Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

The Truth About Terrorism, and the U.S. Government

October 20, 2010

© 2010 (Link to article)

My writing this was inspired by Paul Craig Roberts’s great article The War on Terror, in which he tells the truth about what’s really going on, and I wanted to expand more on this terrorism subject.

There are many reasons why the U.S. government needs to place itself on the Terrorist Watch List, but since there isn’t enough space to include all that here, I’ll just touch on the most important points.

To begin, millions of Americans report their income and employment status to the U.S. government out of fear, and for no other reason. It certainly isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts (except for the most naïve amongst us). Most Americans who are required to pay a certain percentage of their income to the feds aren’t really paying – it is being taken from them under the threat of various intrusions, such as garnishing their wages or putting a lien on their homes (like a lien on one’s home really matters anymore now in the time of ForeclosureGate). For many Americans, the taking is automatic, directly from their paychecks. So employers as well as workers must submit to the threat of brute force if they don’t comply with the demand for information on employment status and payment. Millions of Americans are terrorized by the federal government, not only for what might happen to them if they don’t comply with the demands, but if a mistake is made. There have been horror stories told by many Americans of what happened to them because a mistake was made – including mistakes made by the government.

And many owners of businesses, especially of small businesses, are terrified that they will be persecuted by some government bureaucrat for not following one of the many thousands of regulations that businesses must obey, regulations that exist for no good reason – only to protect larger businesses’ profits. (Thanks, Herr Lincoln.) And especially because of the unstable economic environment now, millions of businesses are afraid to take risks, make any new investments, or hire new workers because they don’t know what the situation will be for them even months from now, let alone years. And Congress won’t even let people know whether or not the Bush tax cuts will be extended or allowed to expire after January 1st, 2011. No one knows what to do. (I’m sure businesses and workers all across America would prosper, if we could only abolish Congress.)

Regarding the War on Terrorism and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), I am now terrified of flying. This is not because a terrorist might hijack the plane, but because of the intrusiveness of what people now have to endure when going through security checkpoints: the pornographic X-rays, the frisking and groping, the searching of my clothing and belongings, the harsh interrogations. Out of their blind faith in the State, the American sheeple have assumed that there should be no alternative to the State’s monopoly in territorial protection, and have passively accepted the constantly growing intrusions by the State against the people and their Liberty. As an experienced pilot has suggested, the airlines should be responsible for their security, not the government. And arm the pilots as well. And arm the passengers as well. In the meantime, I won’t fly.

And then there are the anti-civil liberties, anti-Due Process presidential powers that the Bush Administration had usurped, and that the Obama Administration seems to enjoy having, of apprehending and detaining individuals without actual suspicion, of extraordinary rendition, torture, even presidentially-directed assassinations of individuals deemed by the president and his agents to be “terrorists” without due process or trial. And, given that the whole world, including U.S. territory, is considered to be part of the Global Battlefield in the Global War on Terror, and given that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano has issued warnings against “right-wing extremists,” essentially those who disagree with Obama’s policies, and given that I happen to be one who disagrees with just about all of Obama’s policies from his war crimes to his communist social policies, then obviously no place in America is safe, and it really is terrifying now.

And regarding the federal government’s intrusions into Americans’ private health matters, I know someone who has said that, because of the new ObamaCare medical intrusions, he will not have his follow-up medical procedures as long as ObamaCare is in place. He just doesn’t want his medical details being scrutinized by government officials. And I also have some health situations for which I rely very much on OTC vitamins and supplements. But, because the Obama FDA wants to crack down on OTC supplement makers, that really is a direct threat to me. I am literally terrified that these bureaucratic misfits in Washington want to take away my only real means of keeping me in (somewhat) good health, and all on behalf of Big Pharma. It’s disgusting how so many people in various federal agencies are on the boards of large pharmaceutical industries, and the cahoots between Big Pharma and Big Government, with lobbyists and campaign donations to legislators to vote Big Pharma’s way, is downright scary.

Also, because the U.S. government has done nothing but provoke Muslims in Middle Eastern countries to act against Americans, I am terrified of another major terrorist attack in the U.S. It would be solely because of what the U.S. government has been doing, especially since 1990. The U.S. government’s actions of terrorism against innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East, and its intrusions into just about every aspect of daily life, have been making me less safe, as well as all other Americans.

Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Bush’s father George H.W. Bush actually should all be tried for war crimes and terrorism, especially against Muslims in the Middle East. The IRS, the FDA, the TSA, and other extensions of the federal Leviathan also need to be held accountable for their actions. If we can’t have that, then at the very least, the U.S. government must place itself on the Terror Watch List, as it is the one organization that has been most responsible for terrorizing the most people, ever.

Neanderthal Senate Candidate

Apparently Alaska Tea Party Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Miller doesn’t understand the First Amendment. It seems that, at a “Town Hall” event in a public middle school, a reporter tried to ask him some questions, and Miller’s private security goons pushed the reporter who then pushed back, followed by the reporter’s being arrested — by the private security guards! The zealous protectors of the would-be senator accused the reporter of “trespassing” on public property!

Miller has already made it clear that he won’t answer any more questions regarding his background, apparently not understanding that, if he wants to be a U.S. senator and have that much power and control over our lives as Americans, then we have every right in the world to ask questions, either directly or through the Press, about who he is and what his background is. If he doesn’t like that, then he needs to rethink his career path. He also needs to study First Amendment issues and the relationship between the Press and government officials. If he has security guards, that’s fine. But if he is a candidate for a powerful office such as U.S. senator, he needs to make his guards know that shoving a reporter isn’t the way to handle that. Who does he think he is, Martha Coakley?

Candidates for Attorney General Debate – But Could a State Nullify Federal Martial Law?

In Connecticut, the candidates for state attorney general had a debate this week, and part of the debate included a discussion of nullification, the act of an individual state “nullifying” a federal law or policy that the state has decided either violates the U.S. Constitution, the state’s constitution or otherwise infringes on the rights of the state’s citizens in some way. Thomas Jefferson and most of the Founders, especially the Anti-Federalists agreed with this inherent right of states to disregard bad federal laws.

The two candidates who debated were Republican Martha Dean and Democrat George Jepsen. (Say, wasn’t he a cartoon character in the 1960s, who worked at Spacely’s Space Sprockets? Well, he certainly sounds like someone who’s in outer space, that’s for sure.)

It is unbelievable how ignorant some people are. When the discussion of nullification came up, Jepsen, formerly of Spacely’s Space Sprockets, blurted that nullification “has no place in our discussion today … The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbitrator with what is constitutional and not constitutional. It’s not for the states to decide.” Yikes! “It’s not for the states to decide?” Apparently, the space shot doesn’t understand that the states actually created the federal government — the states really are supposed to be the boss, the federal government their employee, so to speak.

Thomas Woods, author of the recently released book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, commented on this debate on his blog, and gave an analogy:

If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself?  Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place?  Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.

Now, one of my main concerns, however, regarding the current state of things here in the USA, is that, if there is to be an economic crisis of the magnitude that some doom-and-gloomers are predicting, such as Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente, both of whom have made very accurate predictions in the past, then there’s a good possibility that the Obama Administration will take advantage of such a crisis and impose Martial Law. And I want to know if Martha Dean believes that, if the federal government imposes Martial Law, the states would have a right to nullify such a Martial Law. For me the answer should be obvious: Of course the states have a right to nullify any federally-imposed Martial Law and, if there is civil unrest and looting, and so on, then a state has the God-given, inherent right to nullify federal gun laws and allow citizens to exercise one’s right of self-defense in such a situation, and not rely on “federal marshals” or worse, the military, to protect them.

In the case of economic collapse and civil unrest, violence and looting, it really is the right and responsibility of the people to protect themselves, their families, their property and their businesses, not the federal government, or even the state governments.

If such an economic collapse occurs, followed by civil unrest, violence and looting, we can blame Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd et al. But if the federal government imposes Martial Law, it will be solely because the Obama Administration is taking advantage of the crisis and panic, only for the sake of usurping further power grabs, and for no other reason. And that’s the truth, now. That’s the kind of people we’re dealing with in Washington, whether it be Obama or Bush or Cheney. Martial Law = military dictatorship.

And also, in such a case of Martial Law, there would be “curfews.” Jeepers! Can you believe the mentality of people who would support these kinds of things? In NO circumstances should any innocent individual be locked in one’s home or in any place! Freedom of movement is a God-given right, and in these instances where these kinds of threats are expressed by the federal government, the states should tell the federal government to go to Hell. Remember, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Don’t allow the centralized Leviathan to become a military dictatorship. Not in America! There’s NO excuse!

What Causes Terrorism? Government Bureaucrats

Glenn Greenwald writes in They hate us for our occupations:

In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to study what causes Terrorism, and it concluded that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies”:  specifically, “American direct intervention in the Muslim world” through our “one sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan” (the full report is here).  Now, a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years:  namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather.  . . . foreign military occupations….

Imagine that.  Isn’t Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable?  As strange as it is, they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade and occupy their countries, and Western powers interfere in their internal affairs by overthrowing and covertly manipulating their governments, imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, and arming their enemies.  Therefore (of course), the solution to Terrorism is to interfere more in their countries by continuing to occupy, bomb, invade, assassinate, lawlessly imprison and control them, because that’s the only way we can Stay Safe.  There are people over there who are angry at us for what we’re doing in their world, so we need to do much more of it to eradicate the anger.  That’s the core logic of the War on Terror….

The only caveat I’d add to Professor Ahmed’s remarks is that a desire to exact vengeance for foreign killings on your soil is hardly a unique attribute of Pashtun culture.  It’s fairly universal.  See, for instance, the furious American response to the one-day attack on 9/11 — still going strong even after 9 years.  As Professor Pape documents:  ”when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns . . . and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign.”

I’ve been repeating that quite a lot here. The terrorists themselves have made it perfectly clear what motivates their terrorism and violence, and, while there have been religious aspects involved in their rage, the primary motivation has been political: They don’t like foreign governments occupying their lands. The U.S. government has been colluding and scheming with other governments in the expansion of U.S. government apparatus especially military bases on their foreign territories for many, many decades, but, aside from the governments of those foreign countries, the actual inhabitants of those countries, particularly the Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, have perceived that as being intrusions and acts of trespassing, and they are correct.

I’ve made note of this before here, but I’ll repeat this comparison. Those people here in the U.S. who see nothing wrong with our government expanding itself on foreign lands probably would react negatively if Barack Obama were to make an agreement with the Chinese government to put Chinese military bases in Texas or Montana. It’s just a guess. But for some reason, the more self-centered among us seem to think it’s different if its our government trespassing on other people’s lands.

But I wanted to address the unwillingness or inability of government bureaucrats to recognize the real causes and effects going on in these international conflicts. For example, the CIA had overthrown the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah and supported the Shah and his dictatorial, murderous regime for 25  years, leading up to the 1979 taking of Americans hostage by enraged Iranians in Iran. Shouldn’t Americans have learned from that long episode? There was a moral lesson there: Don’t intrude in the affairs of other peoples, don’t trespass on their lands, don’t support dictatorial State regimes who oppress their people.

But nooooo, in 1990, President George H.W. Bush gets an administration flunky to go over to Iraq and give Saddam Hussein the message that if he invaded Kuwait that the U.S. government would look the other way. Then, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush then invades Iraq. The Bush crowd wanted Iraq all along for the sake of U.S. government expansion, more power, and oil. (In fact, Ronald Reagan wanted to reduce the size and power of the U.S. government — in philosophy he was not an expansionist, but the Reagan Administration during the 1980s was infected with Bush cronies throughout the Administration.) And then the Bush administration went on to destroy Iraq (the first time), wreck water and sewage treatment facilities (much in the same way that the Israeli government has done in the Gaza Strip, and refuses to fix it) and through sanctions had deliberately withheld the means to repair that infrastructure, leading to increased cancer and child mortality rates and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, many of them children, by 2001.

But why is it that, despite our knowing full well that terrorists –from the 1993 WTC bomber to Osama Bin Laden — had been reacting to the U.S. government’s invasions, intrusions, sanctions, and support for murderous regimes, the government bureaucrats’ answer to terrorist attacks against America is to do more of the same thing that’s causing the problem?

A similar example is the American medical system — it’s in shambles. The reason it is so dysfunctional and costly is not because “the free market failed,” but because of all the government interventions, interferences, intrusions, regulations, bureaucracy, taxes and fees that have been distorting the medical system. There hasn’t been a “free market” in the medical system in decades, a century, in fact. But the government bureaucrats’ answer to this crisis has been to do more of the same! ObamaCare! It’s like government bureaucrats and statists never learn.

The same situation is in foreign policy. The causes of problems and crises are government interventions, interferences, and intrusions in both domestic and foreign affairs.

When you have problems and crises in private business, what do the leaders of private businesses do (or usually do, and when they aren’t enmeshed with government agencies)? Do they go into their neighbors’ homes and other people’s businesses and interfere, intervene, and intrude? No, of course not. They’d get arrested for trespassing, theft or being a public nuisance. But the government bureaucrat’s answer to problems and crises has been and probably always will be to do more of the same: more intrusions, more interventions and more interferences. That is because that’s the nature of compulsory government: Government bureaucrats have the power of compulsion that “regular” people don’t have, the power of legally-protected monopoly that others don’t have, and, most important, the power to be above the law, whether those bureaucrats are in “national defense” like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld or in domestic affairs like Kathleen Sebelius or Arne Duncan.

That is the difference between government bureaucrats and private citizens or businessmen. Businessmen wouldn’t go over to Iran and overthrow democratically elected leaders and replace them with dictators, and businessmen wouldn’t go invade a country that didn’t attack them — only professional, career government bureaucrats and politicians do that.

My fear is that the upcoming electoral “cleansing” in Washington, that will supposedly sweep in Republicans and oust Democrats, will also be perceived as a “mandate” for continued Republican-initiated policies: more U.S. government intrusions in the Middle East, and that will be because government bureaucrats never, ever learn.

To Hell With the IMF and the Political Pigs – Bring on Martha Dean

Economic matters in the United States continue to worsen, and international leaders have failed to make agreements at the latest IMF gathering (like “I agree that we should cease centralizing monetary production, cartelizing banking and internationalizing Americans’ private economic matters, etc.” for example). And Federal Reserve chairman Ben Burnbanker is now hinting or even admitting that America’s financial situation is up you-know-what’s creek. But the politicians here in America, most of whom are complete economic ignoramuses and live in the way-out, drug-influenced galaxies of Neverland fantasizing, continue their election campaigns with rhetoric and mud-slinging that just continues to remind me that these elections are really an awful waste of time and money. Hardly anyone speaks of principles and moral values, but we do hear a lot of superficial claptrap and emotional whining on both sides of the aisle, which, when you get right down to it, is really the same side of the aisle: The Statists. They are on their one big side and the very small minority of Liberty-promoters are on the other. We rarely hear from the ones promoting Liberty, only the ones, Republican and Democrat, who love the State.

For example, in the People’s Republic of California, Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitless has been accused of making some backroom deals with unions in order to win their endorsement. Should that be too much of a surprise, given that Ms. Witless is spending tens of millions of dollars of her own wealth for this campaign? She obviously has no principles — otherwise she would spend tens of millions on worthy causes. And it is no surprise to me that a statist politician such as she would cut a deal with unions, particularly public unions, promising them that their pensions won’t be cut.

And then there’s the issue with her “illegal” housekeeper. If she didn’t know that the housekeeper was an “illegal” immigrant (which is an invalid concept, given that all human beings have a right of freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of contract, and it’s immoral for the State to restrict that), then Witless must be a retard. Or, if she fired the housekeeper when “discovering” her “illegal” status, would Witless really have fired the housekeeper if Witless were not running for governor? (Nope. She obviously fired the housekeeper for the sake of political ambitions, and, like 99% of our politicians these days, Witless has no principles.)

I saw some brief clips of candidates in Connecticut running for U.S. Senate to replace Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd, Republican Linda McMahon and Democrat Richard “I went to Vietnam/I didn’t go to Vietnam” Blumenthal. The two of them are thoroughly ghastly creatures, right out of the Black Lagoon. I’ve already said enough here about McMahon so I’m not going to get into that now, except she is very much like Meg Witless, spending tens of millions on her campaign, drooling to get herself a spot in Washington for her share of the power trip. And Blumenthal — just look at him, or, better yet don’t look at him. Yikes, he’s one ghoulish dude. Yech.

Blumenthal has been Connecticut’s attorney general for nearly 20 years, and, given his outrageous government activism and meddling in everybody’s private business, I can’t believe the people of that state continue to reelect the guy. The election to replace him, however, as attorney general actually has someone of moral principles and who believes in the ideas of inalienable, natural rights and private property: Republican Martha Dean. Dean supports states’ rights and nullification, and good for her, because here in communist New England, it’s hard to find someone who actually believes in the rights of the individual and in the right of states to their self-determination, as opposed to authoritarians who favor a powerful federal government that dictates orders and mandates to the states. (Oh WHY didn’t she run for senator rather than attorney general? Instead, it’s this Linda McMahon person. Oh, well.)

So here is Martha Dean’s latest speech. She seems a bit like she did the last time I saw her, perhaps a bit to anxious, or maybe more accurately, a bit too verklempt. But she is quite inspiring, that’s for sure.

Private Law

I have referred to private, competitive law, justice and insurance services here in the past. The reason that we need competitive freedom in that area to ensure that actual justice is served, as well as encourage people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, is that the system we currently have in place — State-controlled, State/government-monopoly of law and administration of justice — is inherently flawed. When anyone is given the power of government-protected monopoly, with competitive services restricted by force, this automatically negates the principles of the Rule of Law and inalienable rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence. Agents of the State with monopoly and compulsion over others are given the power to be above the law, above the natural order Rule of Law, and, given those powers, and given human nature, they will act not in the interests of justice or the interests of “clients” — the plaintiffs or the accused — but the agents of the State with monopoly and compulsion will act in their own self-interests: ego, further expansion of their power, financial gain, etc. Here are some articles to continue this discussion:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Idea of a Private Law Society

James Ostrowski: American Justice?

William Anderson: A Tale of Brutality, Theft, and Judicial Misconduct

Wendy McElroy: Lysander Spooner

Robert Murphy: But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?

Robert Murphy: The Possibility of Private Law

S.M. Oliva: DOJ Declares War on Doctors

William Grigg: The Government “Protection” Racket

Per Bylund: Competition in Private Justice

Murray Rothbard: The Tyranny of the Bench

Lysander Spooner: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Jim Davies: Where Not to Throw Stones

William Anderson: Why the Duke Hoax Continues

Lew Rockwell: Neither Conservative Nor Progressive

Murray Rothbard: For a New Liberty, Chapter 12, “Police, Law, and the Courts”

William Grigg: ‘Mysteries of Policy’: Officially Sanctioned Murder

Governor Ignoramus and the Senior Imbecile From Vermont; More on Massachusetts Race for Governor

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has recently stated that he would like to see a “graduated” state income tax instead of the current flat tax of 5.3% that is being stolen from residents’ paychecks in addition to the federal taxes and other taxes being confiscated by the voracious parasitic governments. Of course, the ignoramus (who probably spends hours each day staring out his office window daydreaming) downplayed his remarks later when asked about that.

When you take more from those higher-income folks, you take away whatever capital they might have to use to invest in expanding their businesses — which means creating new jobs — or otherwise invest in or purchase other businesses, or use to put into the economy in some way. When the government takes more from people, nothing of actual value comes of that. It is merely politicians and bureaucrats taking private wealth away from others and such wealth really ultimately ends up as an “investment” in expanding more government, more power for politicians, more intrusions into the lives of the people. Get rid of these taxes completely, including the federal taxes, and you’ll see economic boom like never before and ALL will benefit from that. When “The Rich” get to keep all of their income, they expand businesses, start new businesses, and more and more people are employed, and you have much greater progress and prosperity.

Unfortunately, communist ignoramuses like Deval Patrick and his envious ilk don’t understand these basic facts of human existence.

Going north of Massachusetts, the senior imbecile from Vermont, Sen. Patrick Leahy, is proposing legislation that would allow for a self-recused Supreme Court Justice to be replaced by a retired Justice for just those specific cases from which the current Justice has recused himself. For example, Justice Elena Caveman Kagan is recusing herself from 25 out of 51 cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this term. Leahy wants a retired Justice — in this case, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter or Jean-Paul Stevens — to replace Kagan when those cases come up.

I think that this is one of those times that term limits are in order. However, I’m against the idea of term limits, so scratch that. Perhaps the people of Vermont can recall Leahy. Is he up for reelection? Why, AAMOF he IS up for reelection, and his Republican opponent is Len Britton, who, according to Politics1 is a “Lumber store owner and ex-movie screenwriter,” and various info on the web indicates that he’s a goofball. There are several other candidates on the ballot, but all the pundits are indicating that Leahy’s reelection is safe. I wonder if Senators Joe Lieberschnitzel and Al Frankenstinker agree with Leahy on this issue.

(Like Leahy would be proposing this if the current retired Justices in question were conservatives like Rehnquist, Scalia or Clarence Thomas!)

Back to Massachusetts, with one of the more bizarre races for governor in a while, yesterday I wrote this:

And now we’re hearing that Democrat-turned-Independent candidate for governor Tim Cahill, the current state treasurer, is suing the Republican candidate, Charlie Baker’s campaign and the Republican Governor’s Association for infiltrating the Cahill campaign with Baker flunkies to sabotage Cahill and help Baker. Prior to this lawsuit, several Cahill campaigners, including Cahill’s running mate, had abandoned the Cahill camp and jumped to the Baker camp. Meanwhile, in the emails that Cahill is using as evidence against Baker, Baker is looking for evidence that Cahill is using recent state lottery ads as Cahill campaign ads at taxpayer expanse.

And now, for crying out loud, Cahill’s former running mate, Paul Loscocco, who is now with the Republican Baker camp, is charging Cahill with having been in cahoots with Gov. Deval Patrick from the very beginning to have Cahill there as a straw candidate to help ensure Patrick’s reelection. DUH! Who couldn’t see that?!!

Jeepers, this whole thing is unbelievable, especially given the fact that these campaigns mean nothing, state or national, and that all these elections are merely a rearranging of deck chairs. That is because “democracy” is a flawed concept, and will never, ever work, and will always be illegitimate and cause society to be dysfunctional and finally collapse.

This Massachusetts gubernatorial race (a word that begins with “goober,” by the way), however, now reminds me of 1986, which was also a bizarre election year. That year, incumbent Gov. Michael Dukakis was sailing to reelection and had no worries whatsoever. The Republicans….it was really bizarre. The first one to be the Republican challenger, Greg Hyatt, then a former director of the Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation, was in his office one day, and he was changing his clothes. Nothing wrong with that — people change their clothes in their own private office all the time, just lock the door so the secretary won’t come in, etc. But apparently he didn’t think to lock the door, and the secretary walked in and saw him “with his pants down.” THAT was the end of Greg Hyatt’s campaign, believe it or not.

His replacement for the Republican nomination was state Rep. Royall Switzler, who is actually running for his old seat again from his town of Wellesley. One time back then, the Boston Herald had a headline that referred to him as Royall Swizzler. Anyway, the reason that Royal Swizzler dropped out of the race is because he was caught with HIS pants down — his Vietnam pants, that is: He lied about his military service in Vietnam (He didn’t serve in Vietnam. Hmmm, that sounds familiar now.)

After Royall Swizzler dropped out of the race, he was replaced by George Kariotis, who was too late to get his name on the ballot for nomination, so he had to run on a write-in campaign. The final November election was Dukakis 68%-Kariotis 31%.

With all the bizarre controversies going on in the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial race, perhaps the Green candidate, Jill Stein might pick up some steam (like going from 1 to 2%).

Can somebody please tell me why the Massachusetts Libertarian Party hasn’t had a candidate for governor since 2002? Did Carla Howell scare them away? Carla Howell was brilliant in her ballot question campaign to eliminate the state income tax in 2008. Too bad 70% of the voters were either hacks or just like to be slaves. And now Carla is trying to reduce the sales tax. I’m verklempt.

Only in Hackachusetts

Here in Hackachusetts, there is just so much going on in mighty hackdom, I just don’t know where to begin. First, there’s Congressman John Tierney’s wife, Patrice. According to this Boston Globe editorial,

Patrice Tierney pled guilty yesterday to four counts of aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns by her brother, Robert Eremian, who allegedly ran an illegal gambling and racketeering enterprise on the island of Antigua. Her other brother, Daniel Eremian, is also under indictment for racketeering, illegal gambling, and money laundering. Robert remains a fugitive. Patrice Tierney, according to her husband, agreed to pay Robert’s bills, including upkeep for their mother and Robert’s three children, out of a bank account into which Robert funneled at least $7 million.

According to Representative Tierney, Patrice didn’t know the money was shady, and thought she was telling the truth when she filed Robert’s income tax forms claiming the money was from “commissions.’’ But that’s not what she asserted in court: A guilty plea is an admission to having knowingly committed a crime. John Tierney’s statement said that Patrice agreed only that she should have been more inquisitive about the true nature of her brother’s income. It was, in fact, a stunning lack of curiosity, since he previously had been charged with illegal gambling in the United States.

Duh. So, this Patrice Tierney, wife of U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Neptune), is either just plain retarded, or just plain corrupt like her husband. Tierney’s Republican opponent is Bill Hudak. Dan Kennedy of Media Nation has more on Hudak.

And now we’re hearing that Democrat-turned-Independent candidate for governor Tim Cahill, the current state treasurer, is suing the Republican candidate, Charlie Baker’s campaign and the Republican Governor’s Association for infiltrating the Cahill campaign with Baker flunkies to sabotage Cahill and help Baker. Prior to this lawsuit, several Cahill campaigners, including Cahill’s running mate, had abandoned the Cahill camp and jumped to the Baker camp. Meanwhile, in the emails that Cahill is using as evidence against Baker, Baker is looking for evidence that Cahill is using recent state lottery ads as Cahill campaign ads at taxpayer expanse.

Meanwhile — yes, there’s more today — Democrat candidate for state auditor Suzanne Bump is being accused of tax cheating, by trying to avoid property taxes at both her homes, in Boston and Great Barrington, claiming both as primary residences. Her Republican opponent is Mary Connaughton, who has actual degrees in accounting and is an actual CPA. Bump’s experience is in Democrat politics and hackery. Now, I’m not a Republican, just an independent non-partisan anti-politics kind of guy, but these people in Hackachusetts really make me want to actually go vote for Republicans (which probably still won’t happen). Scary.

Speaking of “primary residence” politics, 34-year Democrat Congressman Ed Markey apparently doesn’t take care of his primary residence in Malden, where there supposedly are high grass and weeds, according to his Republican opponent, Gerry Dembrowski, who gives Markey the title, “The Undocumented Congressman”:

Jason Lewis’s Book on States’ Rights

Last night on his syndicated radio show, Jason Lewis discussed his newly released book, Power Divided Is Power Checked: The Argument for States’ Rights, and, while I haven’t read it, given how articulate he has been on his show in expressing these ideas of freedom and the Founders’ views on states’ rights, he probably communicates those ideas in this book just as well. (Here are some excerpts [.pdf] from Chapter 1 of the book.)

Now, he has said on his show that he isn’t exactly urging that states secede from the federal government’s control, but he is describing how people have a right to interact amongst one another voluntarily, and are not obligated to be compelled to be part of a “union” by force.

In the Chapter 1 excerpt cited above, Lewis has a reference to economist Thomas DiLorenzo, who has written several books about Herr Lincoln and the war between North and South and the Lincoln cult, and DiLorenzo’s noting that Lincoln could have ended slavery peacefully without waging war on the people of the Southern states but chose not to do that.

And Lewis writes in that chapter that motivations for the South’s secession weren’t really to do with slavery, as the popular myth suggests, but more to do with Lincoln and the North’s treatment toward the South economically:

Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 plan for a national bank, for instance, generally favored the North…it was federal protectionism designed to preserve the North’s manufacturing base that had long been an irritant simmering in the South. When Lincoln moved to raise tariffs on those Southern states that were heavily reliant on imports, he reopened an economic wound that went all the way back to the “tariffs of abominations” in 1828.

As I mentioned, I haven’t read the book, but it is nice of Lewis and the publisher to provide that excerpt online so that we may have a feel for the direction of the book. As far as the book’s sales outlets, I don’t know exactly why the book isn’t available on, and, besides the book’s website, there isn’t that much mention of the book on the Internet, perhaps because it’s just out.

Now, the talk show host and that book’s author Jason Lewis considers himself a federalist, and anyone who’s familiar with me and this blog here knows that I am an Anti-Federalist. That’s because I like to deal with reality and truth. The federal government has done no good, only bad, and it is the federal government’s existence and actions that will be the main cause of the death of America, if that actually occurs.

Massachusetts’s Drooling Hacks

Also in Massachusetts, Republican candidate for state treasurer Karyn Polito (“That’s Karyn with a Y,” as the commercial goes) succeeded for a whole week as a state representative to block the state House Democrats’ passage of a $400 million spending bill (which will include spending on increasing the legislators’ paychecks) in the current informal session. In their regular session, they already passed the state budget for the next fiscal year. This is an informal session, in which “light” business gets taken care of. But the hacks wanted to spend right away (always the retarded Keynesians) the $400 million from federal “stimulus” money, that Rep. Polito thinks should be put away in the state’s “rainy day” fund, which is the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, she was two minutes late in arrival on Monday and the crooks passed that spending bill, federal “stimulus” money that will go toward the hacks’ increased paychecks among other things. But where were the other Republicans in the House? Why didn’t THEY block the bill? (No testicles.) And Will the Republicans in the state Senate block passage when it comes to a vote there? (I doubt it.)

Karyn Polito’s (“That Karyn with a Y”) Democrat opponent for state treasurer is Steve Grossman, former chairman of the national Democrat party and former president of AIPAC, and, as an Israel Lobby hack, he pushed for the Massachusetts state legislature to pass the Iran Divestment Bill (I know, I’ve mentioned that here before), which supposedly will cost Massachusetts taxpayers millions in readjustments and fees that also disrupts the state pension fund (which shouldn’t exist, but that’s for a different discussion). Apparently, Polito voted for the bill, perhaps not seeing the trouble ahead that it’s going to cause state taxpayers, and the state treasurer’s office in overseeing it (as well as trouble for the people of Iran — it is always the people of the country, not its government, who suffer from any kind of sanctions imposed against them).

College Not Worth the Price – Neither Is the Dollar

Bob Unruh has this article at WorldNetDaily on how the Obama Department of Indoctrination and Parasitism Education wants to license U.S. colleges and universities. Why didn’t Ronald Reagan do what he promised to do, and get rid of that Soviet-like agency? (What agency of the federal government isn’t Soviet-like?)

And yesterday Howie Carr on WRKO was discussing how many courses at Harvard University and other colleges are no longer using a final exam for passing the course. As the Boston Globe reports,

Across the country, there is growing evidence that final exams — once considered so important that universities named a week after them — are being abandoned or diminished, replaced by take-home tests, papers, projects, or group presentations. Anecdotally, longtime professors say they have been noticing the trend for years. And now, thanks to a recent discussion at Harvard University, there are statistics that make clear just how much the landscape has changed.

In the spring term at Harvard last year, only 259 of the 1,137 undergraduate courses had a scheduled final exam, the lowest number since 2002…

Howie Carr continued the discussion of college in general. The costs of higher education in the U.S. have gone up so dramatically in recent years, it’s really not worth it anymore. If I had a teenager at this time, I would probably encourage him or her to work full time after graduating from high school and maybe take college courses on a part-time basis. Having a part-time job during high school is also a good idea. It teaches the kids responsibility and encourages independence.

Howie’s 16-year-old daughter works in the radio studio with him, screening calls and otherwise helping the producer. I assume she gets paid like at any regular after-school part-time job. Well, it sounds like a good deal to me, for both of them: the daughter is getting on-the-job experience and learning responsibility (in the “real world”), and Howie knows where his daughter is and what’s she’s doing after school. He doesn’t have to worry about that. Working during high school and especially after graduating (instead of going to college) is probably much more beneficial than sitting in a college classroom having to write down the professor’s lecture on Marxism and environmentalism (that the students get in their Math and Physics classes, of course).

As far as continuing learning, though, after high school, there are inexpensive alternatives available and many of them are available online. For instance, Gary North, who is an economist and historian, and a regular columnist for, has a lot of information and advice on education, among other things, on his website,, some of the information for free and some of it on paid subscription.

There is just so much information available online for free, in history and economics especially, but also in other areas. If given an adequate list of websites, any 18-year-old can learn much more than he will in a four-year college education that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, in pursuing careers that involve studying chemistry and biology and so on, you might have to attend formal, regularly structured classes that involve experiments and laboratory analyses. But my point is, higher education has become such a top-down, authoritarian scheme now, very Marxist in its collectivist destruction of individual initiative, in which many of these institutions do not allow or tolerate dissent in discussions or the contributions by students of ideas that go against the professors’ rigid belief system or rigid, well, I guess “claptrap” is a good word for it.

Education should be free, I mean “free” in the sense of free from that top-down authoritarian intolerance and free from that Marxist claptrap. Am I all wet on that? We need that kind of freedom in the same way we need monetary freedom. People have an inherent right to be free, and a right to not be bound and forced to be dependent on and forced to use a government-issued, State-mandated paper currency that has no value, and have a right to use whatever means of trade and commerce one wants to use in a free market of competing currencies. Education should be competitive in the same way.

The Hamiltonian central banksters saw how having a central bank and centralized currency monopoly would give the central government and its politicians and bureaucrats more power, as the masses were forced by law to be dependent on them and their centralized, government-mandated worthless paper money.

That top-down, authoritarian government money supply power and mass dependence is part of the origins of how education in America had become more corrupting, less demanding of responsibility, and less demanding of rational thought and intellectual curiosity, and more dependent on a more powerful centralized government for answers. Note how the public school system in America began around mid-19th Century, near the time that Herr Lincoln usurped monetary power by implementing his mandatory Legal Tender laws and national bank cartel.

We need to decentralize education, and that means completely privatizing all of it, as well as completely decentralizing the monetary system, and that means completely privatizing that as well, and allow for competing currencies, and ending the Federal Reserve System.

New Fall TV Season Begins With First Episode of The Supreme Court Show

The Supreme Court begins its new Fall season today with a very controversial and dramatic episode, in which those with a weak stomach may want to change the channel. For instance, should the court allow or deny protesters their say at military funerals? It’s too bad such a clear issue has to be made so complex. If the cemetery or funeral home is on private property, then of course the protesters can’t be allowed to protest the funerals, unless the owner of the property says yes. If this is a “public” cemetery, or publicly owned and operated (by the state or local government), then of course the protesters have every right to protest and exercise their First Amendment right of free speech — that’s on public (i.e. everybody’s) property. If the community at large doesn’t like that, then they’ll have to privatize the property.

Hmmm, let’s see, what other issues are the brilliant Supreme Intruders going to hear about today? There is a case asking whether Arizona state income tax credits for people who donated to scholarship organizations violated the “Establishment Clause” simply because some of the organizations happen to be religious organizations. Of course it doesn’t violate the so-called “Establishment Clause,” because that state income tax itself violates the people’s right to their earnings and their right to their property and wealth not be taken from them. Also, some people are viewing a “tax credit” as state money that is being given to a resident or organization, which even Chris Matthews of all people said that it is not the government’s money, it is the individual’s money in the first place. And people have a right to donate to whomever they want. The State has no right to decide who gets a “tax credit” and who doesn’t, because the State has no right to confiscate anyone’s money. The whole system’s screwed up, and all of these issues are made to be increasingly complicated because the real issues of State violations of individual rights and property rights are never being addressed.

Another issue being heard by the High-And-Mighties is that of Arizona’s law against businesses hiring “illegal immigrants.” Whatever they decide, they probably will not recognize a businessman’s right to hire whomever he wants, and a Mexican’s right to work at the private Arizona business when the business owner is a willing and consenting employer. That employee-employer contract is a private contract, and it’s nobody else’s business. It is doubtful that a court with a monopoly in the administration of “law and justice” will recognize anyone’s inherent rights of freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract, and it is doubtful that as long as the society has a government-run education system that a majority of the population will ever understand such rights.

But thank God the newest invader, Elena Kagan, has to recuse herself from several cases because of her conflicts of interest, having been the Obama Solicitor General arguing cases on Obama-Dictator’s behalf. In fact, why doesn’t Elena Kagan recuse herself from all the cases, as she has no idea what the Founders’ ideas of Liberty and individual rights are all about, and doesn’t agree with the idea of natural rights, that all human beings inherently have an inalienable right to one’s own life and Liberty, from which such rights include the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others. These natural rights are recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and are the reasons why we don’t allow theft and trespass. Kagan doesn’t believe that individuals have those inalienable rights, and that is why she’s as dangerous as Obama.

Let’s hope for a cancellation of this awful show, The Supreme Court Show.