Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

The Fascists vs. Liberty: U.K. Wants Doctors to Report Patients Who Could Be Potential Terrorists

U.K. Guardian: Government plans to ask doctors to identify potential terrorists

Hey Cameroon, and Obomber: How about not starting wars and invading other countries who did nothing to you, and not murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents, all of which has done nothing but PROVOKE people in those predominantly Muslim countries?

Ya think?

But noooooo, instead of common sense, the retards choose these fascist, 1984-style, Soviet-style policies.

Is ObamaCare going to start this kind of retarded fascist stuff now? Are ObamaCare government doctors going to report people who mention that they went to a Tea Party meeting and don’t support what the federal government is doing?

How about if a patient mentions being opposed to Obomber’s illegal, immoral, murderous, counter-productive (and retarded) wars? Is the retarded government doctor going to report this patient as a “potential terrorist”?

Reporting dissenters as “potential terrorists”?

Listen, the more centralized control people allow bureaucrats, politicians and other imbeciles to have, and the bigger the centralized government is, the more fascist and totalitarian it will be. (That’s an ipso facto thing, you know.)

The only solution to regain our freedom and security (security from government, police, and military intrusions, violence and murder, that is), is decentralization, secession, and nullification. It is the only way to resolve ALL the current problems we face.

The struggle is between Fascism and Liberty. There is no middle ground.

The “Mainstream” Media and Government vs. “Extremists” Who Believe in Freedom

Here is a video of Becky Not-Too-Quick and her Squawking cohorts interviewing Ron Paul. One of the Squawkers repeatedly asked Dr. Paul how he could change his views or rephrase his positions on the issues so they would sound more “mainstream.” Apparently, to these people, rule by knuckle-dragging elitists and police-gestapo is considered “mainstream.”

And also recently, Tom Woods had this video response to the Mother Jones article on Ron Paul’s “extreme” views. Apparently, advocating individual liberty, property rights, free markets, freedom of contract, civil liberties, fiscal responsibility and the rule of law are “extreme” views. (Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.)

The squawker on the first video who asked Dr. Paul a 2nd time to change his views clearly could not get it through his head that freedom could possibly be “mainstream.”

For some reason, the propagandists in the media want us to believe that Congress’s spending like drunken sailors and robbing our grandchildren to pay for their selfish earmarks, political paybacks and luxury junkets, is “mainstream.”

The courts now allowing police to break into people’s homes without warrants and murdering them is now “mainstream.” And one property intrusion and contract intrusion after another, by way of fascist-corporatist regulatory trespasses, is “mainstream.”

And we have the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing regulatory Nazi Cass Sunshine nudging us into a police state. That’s “mainstream.”

Stealing from the workers and producers of society to fund Wall Street‘s bonuses is “mainstream.” Helicopter Ben’s obsessive-compulsive central planning wet-dreams that end up causing the next Greater Depression, that’s “mainstream.”

Do these elitists in the “mainstream” media believe that people don’t have rights anymore? Like the right not to be searched without probable cause or reasonable suspicion or without a warrant, the right to not be assaulted, molested, murdered, trespassed, by neanderthal police, TSA goons, and other parasitic mobsters of the State?

Cass Sunshine and his Obommunist ilk do not like the idea of freedom, the idea of an individual having the right to live one’s life as one sees fit, the right of self-defense, the right to run one’s business and property without intrusion and trespasses by the neighbors, the competition, or the State, and many in the “mainstream” media are with these human-hating criminals.

While it is “extreme” to advocate freedom as Dr. Paul does, it is considered “mainstream” to believe in the Total State, and that the people are owned  by the State. These mainstreamers have contempt for the rights of the individual.

To advocate presumption of innocence and due process is “extreme.” In the name of fighting terrorism, everyone must be considered guilty until searched to prove one’s innocence, even though it has been the U.S. government, in its extremist self-perpetuation lust for power, that has been most guilty of terrorizing the American people.

In 1990-91, President George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a country that was of no threat to the U.S. whatsoever, based on lies and propaganda, and for the sake of serving his corporatist masters, was “mainstream.” The U.S. military’s intentional destruction of Iraqi water and sewage treatment facilities, followed by sanctions to prevent rebuilding and thus force the Iraqis to use untreated water, leading to skyrocketing disease and cancer rates and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as well as widespread anti-Americanism, yes, that was “mainstream.”

Oh, and quite “mainstream” was Janet Nazi Reno’s invasion of Waco and the murders of many children as well as adults. “Mainstream.”

And, speaking of communists, rather than repeal each and every price-distorting, economy-slowing medical and insurance-related regulation, bureaucracy, mandate, tax, fee, and otherwise intrusion that already existed, Romney-Obama come in and want to further regulate and mandate us to death with their government UnhealthyCare that will drive many doctors out of the profession and give us only those doctors from government schools and colleges and who don’t mind being government employees and slaves of the State. That’s considered “mainstream.”

But Ron Paul is an “extremist.”

One thing that I’ve heard Dr. Paul state in interviews is that he wants people to “have their freedom.” Can you believe that? A politician who actually wants us to have our freedom? How many other politicians or candidates actually say that they want us to be “free”? That’s because they don’t want us to be free. They want themselves to have power, that’s what they really want. But they are “mainstream.”

Gag. Me. With. A. Spoon.

More on the Unconstitutional Constitution

Gary Barnett has this piece up at LewRockwell.com regarding his still being fed up with Constitution worship (and links to his previous piece on that). I’ve been listening to the Rev. Beck this past week, who has been constantly saying how the Constitution is being attacked from all sides and we have to “get back to the Constitution,” and so on (and, frankly, as with his stated views on Israel, I don’t believe Beck’s sincerity, but that’s for a different discussion.). Well, you bet the Constitution is being attacked — it is worthless.

People really need to free themselves from the burdensome weight of the long-held false assumption that the Constitution was ever a good thing, an assumption that anchors everyone down from their very freedom that the Constitution only prevents.

Barnett links to Bill Buppert’s piece on how the Constitution failed to liberate us from big government, and to Tom Mullen’s piece on the Constitution as the “18th Century Patriot Act.” In that article, Mullen quotes the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power to…” (Might as well just fill in the blank, because that’s what they have been doing for the last 200 years.)

Some further reading by Mullen also includes “The Constitution Does Not Protect Our Property.” Mullen notes,

By “property,” I do not mean exclusively or even primarily land ownership, although land ownership is one form of property. By “property,” I mean all that an individual rightfully owns, including his mind, body, labor, and the fruits of his labor. It is specifically the right to the fruits of one’s labor that the Constitution fails entirely to protect. In fact, it makes no attempt to do so whatsoever.

And Mullen gets into the Bill of Rights, which does not protect our property, nor does it protect our rights. The Fifth Amendment includes, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It might as well state: “The government may take your property.” Period.

Other noteworthy articles include Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which emphasizes how the Constitution could not be a legally binding contract that future generations must obey. Also, Laurence Vance documents here and here how the Anti-Federalists were right to oppose the centralized federal government and the then-proposed Constitution. And Gary North has this piece on the fraudulent nature of the Constitution.

No, the U.S. Constitution does not protect our liberty, our rights or our property. Instead, it empowers the centralized bureaucracy to invade our property, expropriate the fruits of our labor and enslave us.

As I noted in my piece of March, 2010 on how the November 2010 elections would be nothing but more rearranging of deck chairs (and more recently in my piece, Let Go of the Centralized State), as a society centralizes a government and gives it monopolies that are compulsory and restricts competitors’ right of entry, its power just can’t be controlled, and it will always grow and never shrink, and will be increasingly oppressive toward the people over whom it rules. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted, the idea of “limited government” is impossible.

People just can’t resist the power and will become addicted to it, like a drug. They won’t let go and will only want more and more power. And wealth (as they steal it through taxation, the Federal Reserve and other illicit means).

And the Constitution will not protect us from the DC parasites, hooligans and imbeciles, or from their hired guns the police or the military. “But the Supreme Court will protect us. They will overturn bad laws and police procedures that violate our rights.” No, the Supreme Court will not protect us. We have seen that more and more, from the 2005 Kelo decision that allowed the power of the government to be used to steal private property from people to give it to private developers, and, more recently, the 8-1 decision that endorsed greater police power to break into people’s homes without warrants. It was yet another reason to de-monopolize community policing.

Expanding the federal bureaucrats’ power, that they can’t let go of, and feeding the military contractor parasites (which Tom Engelhardt details so well here) is why we have this “War on Drugs” prohibition irrationality and hypocrisy and this terrorism fear-mongering.

And I have already noted several times how the socialist monopolization of national security has done nothing but feed the DC central planners’ hunger for power, as the entire apparatus of government usurpation of Americans’ right of defense has only encouraged DC to provoke foreigners to act against us, as an excuse to further expand the power of the federal bureaucracy and further terrorize the American citizenry.

The Constitution’s language was deliberately vague for the sake of federalists’ expansion of power, beginning with the drooling Alexander Hamilton. This “general welfare” clause we hear about really refers to the well-being of the country in general, not this socialist forced redistribution-of-wealth stuff that the Left seems to like. But how can a government claim to be concerned about its people’s well-being when the government intentionally provokes and harms and acts aggressively against foreigners on the foreigners’ own lands and murders hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there, thus driving widespread anti-American sentiment and provoking anger and retaliation? (And how come so many Americans actually don’t know what the U.S. government had done to people in Iran 30-60 years ago, and to the people of Iraq 20 years ago, 10 years before 9/11?)

Has the income tax, begun in 1913, been helpful or hurtful to out “general welfare,” our general well-being? Has the Federal Reserve, begun in 1914, been helpful or harmful to our well-being? The Fed, by the way, is entirely unconstitutional. Not that it matters, because the federal government has been ignoring and shredding the Constitution for decades, and that Supreme Court is useless to protect our liberty, our rights or our property.

A “Bill of Rights” may having been well-intentioned, but when you empower a “supreme” authority with a monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, you are right then and there sacrificing your liberty and your rights to serve the elitist rulers. A monopoly that is protected by the State and restricts free entry into that field immediately corrupts the monopolists, and the ultimate decision by this monopolized authority will not be just, and you will not have real justice. (Note Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent article on that.)

No, I say, not only must we get rid of the federal government and let the states be sovereign and independent as they were meant to be by the Founders, also dump the Supreme Court, and get rid of that worthless Constitution that the bureaucrats in DC no longer follow anyway.

What we really need to protect our liberty is just basic laws of society: No theft or fraud, no trespass, no physical aggression (except in actual self-defense).

But also, no individual, group or institution may be above the law, no police may initiate aggression against others or have authority over anyone. Everyone is equal under the law. And no monopoly, either. That includes no monopoly in community policing. No restrictions on the right to bear arms. Let a neighborhood’s people, residents and business owners police themselves,  encourage people to be vigilant and self-protective. (But not paranoid.)

Centralization and monopolization of police and national security, judicial decision-making and money has been harmful to America, and we need to give it all the heave-ho.

Rand Paul Would Throw Someone in Jail for Merely Attending a Political Speech

Apparently, Rand Paul responded to a question about profiling with this:

I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Eugene Volokh explains his discomfort with Sen. Rand Paul’s statement on the Ignoramus Sean Hannity Show, and gives some legal history with court decisions on due process and free speech/First Amendment.

And Glenn Greenwald points out that, not only is our right to attend speeches by people advocating the “violent overthrow” of the government protected, but the people’s right to give such speeches is also protected, referring to this Supreme Corpse decision as an example.

Greenwald also cites the American Revolution as an example.It was perfectly reasonable for the “Founders” to give speeches and openly advocate the “violent overthrow” of the then-ruling British regime to break free of tyranny.

This is not an academic question.  The right at stake here is absolutely vital.  It is crucial to protect and preserve the right to argue that a government has become so tyrannical or dangerous that violence is justified against it.  That, after all, was the argument on which the American Founding was based; it is pure political speech; and criminalizing the expression of that idea poses a grave danger to free speech generally and the specific ability to organize against abusive governments.  To allow the government to punish citizens — let alone to kill them — because their political advocacy is threatening to the government is infinitely more dangerous than whatever ideas are being targeted for punishment, even if that idea is violent jihad.

Please read the essay by Greenwald with an open mind. These rights of speech that we have — that are inherent in all of us as human beings — as well as our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, are all being “violently overthrown” by our government run amok in its drive for always-expanding power and control. We see this every day with the TSA and the police, thanks to the government-monopolization of community policing which is counter-productive to community security because the police are more and more a threat to the people, more than “private” criminals. Thanks in large part to the Drug Socialism and National Security Socialism in which the Supreme Corpse have endorsed total police power of life- and property-intrusions.

Greenwald becomes a little cynical in his essay (although, as I continue to hear on the idiot talk radio shows, the cynicism is justified):

The government “needs to do all it can” in the name of Terrorism:  even targeting its own citizens with assassination without a trial based on the mere suspicion that he’s doing something criminal  — or invading other countries that haven’t attacked us — or dropping a continuous stream of missiles on people’s homes who are purely innocent — or locking people up for life without a trial.  This is the sociopathic mindset of the security fetishist that dominates our political discourse — Terrorism:  the meaningless though all-justifying slogan — and, more than anything else, this is what explains why something as radical and dangerous as the President’s due-process-free assassination program aimed at American citizens triggers so little objection.  ”Washington needs to do all it can” — no matter how violent and lawless — “to reduce the risk of another attack.”  To a militarized, authoritarian, collapsing Empire in a posture of Endless War, security is the only cognizable value.

There is no bigger terrorist organization than the U.S. government, as we have seen in its exploitation of the 9/11/01 attacks for the purpose of expanding federal government power over the people and over the states, and for the purpose of feeding the parasites of the military-congressional-industrial complex.

More crimes are being committed against innocent people by the government than ever before, with the criminal PATRIOT Act and spying on innocent Americans without reasonable suspicion, the police murdering innocent people every day (and yes, sooooo many more people are being murdered by brutes with badges than the other way around, every year, and that’s the truth!), one criminal regulation of private business after another and “insider trading” laws even though congressmen and senators are getting rich off their own insider trading and getting away with it.

And the more centralized the government, the more powerful it is becoming, and the more corrupt and criminal as well, and the more violent as well. There is no way out of this but decentralization and state secession. (Or perhaps when Obomber declares martial law and turns the government guns on us — after having disarmed the citizenry, of course — then maybe then you’ll start to understand what I’m saying.)

Repeal Socialism in Immigration, Employment, and Drugs

June 2, 2011

© 2011 LewRockwell.com. (Link to article)

Recent events regarding the issue of immigration have given more reasons to undo all the immoral socialist policies that have put America into turmoil.

Lew Rockwell writes this week on the Obama Administration’s crackdown on businesses who hire “illegal” immigrants. According to the New York Times, federal immigration officials raided 14 Chuy’s Restaurants in Arizona and California, arresting not immigrant workers but the owners of the businesses.

Of course, those familiar with Barack Obama’s past sympathies with “illegal” immigration might find bizarre his wanting to actually crack down on businesses hiring “illegals,” given how beneficial such a voting bloc would be for Obama’s party, the Democrats. On the other hand, Obama seems to want more socialist government control over businesses and their relationships with employees. And, as Rockwell notes,

Socialist ideology plays a role here, and another authoritarian anti-market ideology, protectionism. But…The unions hate any employee who works for the going market wage…

You can see, then, that this crack down has nothing to do with nationalism or racialism or securing the borders or anything else. It is all about bolstering the power of the state and its unions over the American economy, and making the rest of us poorer.

The supposedly “pro-business” conservatives support laws punishing businessmen for employing “undocumented workers,” and those laws were recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The problem with today’s immigration and border control hysteria is that Americans are going after the wrong people. The problems are not caused by the immigrant workers or those Americans who are hiring them. It is the other socialist controls – the Drug War, mainly – that is the problem, and is causing many people in Arizona and other border states to be victimized and terrorized.

Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger has written on the destructive nature of socialist central planning in immigration and labor:

As Mises, Hayek, and the Austrians showed long ago, central planning can never succeed because the planner can never possess the requisite knowledge to centrally plan a complex market, especially one as complex as an international labor market. All the planner inevitably does is produce chaos, distortions, and perversions into the market process…

(The free market) doesn’t rely on central planners. Instead, it simply uses the price system to enable people to coordinate their activities with others. Farm workers needed in Wyoming? The price of labor goes up. Mexican workers learn of the wage increase and immediately travel to Wyoming to earn the money. No central planner, but instead people planning and coordinating their own lives.

Apparently, the conservatives support central planning socialist government intrusions in employment matters that should be the right of businesses to control. We have seen that recently in New Hampshire’s proposed “right to work” law, in which the conservatives do not really support the right of businesses to control their employment matters.

Unfortunately, some people just seem to think that the State owns both the people who currently live and work in the U.S., as well as those who wish to come here to live and work.

Some questions to ask are: Who owns a business? And who owns the contract between employers and employees? And who owns the life of an individual who wants to work at a job that is available?

Here are my answers: The business is owned by the one who purchased it or built it up from one’s own assets or capital. It is not owned or even partially co-owned by the State, by the community, the neighborhood or by others who did not contribute capital to the business and participate in a voluntarily-agreed-upon contract of ownership with the actual owner. Therefore, economically and morally, the control over the business and every aspect of it is solely that of the owner(s). Any law or ordinance, regulation or mandate, regarding how the owner deals with one’s business or employment contracts, is a property intrusion – a trespass by the State – and is in violation of the businessman’s right of sovereignty over one’s business.

And the contract between employer and employee and the terms of the contract are morally and economically the property of and under the sole control of the employer and employee by voluntary agreement, and no one else. Those matters are no one else’s business. Any intrusions by laws, regulations, or mandates by the government are trespasses, and should be forbidden.

And that brings me to the American Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Each individual has an inalienable, inherent right of ownership of one’s own life, person, labor and justly-owned property, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to be free from the aggression against one’s life by others, including agents of the State. With the right to life and the right to sustain one’s life, each individual has a right to trade his labor with others for a compensation or good in return for such labor, within a voluntary and mutually-agreed-upon contract, as long as one is peaceful and does not interfere with any other individual’s equal right.

Here is where we lose the conservatives. The Declaration of Independence does not state that such rights apply to “only Americans.” No, such rights are inherent in all of us, regardless of where we are on Earth. Unfortunately, some people do not believe that non-”American citizens” possess such rights.

Here is an example of a Mexican who is in need of work, and can’t find a job or get hired in Mexico but does find a job and gets hired at a business in Arizona. Now, as we saw in the Obama regime’s raids at the Chuy’s Restaurants in Arizona and California, some people apparently do not believe that the Mexican here should be permitted by the U.S. government to work at the American restaurant, even though the owners of the business voluntarily hired him and are satisfied with his work, and the happily-paying customers enjoy their food there.

So, who is it exactly that owns the Chuy’s Restaurant in Arizona? Is it the government? In that case, then I suppose it is the government’s right to control the employment status of that business. But if the ownership of the restaurant is of the businessman himself, and not in partnership with the community or with the government, then shouldn’t the businessman have the sole authority over the business, including who works there and who does not? Should his right to decide what’s best for his business and his customers be trespassed by others, including the State?

And does not the individual in Mexico have a God-given right to sell his labor to a voluntarily-contracting employer for a mutually-agreed-upon wage, so the individual can sustain his life and provide for his family? If one believes in the truly moral right of self-ownership, then one must answer yes, because all individuals have a right to work, including Mexicans, and including businessmen who must provide for themselves and their families.

Now, just where do the other members of the Arizona community or the federal government get such authority over the contract between the Mexican worker and the American businessman? The U.S. Constitution? But, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But if one is saying that the community or the State shares in the ownership of the business with the business owner, then one must say that, really, the State is the true ultimate owner, because the State out-powers the businessman, and the community or the collective also are the ultimate owners because they outnumber the individual.

Unfortunately, in the socialist conservatives and statists’ belief that the government should prevent non-”American citizens” from entering the U.S., they are really advocating that the government should control labor and employment, and that individuals do not really have sole sovereignty ownership of their lives and that someone’s business is really co-owned by the community and the State.

I know that conservatives and others are concerned about increased crime rates because of “illegal” immigration, especially from the Mexican border. But in their control-freakish hysteria they are neglecting the real problems that need to be addressed: No, the problem isn’t the jobs that are available for immigrants in the U.S. The problems are the tax-funded welfare and social services that attract many people into the country. An even worse problem is the War on Drugs – which many conservatives also support, because they believe in a Nanny Police State, in which we need government officials to decide for us what chemicals we may or may not ingest into our own bodies. Like the 1920s Prohibition against alcohol, the current War on Drugs causes black markets, incentivizing the pushing and trafficking of drugs for huge profits, the corrupting of the police, and the terrorizing of innocent Mexicans and Americans by drug cartel criminals as well as corrupt government criminals.

Instead of repealing drug control socialism and welfare socialism, and thus removing all the problems those policies cause, too many misguided Americans like the conservatives call for more socialism in immigration, and in turn more restrictions on individuals’ and businessmen’s right to work and do business, more restrictions on everyone’s freedom of movement and right to travel (and the right to not be searched and asked, “Your papers, please”).

As we have seen years ago in the U.S. government’s using immigration central planning to turn away Jews attempting to escape from Nazi Germany, and more recently in the U.S. government’s prevention of Americans from leaving the U.S., the more control we allow governments to have over the people, including their right to travel and right to work and do business, and the more power of intrusion we give to the government-monopolized police, the less freedom, security and prosperity we will have.

We must repeal each and every socialist control over our lives and businesses, and that includes not only the drug war, but central planning in immigration and labor.

Classic Anti-War Articles for Memorial Day

Arthur Silber: Against Annihilation of the Spirit: Let Us All Become Cowards and No, I do Not Support “The Troops”

Jacob Hornberger: The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms

Laurence Vance: U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them

Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler: War Is a Racket

Robert Higgs: The Living Reality of Military-Economic Fascism

Morris and Linda Tannehill: Foreign Aggression

Murray Rothbard: War and Foreign Policy

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Reflections on State and War

Clueless Elizabeth Warren Merely Represents the Clueless Government Class

Some further comments on what I wrote about yesterday, on the presumption of innocence. Some people don’t seem to realize that government regulations, mandates, restrictions of, and demands for information about private business and private property are schemes in which the individual is presumed guilty and must provide information to the government or follow bureaucratic nonsensical rules to prove one’s innocence. I say that this is a bad thing.

For example, the Left’s elitist extraordinaire Elizabeth Warren is organizing the new fascist “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” which will not protect consumers’ finances, but will protect the corporatist, politically-connected bigwigs and only expand the political power that Washington already illegitimately has over the people and their wealth and property. Some people want Warren to be the Finance Dictator, and has been appearing before a House committee and wasted time arguing and bickering with the moron Republican chairman Patrick McHenry, an ignoramus up to his own ears in corruption, like former Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd. They’re all a bunch of jerks.

My point is, no matter what business you’re in, banking, mortgage and lending, stock investments, financial planning, etc., you have a right to freedom of association and contract, between you and your customers or clients, and all of you have a right to be left alone, and no one has any right to intrude on your privacy, your terms of contracts, how you do business. People all have a right to presumption of innocence and be otherwise left alone especially by the State. The only moral justification for anyone to make any demand for private personal or financial information is if one is actually suspected of some actual crime against some actual alleged victim, crime of fraud or theft.

Banks and other financial institutions should be free to do their business with customers, depositors or borrowers, etc., and no one bank, large or small, should be given any extra protection by the government for any reason. If a bank is having a hard time financially, then that means they need to adjust their ways of doing business, and if that means going out of business, so be it. And it is the consumer’s responsibility to inform oneself of who the more qualified and better banks are and who are not. Like any other type of business that consumers patronize, their business with a bank will always have some risks.

People need to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and decisions, and they shouldn’t be allowed to use the armed force of government to steal from others in order to receive bailouts.

But when we have a structure in which everyone must submit information about one’s business’s private contracts, customers and financial information to prove one’s innocence, and be constantly under the scrutiny of know-nothing bureaucrats like Elizabeth Warren, we then live in an increasingly Third World society, and that is what America has already become, and that also is another reason why there was a 2008 financial meltdown: too much government control and scrutiny over private businesses and their finances, that led to widespread irresponsibility, corruption and chaos.

(Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal had this take on how clueless Elizabeth Warren is.)

Barack Stalin Obama

Thanks (but not really thanks) to Manuel Lora of the Lew Rockwell blog for the link to this depressing HuffPo article on Barack Obomber’s now wanting to use his executive power to work around Americans’ 2nd Amendment-protected God-given right of self-defense.

This is no surprise and goes with how Obomber’s lackeys on the Supreme Corpse have endorse total police power, the power of the police to barge into anyone’s property for any reason. Currently, the main reason has been because the police feel like it, but it will soon become reasons of political motivations, just as it was in Stalin’s Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. For those who think this is just chicken-little-like paranoia of government, all you have to do is just read in the news or on the web every day how our protections from government encroachments and intrusions have been gradually eroded away. It will only get worse. These encroachments will be used by people with the power of the State on their side against those deemed a threat to their power, and against so-called “undesirables.”

This is why monopoly = totalitarianism. Americans have allowed the federal government — through the fraudulent CONstitution, and other UN-Constitutional ways — to have monopolies in one thing after another, from currency production to “defense.” Monopoly has been a destructive force in America, destructive of our liberty, property and our prosperity as well. The most dangerous monopolies have been in “national security” and community policing. As Anthony Gregory notes in his article today, the monopoly in community policing must be abolished. Only unrestricted, free competition amongst local policing organizations will actually protect a community from the thugs, the violent criminals and thieves and rapists. And it’s the State’s being given that monopoly in policing that has enabled the cops themselves to become the thugs, thieves and violent criminals.

Even more important than just free competition in community policing are the vigilant members of a well-armed citizenry. But Barack Obomber wants to remove the people’s means of self-defense, so they cannot defend themselves from the criminals employed by their governments. That’s the bottom line.

“Barack Stalin Obama.”

We Used to Have a “Bill of Rights” – Now We Have Bills of Crap

Today on 96.9 “Boston Talks,” Michael Graham was discussing an increasingly popular policy of states taking away teens’ driver’s licenses to punish them for not graduating from high school, or to encourage them to stay in school and not drop out. I agree with Graham. If a teenager is not motivated to achieve academically, and prefers to work (as opposed to just dropping out to goof off and party, etc.), then he should have the freedom to do that.

In fact, schools are so bad these days, and many of the teachers are dumber than the students themselves, that, a kid dropping out of high school and getting a full-time job, or two part-time jobs, will learn a lot more from on-the-job experience, which may in turn motivate him later on to get a high school degree a few years later (which he is probably going to need at some point if he wants work that pays more than just that of a low-skill part-time job).

But the main point is, if a teen drops out of high school to work instead, how the hell is he going to be able to get to work if the State seizes his driver’s license?

Yet another thing that’s wrong with statism and fascism. This is an extremely immoral system we have, in which the individual’s right to travel and one’s right to work is so egregiously violated by officials and bureaucrats of the State.

But this idea of the stealing of driver’s license from teens is just small potatoes, compared to the thefts, trespasses and violence that our criminals “public officials” commit each and every day.

In fact, Thomas Knapp had this excellent article yesterday on the “Self-Service State“:

…Progressives and other naifs once dreamed of the “full service” state: Cradle-to-grave health benefits, guaranteed job security and a complimentary mint on your pillow from Uncle Sugar. What we got instead, and what we’re always going to get, is the “self service” state: You help yourself if you can, while the state helps itself to anything and everything it wants.

The purpose of the state is to serve the state. To protect the state. To perpetuate the state. To grow the state’s power…

That’s why Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid get together behind closed doors, unvexed by trivialities like public debate, to ram an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act through the US Senate. It’s certainly not something they did for their constituents. It benefits only the state.

It’s why Congress is giving President Barack Obama a pass on his illegal war in Libya, entered into without congressional declaration. That war has now continued past even the unconstitutional “War Powers Resolution” deadline without the requisite congressional approval — but hey, he sent a polite note informing Congress he doesn’t give a damn about the law and appreciates their support in violating it. And they’ll blink — (because) once the state has acted, its actions must always be supported and never, ever questioned.

It’s why it never seems to have crossed Obama’s mind that the “legitimate” job of White House staff might not involve actively propagandizing America on the Inherent Goodness of Dear Leader. Whatever justification we’re offered for creating the position of “Director of Progressive Media & Online Response,” the position’s purpose is to … gently assist … the serfs in learning to love their master.

“To secure these rights …?” If you’re still buying that one, let’s talk real estate. I’ve got some for you. Oceanfront. In Arizona. Priced to sell.

“To serve and protect?” Yeah, right. Ask Jose Guerena about that one. Wait, you can’t. He’s dead. After diligent service to the state himself, he fell inadvertently ran afoul of one of his own employer’s death squads earlier this month.

The state serves only itself — and demands that you serve it too. Like any parasite, it will happily kill its host to further engorge itself. Your only possible escape from that fate is to pry its teeth out of your skin, throw it to the ground, and stomp on it, hard.

Or at least, the federal State, the U.S. government. Here is a post by Stephan Kinsella on how the U.S. Justice (sic) Department is threatening the Texas state legislature to not pass the bill that outlaws sexual molestation committed by TSA Nazis, literally threatening, as Kinsella puts it, a “no-fly zone” over Texas. This is yet another example of why states need to secede or at least nullify federal laws, policies, mandates, restrictions, etc. that violate the rights of the people of the various states. As Knapp noted above, the State (especially the federal government) exists to perpetuate itself, as it parasitically feeds off the actual producers and workers of the society. The bigger the State (such as the federal government), the more parasitic and the more abusive.

And don’t forget, the government — or, the “State” — is not just some non-living material object that just happens to exist. The State is made up of professional career politicians and bureaucrats, many or most of whom have never had a real job their entire adult lives. And those who are at the highest levels would be the least employable in the private sector, and tend to be the ones of the least credible and least principled moral character. What did Barack Obama ever do that was productive and was an actual service to his fellow citizens? Bomb Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Impose federal medical intrusions against innocent people who did nothing to deserve such abuses? Did he ever actually produce anything of actual value to others? Did George W. Bush? What about Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, who started the first war in Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, that led to huge increase in widespread anti-Americanism and further terrorist retaliation against us?

In an article today, Paul Craig Roberts mentions how the idea of Presumption of Innocence is not understood by the younger generations, and by many in today’s degenerated culture in America. Roberts was referring to IMF weirdo Strauss-Con’s right to presumption of innocence. Yes, every human being has a God-given right to presumption of innocence, and any accusation against one of crimes must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The reason for this is that any one of us could possibly be targeted by agents of the State, by a neighbor, a “disgruntled employee” (or disgruntled employer), and falsely accused of something, and some innocent individual’s life then made miserable. You need hard evidence to convict someone of guilt of a crime of which one is accused, because if you don’t have that hard evidence, then you have to let him go.

Everyone has a right to be presumed innocent of anything, and otherwise left alone, especially by the State. We need to get rid of each and every State-imposed intrusion into our lives, regulations, mandates, restrictions, licensing laws, in which the individual is forced to report something of a personal nature to the State that is none of the government’s damn business. All these State-imposed intrusions are the State’s way of expressing presumed guilt of the individual (the State’s victim), with the burden on the individual to “prove one’s innocence.” Only those who practice moral relativism believe any of this is a good thing.

And finally, given how our Congress in loathsome Washington is ignorantly and self-destructively going to pass the four-year extension of the Unpatriotic Act (that they didn’t even read before passing it in the first place) that violates everyone’s right to presumption of innocence as well as rights to private property, freedom of association, violates the Fourth, Fifth and other Amendments to the CONstitution, how the ignorant lowlifes also passed Obama’s Soviet medical plan without reading that either (oh, that’s right, “Harry Can’t Reid”), is it any surprise that these neanderthals gave so much praise to the racist war criminal from Israel, Nutty-Yahoo?

On Humanity’s Never-Ending Crap

Australian journalist John Pilger has this piece on Australia’s “dirty secret” of its racist and apartheid-like treatment of the Australian Aboriginal people, and media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s mass propaganda campaign against them.

The Australian publishes long articles that present Aboriginal people not unsympathetically but as perennial victims of each other, “an entire culture committing suicide”, or as noble primitives requiring firm direction: the eugenicist’s view. It promotes Aboriginal “leaders” who, by blaming their own people for their poverty, tell the white elite what it wants to hear. The writer Michael Brull parodied this: “Oh White man, please save us. Take away our rights because we are so backward.”

This is also the government’s view. In railing against what it called the “black armband view” of Australia’s past, the conservative government of John Howard encouraged and absorbed the views of white supremacists — that there was no genocide, no Stolen Generation, no racism; indeed, whites are the victims of “liberal racism”. A collection of far-right journalists, minor academics and hangers-on became the antipodean equivalent of David Irving Holocaust deniers. Their platform has been the Murdoch press.

Ouch. And Pilger asserts that much of the government-thefts of lands from the Aboriginals has been for the purpose of stealing their precious natural resources. But is that very much different from how Western governments have been treating the inhabitants of Middle Eastern and Asian territories? After all, the only reason that the British Empire, the U.S. Empire and other Western governments have had anything to do with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran and other areas there has been because of oil. If there were no oil there , there would be no West in the Middle East.

One radio commentator I heard recently noted that (paraphrasing), “We haven’t invaded, occupied and attempted to oust dictators in Africa.” (Except for Northern Africa, of course, such as Libya, because of…yup, oil.)

However — and I’ve mentioned this here before — when it comes to Israel, or Palestine, and the displacement and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Arabs there, and the outright institutionalized anti-Arab racism and oppression there, the Western governments did not take over that territory to establish a new Westernized country for the sake of seizing natural resources. The primary reason for the takeover and occupation has not been as much to provide a “safe haven for Jews,” because Israel has been anything but a “safe haven for Jews,” but more for some people to realize their dream of bringing to life the Biblical scriptures they hold dear.

Some people have expressed a dislike of my telling the truth about Israel like that, but the truth is the truth. I was listening to Glenn Beck this morning, going on and on about Israel and the recent anniversary conflicts there. Over the past century, the Christian Zionists in particular, who have had great influence as part of the earlier British Empire and then the U.S. Empire of the West, have, in my view, taken advantage of those who have been more genuinely concerned for the actual welfare of Jews — and I believe that the Christian Zionists’ actions over the past century (via the compulsory and militarist apparatus of their governments) have not been in the name of helping Jews but in the name of actualizing the stories of the Bible. That is what the conquest has been all about.

Election Irrationality

This morning on 96.9 “Boston Talks,” Jim and Margery were discussing the issue of campaign finance reform. Jim brought up how last year’s Republican senate candidate from Connecticut, Linda McMahon, the WWE wacko, spent millions on her own campaign, and the suggestion was that people shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

Of course, that argument doesn’t make any sense, given how McMahon lost her election to Democrat degenerate Richard Blumenthal. In fact, in California, goobernatorial candidate Meg Whitless lost her campaign as well, despite her having spent over $100 million of her own money. So what good would a rule be that forbids rich candidates from spending a certain number of millions of their own money on their own campaign?

One other example: Willard Romney, who wasted over $42 million of his own wealth on his losing 2008 presidential bid. (And probably more tens of millions on his losing 2012 presidential bid — Honestly, why bother, Mitt?)

You want campaign finance reform? I’ll give you campaign finance reform: People have a right to run for any public office they wish, and have a right to fund their campaign with their own money, or contribute any amount of their own money to any campaign they wish. That is their right, and stop interfering with it. It’s called freedom, baby. You don’t like that? Then go away — far, far away.

What good are these campaigns, anyway? Why even bother? There’s no point to any of this. This system we have is based on centralizing power and control, and this one institution in Washington, or state governments, etc., are given legally-protected monopolies while restricting the rights of others to enter such endeavors (such as community policing, etc.). Worse, the agents of this institution of government are legally permitted to be above the law. They are permitted to commit acts of theft, trespass and violence against others and get away with it. Who out there really thinks that such a system of moral bankruptcy and moral relativism should really exist in such a self-proclaimed “civilized” society? If you think that, then you’re nuts.

Libertarianism, Property, and Liberty

Charles Burris posted this regarding the two visions of libertarianism on the Lew Rockwell Blog this week. One vision, that of Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, the Cato Institute and former Governor Gary Johnson, is a “sterile, soulless utilitarian” vision of “consequentialist, cost-benefit analysis.” The other vision is one of moral principle, one based on the idea of the rights of the individual — that is the vision of Congressman Ron Paul, as well as economists Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Leonard Read, Hans Sennholz, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Ludvig von Mises, and others in the modern freedom movement, including Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and Jacob Hornberger just to name a few.

The first vision of libertarianism is not even a vision, frankly, but more an ideology. And while that ideology is not exactly statism, at least not overtly, it is what I would call “Statism Lite.” This Statism Lite school of thought does not appear to have a firm grasp of the concept of property rights, which includes the individual’s right to own one’s own life — one’s body and the physical and intellectual exertion one can produce from oneself directed outward, i.e. one’s labor, and the contracts one can voluntarily establish with others using one’s own labor.

Bottom line: the Statist Lite “libertarians” still seem to go by the assumption that the community in which one lives — and their compulsory territorial State — ultimately owns the individual, the individual’s person and property.

The true libertarian recognizes the right of the property owner to have sole sovereignty ownership of one’s justly-acquired, justly owned property, and that when the State seizes it or usurps control over it, in the old days that would be called “stealing” and “trespassing.”

Looking at how federal, state and local governments impose many, many regulations of property and businesses, and other forms of State-confiscations of property ownership in America, we essentially have the same thing here in America: illegitimate State ownership of all property.

This is why, in the contest between the two “libertarian Republicans,” Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, it really is no contest. The one who understands the relationship between property and freedom and who wants us to have our freedom, which is our right to have, is Ron Paul. The other, not so much.

Further reading:

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard

Defending the Undefendable (.pdf) by Walter Block

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

Anti-Federalist Papers

Natural Law by Lysander Spooner

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Spooner

The Criminality of the State by Albert Jay Nock

The Free Market by Murray Rothbard