the peasant and nomadic Arab world of the Middle East there thus came as colonists, and on the backs and on the bayonets of British imperialism, a largely European colonizing people.

(For more on the history of Israel and the way that Arabs have been treated, especially recently, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are many more articles to point to, but I just don’t have time to find all of the ones that I know I’ve seen in the past several years now.)

Now, there are the very sensitive Jewish Zionists such as Dershowitz who seem to want to shut people up who have a differing point of view, people such as MJ Rosenberg who are critical of Israel or of Zionism, or who refer to “Israel Firsters.”

And there are those who supposedly support the Palestinians, but, for political reasons, support laws or policies that go against the Palestinians. For example, Barney Frank was quoted to have said that he supports the Palestinians, but didn’t want to offend his voters in his district, in very Jewish (and “limousine liberal”) Brookline and Newton. (“I’m not going to commit political suicide for the sake of the Palestinians…”)

And there are very religious Christians who are Zionists because they believe in the Bible, and want to see “The Jews” flock to Israel, because that kind of scenario seems to please these Christian Zionists. I know, my referring to some of the Christian Zionists as referring to “The Jews” may be in some way obnoxious, yet that is how I perceive many of them in their views toward Jews, unfortunately. Many people are collectivists, and they see others in terms of what particular group they belong to, religiously, ethnically, racially etc. I see such a view of “The Jews” as patronizing, although I’m sure that the many Christian Zionists who seem to have this attitude cannot see that themselves. (Many Christian Zionists do not have that attitude, of course.)

So, personally, regarding the patronizing Christian Zionists, I do not believe that they want Jews to flock to Israel for Jews’ own safety and security. It seems to be more that such a scenario fulfills these Christian Zionists’ Biblically-influenced vision of the world. It is for the sake of the Bible.

But why do Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, for example, want me to have to live in Israel just because I’m Jewish? Why is it so important to them to push for the continued gathering of Jews in this one territory that is completely surrounded by Muslims, some (or perhaps many) of whom are hostile toward Jews?

And so I am especially concerned about the particular subgroup within those who are Christian Zionists, the ones who see Israel and the Jews as representing something to do with the “End Times,” “tribulation,” “rapture,” and all that stuff. And some of these people want the current conflicts to continue and escalate, because they really believe that Jesus will return and that “The Jews” will be converted to Christianity, and that we will all be “saved” and so on. And it’s like they want to make it happen.

I don’t think that censoring anti-Zionists is a good idea, because there are many good reasons to oppose Zionism, and instead support freedom, human rights, religious tolerance and diversity, private property, voluntary associations and voluntary contracts. Taking monopolistic, compulsory powers — and armaments — away from government bureaucrats is a good way to start.

De-Monopolize Security and Policing (And Repeal Gun Laws, Too)

Becky Akers has this article at Republic Magazine (an article that apparently was pulled from its original publication, The New American), Police: An Army by Any Other Name. Akers addresses the issues of the ongoing militarization of local police and the history behind how such militarization and the over-growth of police departments have become so intrusive, like they are invading forces in our own communities.

On a federal level, our DC Leviathan has become so overgrown and intrusive that these out-of-control bureaucrats might as well be a foreign government having invaded America. This is especially the case now that Congress has passed and Barack Obama has signed into law the new provisions that gives the president the power to have military (and police or any armed agent of government, really) arrest and detain indefinitely any civilian of the President’s choosing, without charge, without trial, and without any evidence against the accused whatsoever. As Jacob Hornberger observed, the invaders have codified a true dictatorship.

And as Hornberger also noted, James Madison and several of the other early Americans were very skeptical of the need or use for standing armies. They had great foresight and intuitively and wisely believed that the standing army would eventually be used by the federal government for illicit purposes. For the past century, as the federal government’s size and power and intrusiveness has grown, the more the military has been used for the President’s own personal purposes. Lew Rockwell recently republished his 1996 speech on the Presidency and documents how such an office, such a power, is itself a dictatorship. A lot of people can’t see that, or they just don’t want to believe it because they live in a world of fantasy, a world of children’s storybook tales that describe the President and government officials as Good People, and U.S. history as having been “For the Good of Mankind.” See Laurence Vance in U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them.

And when you have community policing and security having been monopolized by local governments, such powers for the few over the masses will also be used not against the actual criminals but against the people in general. And that is what we have now. We have local police and S.W.A.T. teams being used to enforce fascist drug laws and anti-raw milk decrees in which the government has claimed ownership of everyone’s bodies, in which the government decides what you may or may not ingest in your own body. And we have the protectionism police in which the police are used to enforce laws and bureaucratic edicts that do nothing but protect the high profits of established businesses at the expense of entrepreneurs. Federal, state and local police, FBI and other armed bureaucrats are literally terrorizing the people now, and FOR NO GOOD REASON!!

The leftists and progressives just don’t realize what they are really doing when they support arbitrary regulations of private, otherwise peaceful commercial activities. The more regulations and bureaucratic red tape you come up with, the more police you have to enforce such useless crap. But those on the left just don’t understand that. The Dodd-Frank law now will make good use of an extremely expanded police power to further intrude upon, interfere with and wreck private trade in America, and further terrorize innocent people, innocent civilians. I wish those on the left, who superficially protest police abuses (until they themselves get in power, that is), would understand that. (Cynically but realistically, I believe that politicians such as Elizabeth Warren actually do understand that.)

In order to roll back the police state that has been growing like mad in Amerika now, we need first and foremost to de-monopolize local community policing and security. You see, when you allow the government to forcibly monopolize local community policing and security, and thus outlaw voluntary organizations and competitive security and policing firms, you are giving the monopolists “authority” over others. That completely goes against the idea of liberty. This artificial authority removes from the uniformed monopolists the status of being “equal under the law.” They are no longer equals, they have become above the law. And that’s an inherently immoral situation.

Who in his right mind wants some dude to have that kind of power and armed authority of being above the law over you and your family? Giving these monopolists such authority and armed power and the right to be above the law has given them the ability to break the law, violating laws against aggression, theft, trespass, and they damn well have taken advantage of it. So who in his right mind would knowingly choose a system like this? Given just how much chaos and violence is going on throughout America, because so many crimes are being committed by the monopolists of community policing and security, one wonders how few people are actually in their right minds these days.

The people of America who believe in the rule of law, and believe that no one should be above the law, should consider de-monopolizing their local communities’ policing and security. Allow private competitive firms to operate and allow voluntary organizations to police the neighborhoods. All forms of gun control must be removed so that the people have the freedom to exercise their rights to protect themselves from criminals.

But currently, with the existing government-monopolized police forces, we need to abolish all police unions and public pensions. The government-monopolized police forces must not be allowed to unionize. As long as the government monopolizes local policing, they should not be allowed to profit from it. This has been a major contributor to so much of the corruption and kickbacks. A monopoly that is compulsory on the civilians to use it is not accountable, and is destined to become corrupt. In contrast, competing firms in which no one would be above the law will be accountable to the community. And let them profit from it. That attracts the ones who are best suited for such work, while the market would weed out the bad apples. (Monopoly does not weed out the bad apples — it promotes them!)

Unfortunately, such a scenario of de-unionizing and de-monopolizing seems unlikely at present because of the growing authoritarian nature of many people in our society now. The people seem to want others to be in positions of artificial authority over them and they want unaccountable monopolists in charge and they want them to be above the law. Too bad so many people now seem to be masochists. They will probably change their minds, however, after the economic collapse and martial law when Obama orders the military (with the help of government-monopolized local and state “law enforcement agencies,” of course) to arrest and detain innocent civilians who engage in non-government-approved commerce and trade, who speak out against the government, and who exercise their right to self-defense.

What the people also need to do right now — that is, those who are in their right minds and are not masochists — is to crack down on the corrupt, criminal or criminally incompetent armed agents of government. For example, a New Hampshire resident found that his home had been burglarized while he was in the home. Rather than call the police, he went outside to try to find the burglar, and he found the burglar climbing out the window of his neighbor’s home! The first homeowner fired a warning shot into the ground and he held the varmint at gunpoint until police arrived. While the police did arrest the criminal, the police also arrested the homeowner for firing his gun (which was not in the air which would be stupid, but into the ground which was safe). They charged the Good Guy with reckless conduct for firing the gun in a residential area.

But why don’t they ever charge the police with reckless conduct? And with assault, destruction of property and murder because those crimes are being committed by the police monopolists on a daily basis throughout America. And it’s getting worse each day. In this instance, what the people of Farmington, New Hampshire need to do is charge the actual police officers who have deprived the innocent civilian of life and liberty with criminal mischief and endangerment, at the very least. They also need to charge the police with theft: They stole the guy’s handgun and seven of his rifles. They also need to be fired for incompetence and neglect of duty.

Now, for those of you who believe that the homeowner who fired the gun should be charged and that the police did the right thing: What if he instead called the police? Well, they would have gone over to his house, made out a report, and gone back to Dunkin’ Donuts. And that would have been the end of that.

The guy did the right thing, and he prevented the burglar from going into other homes after that second one, and the resident may have actually saved some other resident not just from one’s home being burglarized but from actual harm committed by the burglar!

So, with government-monopolized local community policing and security, and with standing armies that are used by federal bureaucrats to start unnecessary wars and provoke foreigners for no good reason (and will soon be treasonously turning the guns on the American people especially during the economic collapse and time of great civil unrest that is to follow), we have incompetence, chaos, private crimes protected by public criminals, and we are all less safe and less secure because of it.

As Arthur Silber noted in a post yesterday, regarding the unwillingness to make the big fraudster banks accountable, “For the ruling class, ‘the rule of law’ isn’t a means of protecting you or your liberty. It’s a means of enforcement, a critical way of protecting their own power and wealth.”

So when we let the government monopolize any kind of policing, and giving them “authority” over others in a charade of “law and order,” we have them become The Law. That is when The Law will be used against the masses for the sake of the empowerment of the few.

In America, we need to de-monopolize and decentralize. Otherwise, the current trend of government-monopolized police, the militarization of society, and the treatment of innocent civilians as criminals while letting the real criminals get away with their abuse of the armed power of The Law, will only continue to escalate to a state of intolerable mass violence and civil chaos.

Let there be freedom in America!

Government Central Planners and the Irresponsibility and Misery They Have Wrought

Two related issues are in the news. I must comment. One is the argument over Herr Obama’s dictatorial birth control mandate of employers, including religious and educational institutions. The other issue comes from the article in the New York Times that out-of-wedlock births are at an all-time high.

The moral, social and cultural decline of America that includes the destruction of the family unit is largely a result of State intrusions and infiltration into private relationships, associations and contracts.

The “Sexual Revolution” was never any such “revolution,” but an excuse to live a lifestyle of self-centered immediate gratification at the expense of personal responsibility and the suppression of the natural desire to have offspring. It was also at the expense of sacrificing the natural ability to provide emotional comfort, warmth and personal security for the offspring toward their own growth and development.

What is the largest contributor to such societal decay in America? As with everything else, it’s the State and the social collectivists whose desire it has been to stamp out individualism with their social and economic policies that can be described as “Keynesian,” the policies of immediate gratification, rent-seeking, parasitism and debts, at the expense of others and at the expense of future planning and future generations.

Governments — federal, state and local — have largely taken over everything in the past 150 years, the education of America’s youth, medical care, banking and finance, and people’s hard-earned retirement funding and the will to save from an early age toward one’s retirement. You name it, the government has seized control over it.

What needs to be done is stop encouraging the youth to be irresponsible with their sexuality as well as with their money they earn or acquire. Many people who think they are “liberal” are really just believing in irresponsibility. Children and teens need to be encouraged to practice abstinence. “But that’s not realistic,” some people say. No, only short-sighted and immediate gratification-oriented people think that’s unrealistic. Children and teens are too young to handle the emotional aspects of sexual relations with others. (Weren’t there some studies that concluded that many women whose sex lives in their marriages were unsatisfying had begun to be sexually active at too early an age?)

And also, our culture has developed into one that discourages boys from becoming men. Now we have “zero tolerance,” and “no playing on the playground because you might hurt yourself” rules, families who do not require a boy who got his girlfriend pregnant to get a job to support the child, and helicopter moms following their boys to college. And the girls are being raised to be sluts now, wearing skimpy, revealing little articles of clothing that their parents buy them. If I had a teenage girl at this time and she were wearing something like that, I’d say, “you’re not going out in that, are you?” and no, she would NOT be going out in that. And she wouldn’t risk getting pregnant and either having a baby at such a young age or having an abortion, because, with the “not under my roof” policy, she would know that if that ever happened she’s out of the house and on her own. Good luck, kid.

There are other aspects of this trend of irresponsibility and dependence on government. The youth need to be encouraged to work part-time during their high school years (abolishing all labor laws including “child labor” and minimum wage laws would help them do that). They should also be encouraged to turn that part-time into full-time work after high school graduation, given what a scam college is these days. It would be helpful if the government would repeal the income tax and capital gains taxes as well as Social Security and all other withholding confiscations. These repeals would effect in the biggest expansion of the U.S. economy ever, and millions of new, real jobs would be created for those high school graduates. They should be encouraged to work full-time and take college courses at night or online toward eventually getting an undergraduate degree.

The youth also need to be encouraged to save — put something aside each week and do not take from that savings — toward their retirement so they don’t have to be dependent on a government retirement scheme that won’t be there when they actually do retire. So the government is taking money from them in its promise to provide for their retirement — that’s a fraudulent promise, and the taking is nothing but theft. It is just something you have to deal with in life, until the necessary decentralization process takes place following the collapse that will occur because Leviathan eventually kills off so many of the actual producers that there are no longer any more producers in the society from whom to siphon the wealth that will soon be non-existent.

Also, this idea of employers having to provide health insurance, pensions, etc. — that’s all a bunch of garbage. YOU should provide your own health insurance and retirements, not employers and not governments. This scheme of dependence on employers for those extras in life is another scam that has put America (and Europe) into as much moral hazard as has the aforementioned cultural and social permissiveness.

Now, regarding Herr Obama’s forcing employers to provide birth control against their will, that is a crime. It is yet another of the many crimes that government commits against the people in its intrusions into private contracts amongst the people. Such dictates are aggressions and trespasses, and should be treated as such. The contract is between the employer and the employee, and the terms of the contract are between those parties and not for anyone else to intrude upon. Who the hell is some government bureaucrat to force you to provide ANYTHING to your employees that you don’t want to provide? Such a government bureaucrat is nothing but a fascist and a dictator (hence, “Herr Obama”).

And ladies, if you want to get the birth control pill — regardless of the cancers it might cause you — YOU pay for it! Just as if you want an arthritis pill (even though fish oil would probably be better for you), YOU pay for it! Stop being such dependent babies and do things for yourselves, for crying out loud! (“I am woman, hear me roar, I am strong, I am invincible”? No, not if you’re a dependent schlep you’re not.) Our whole society now is one in which everyone demands that everyone else pay for everything they want in life. I compare that to the men who get their girlfriends pregnant but don’t stay around to actually be a man and raise the child. Have your pleasure but make other people pay for the consequences is the new American way.

So, last week Laura Ingraham interviewed Tiananmen Square heroine Chai Ling, who spoke about the mandatory abortions in China. Please, don’t get me started on the central planning that has distorted their population and what would otherwise have been a natural, unplanned “distribution” of their people. The imbecilic Chinese bureaucrats with their huge ghost cities throughout China, with skyscrapers loaded with vacant condo apartments that no one can afford to buy. And their mandatory abortions and child murders, especially their daughter murders. A truly sick society. And all because of what their selfish, authoritarian rulers desire for control and central planning and the human misery and disaster they have wrought.

There are not enough women in China for all the men there because of the millions and millions of little girls who have been slaughtered in the name of central planning population control. Hey, Planned Parenthood: Are we next?

Who Won World War II?

Jacob Hornberger asked recently, Who Won World War II? Well, it certainly wasn’t Europe. And it wasn’t Americans either. FDR lured the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to drag the U.S. into World War II, because his real intention was, in my opinion, to take over Europe. Maybe he didn’t take over Europe in the sense of conquest. But FDR caused Europe, at least Western Europe, to become dependent on the U.S. government for handouts, as well as for its security (such as it was).

Causing those Europeans to become dependent on the U.S. government (and on U.S. workers and producers, i.e. “taxpayers,”) for their daily sustenance and their security has only discouraged them to provide for themselves and protect themselves from foreign aggressors. Europeans are now extremely vulnerable, as well as living under massive debts. Europeans are slaves of their corrupt governments’ politicians and bureaucrats who are in cahoots with America’s own corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. All thanks to FDR.

The proof I have to show that FDR was motivated to take over Europe in this way and make Europeans dependent on FDR’s government is that FDR forced his own people to be dependent on the government, to be slaves of the politicians and bureaucrats who rule over us. FDR implemented many government mandates and policies, including forcing all Americans to have to participate in the one government-run retirement scheme known as the Social Security fraud.

Who won World War II? Power-hungry and greedy politicians and bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists, that’s who.

Doh! Not. Another. Kennedy.

I don’t particularly like writing about political things. I usually prefer writing about matters in history, philosophy, economics and psychology, mainly. But when political items come up in the news that need to be discussed, well, then I’ll discuss them. So here goes.

It appears that yet another Kennedy is about to go to Washington to interfere with and intrude upon our lives along with the rest of the Congresscriminals there, as Joseph P. Kennedy III (1980- ) wants to replace the retiring Barney Frank next year. This Joe Kennedy is the son of former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II (1952- ) who replaced the late Speaker Tip o”Neill as the Congressman from Cambridge, Massachusetts, from 1987-1999. That Joe Kennedy is the son of the late Sen. Bobby Kennedy (1925-1968).

Now, if you find all that as confusing as I do, here is some more on the enumeration of these Joe Kennedys. Robert F. “Bobby” Kennedy named his son the former Congressman Joe Kennedy after Bobby’s brother, the late Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (1915-1944), who died in World War II near Suffolk, England. And that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr.’s father was the old man, the senior gangster from Boston, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. (1888-1969). Don’t get me started on that one.

But I don’t understand how you can have both a Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. AND a Joseph P. Kennedy II. In fact, I recall that the former Congressman from Cambridge, Massachusetts, Joseph P. Kennedy II was known during the 1980s and ’90s as Joseph P. Kennedy III. That’s what I remember. Am I alone in this? Oh, well. These Kennedys keep screwing everything up, so I’m not surprised that they can’t get their numbers straight.

Anyway, the youngest of the Joe Kennedys is moving from Cambridge to Brookline just to be able to qualify to represent the Massachusetts Fourth District which Barney Frank currently and lousily represents. Just as the youngest Joe Kennedy (III) has moved from Cambridge to Brookline solely for political reasons, his father Joseph P. Kennedy II (that I thought was III) also moved from wherever the hell he was living in 1986 over to Cambridge (well, I think it was Brighton, actually) just to run for Tip O’Neill’s seat in the Eight District. I think he was living in Pennsylvania before that. But wherever it was, it wasn’t the Eight District. But the now “elder” Joe Kennedy seems to be the Congressman from Venezuela now (Where did Hugo?).

Anyway, it is my opinion (and that of many, many others as well) that these Kennedys have a genetic predisposition that drives them toward the political means of life, but certainly not the economic means. Can any one of them possibly survive in life without the use of political force? That is, in the private sector? Even as a lawyer, this youngest Joe Kennedy isn’t even a “private practice” attorney, as he works for the Middlesex County DA’s office (after having worked for the Cape and Islands DA’s office).

I see on Politics1.com that this little shaver Kennedy has several Democrat opponents in the September primary election. But we know he is going to take the nomination, despite his inexperience, just as we can predict that Elizabeth Warren will take the Democrat nomination over her party opponents against Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate. If Kennedy is the Democrat nominee from Congress, his Republican opponent will be either Sean Beilat (Frank’s 2010 opponent) or psychiatrist and former state Mental Health Commissioner Elizabeth Childs (Do we need a “Mental Health Commission”? And, Do we need a psychiatrist in Congress? However, God knows there are plenty of Congresscriminals in Washington who could use a good psychiatrist!).

But they are ALL statists, and NONE of them understands what true American principles of liberty and peace are all about. In fact, back in January 2010 at the time of the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (1932-2009), there actually WAS a Kennedy on the ballot, but this time a GOOD Kennedy, another “Joe Kennedy,” the third party candidate against Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Cocoapuffs. No, this Joe Kennedy was not a part of any of the other Joe Kennedys (I know, there are too many Joe Kennedys, I know!). He is not related to the “regular” Kennedy family (which is not to suggest that this Joe Kennedy was “irregular”).

With that election as with most others in the USSA, the news media do not or rarely cover third-party or alternative candidates, especially if they are not the beloved statists that most in the State-worshiping media adore. Candidates who are anti-Establishment, such as Joe Kennedy in the aforementioned Scott Brown election (and Ron Paul as well) are ignored, marginalized, belittled, and just not taken seriously by our high-and-mighty news people and pundits. You see, the statist quo comforts them, no matter how corrupt it is, and we have generations and generations of government-schooled and brainwashed “intellectuals” telling the masses what they want to hear.

Here is an interview by Emily Rooney of that non-relative Joe Kennedy, the third party candidate against Scott Brown and Martha Coakley from the early 2010 election. If you live in Massachusetts and were familiar with that election involving Brown and Coakley, but had never even heard of that Joe Kennedy, then that means the media had not been doing their job. (Currently, not only are the media not doing their job with the 2012 presidential campaign, but even worse, they are actively suppressing the message of the only non-Establishment candidate, Ron Paul. The media act as if they are good little Pravda-propagandists, good little subservient mini-Goebbels, if you ask me.)

But the people of Massachusetts, like the USSA generally, love the statists, and the Kennedys as well. They will probably vote overwhelmingly for Joseph P. Kennedy III (or is it IV?) and for Elizabeth Warren as well.

And, FYI, here is a debate from 2010 with the two statists, Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, and the libertarian-independent Joe Kennedy that very few people in Massachusetts had even heard of.

CPAC: CRAZY Political Action Conference!

I wanted to say that CPAC stood for the Communist Political Action Conference, but I was afraid that, despite its accuracy, it wouldn’t have been taken as seriously as “crazy,” because I know that most people are already in agreement on that. At least, the ones who don’t put themselves in denial of what these people really stand for.

It is time to tell the truth about these literally crazy people who are good at projecting a persona of normality, in their insatiable hunger for more power over others.

These so-called “conservatives” are really nuts now. They really are crazy. We have three socialists (i.e. communists) — Santorum, Gingrich and Romney — appearing at the Orwellian-named “Conservative” Political Action Conference, while the one actual conservative, who really IS conservative, Ron Paul, was cordially excluded. Only in Orwellian Amerika do we have this situation.

Romney referred to himself as “severely conservative,” in his one moment of true honesty in revealing how his destructive socialism is truly a mental illness. We know from actual historical fact that Romney/Kennedy/Obama/Bush socialism has always had destructive consequences. They are literally ruining America with their State intrusions, their confiscations, and their wars of aggression.

And, when Romney said that he was a “severely conservative governor,” even THAT’S not true! He raised taxes on businesses and implemented this failed government-managed healthcare-insurance scheme. No real capitalist would force a government-managed scheme like that on anyone! Talk about Orwellian! He’s nuts! Now, I’ve linked to these videos before, but just look at the way he snubs a medical patient in this one, and showing his love for Ted Kennedy in this one, and his street-performer-like gestures in this one. Willard is just plain nuts!

And Rick Sanitorium. Bob Livingston had this list of Santorum’s socialist positions in Washington, his anti-gun rights intrusions, and his post-Senate lobbying corruption. And here is a video of Santorum from 2006 admitting what a socialist imbecile he was then (and is now).

And here are The American Dream Blog’s 27 reasons why Newt Gingrich would be a really, really bad president.

Ron Paul was excluded from CPAC by childish, sniveling little pricks who are Big Government Republicans who revere the State and are contemptuous of actual conservative values, contemptuous of actual American values. Hypocrites, liars, flip-floppers, and ignoramus warmongers.

Most of all they are crazy people. That means they are not rational. It is beyond just Orwellian. And Paul Krugman has the nerve to refer to Ron Paul supporters as “tinfoil hat” wearers. And the supporters of these socialist (and corrupt as well) GOP candidates are in denial, too. They know that these candidates are all Big Government intruders, but, like good little obedient serfs they will rally around one of them, regardless of his standing by the statist quo Establishment, and they will cheer the socialist GOP candidate right to defeat by the articulate, attractive actor who has swept Amerika off her feet, Herr Obama.

The sheepish followers are afraid of Ron Paul, and his policies of freedom and peace. The obedient deniers-of-reality fall prey to the lies and propaganda of U.S. government bureaucrats run amok, in their cries of “Terrorists!” “Iranian Threats!” and so forth, despite actual facts and evidence, despite how everything the U.S. government bureaucrats and military have done in the past ten (or twenty) years have been central planning disasters and gone against America.

Glenn Greenwald described yesterday and today how dishonest our national MSM are in their merely repeating everything the government tells them without any substantiation whatsoever. And, as with Iraq in 2002-03, the sheeple eat it up like drooling dogs. (Mmmm, would you like fries with that?)

The real tinfoil hat wearers are the masses out there who support these clowns who have done nothing but bring America to ruin.

Hmmm, provoking foreigners is “conservative.” Placing your hundreds of military bases on other peoples’ territories but not allowing other foreign governments to place their military on your territory is “conservative.” Stopping and searching people randomly, arresting and detaining people indefinitely without charges or evidence against them is “conservative.” According to the preaching ignorant, Orwellian blowhards, their moral relativism = “traditional conservative values.”

Whether it is a reelected Obama or any of the three severely socialist GOP clowns elected by the obedient sheeple, the President will use NDAA to turn the military against not just ‘Occupy’ protesters but Tea Party protesters as well, and other critics of government including journalists and bloggers. And when there are more terrorist attacks within the U.S. as retaliation against the U.S. government’s aggressions overseas, especially if the U.S. starts a war of aggression against Iran, you will probably wonder why you supported someone as dishonest, narcissistic and socialist as the three CPAC crazies.

A few weeks ago, Arthur Silber wrote in a post:

Tens of millions of Americans will vote for the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. They will not understand that they are thereby supporting evil. They refuse to consider withdrawing that support…

Most Americans are like badly damaged children: they expect evil to announce itself in advance, with the aid of thundering, ominous music on the soundtrack of their increasingly desperate lives. But that is not how evil most commonly arrives. It comes with a gentle, reassuring smile. It insinuates itself with soothing platitudes. It speaks of “threats” to our “security” that cannot be countenanced. It says it only wants to make you “safe.”

And the murders go on, and they increase in number. Later on, those who manage to survive will be heard to say, “But we never knew it would come to that.” Or they insist that most people “went along,” and ask: Who was I to stand against that tide? Yet they will not be able to say they were not warned, or that no one had ever seen such horrors before…

No, evil does not come to us proclaiming its true nature. Evil is not committed only by screaming, psychopathic maniacs. Most of the time, and certainly in the beginning, it seems completely ordinary. It is, as Auden said, “unspectacular and always human.” It appears to be entirely normal. The greatest danger is not the person whom you view as obviously “crazy.” The greatest danger is the person you regard as normal, thoughtful and well-spoken, the person who claims to be opposed to the horrors and who says he’s on your side. This is precisely why Obama (and the Democrats generally) constitute a singular threat to those of us who genuinely value the sanctity of a single life…

You need to wake up and smell the coffee: Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all the same. Narcissistic political opportunists who have no problem with using the armed force of government to impose medical intrusions, their own subjective social views, environmental property violations, and overseas aggressions for the sake of further expanding the power of the DC Regime, further diminishing your liberty, security, and prosperity, until there is none of that left. Don’t be crazy. Don’t vote for crazy people.