Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

ObamaCare and Israel’s Intolerance

Hitlerian-Stalinist ObamaCare

William Grigg has this article today at LewRockwell.com, Obamacare Begins — In Idaho. Grigg describes how a group of doctors exercise their First Amendment rights of “redress of grievances,” as they attempt to organize opposition to the new fascist ObamaCare regulations that they fear will put them out of business.

The Federal jihad against Idaho’s rebel orthopedic surgeons is a field test for the coming regulatory and legal assault on physicians under Obamacare. One eminently predictable – and most likely intentional – result of that onslaught will be health care rationing as the pool of health care providers is depleted.

The next logical step would be to criminalize a doctor’s decision to leave his profession because of price controls. After all, if a doctor can’t withdraw from a government-mandated health coverage program, why should the government permit him to withhold his services by choosing another profession?

Grigg also linked to another article written in 1999, Overdose of Socialism, by Dr. Miguel Faria of the Associaltion of American Physicians and Surgeons.

It just shows how zealous the agents of the State and their little helpers are to control private relationships and transactions among Americans, including those between patients and doctors, and among doctors or among other professionals. These private activities and relationships are none of the State’s business, period! And now the State is punishing people for protesting the State’s intrusions!

Another factor in the Obommunists’ intrusions into the lives of professionals is the Obommunists’ resentment towards those who possess great skills combined with their genuine concern and care for their fellow human beings, which the Obommunists do not have. The Obommunists are also driven by their resentment of those who achieve something in life and are rewarded for it, financially, in a way that is honest, and through the wholesomeness of voluntary associations and voluntary contracts and not through force and aggression. The State is aggression.

Israel’s Hitlerian ‘Jewish’ Pledge of Allegiance for Arabs

Put this in the “I’m not making this up” category: Israel is going to vote on whether to impose on Palestinians a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish State. According to Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz,

…The measure would require Palestinians who are married to Israelis to swear loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish state” before being granted an identity card to live with their families. Other requirements already in place include providing “financial guarantees’ to the Israeli government.

The requirement is particularly onerous as Israel’s population is only about 75% Jewish, and it would require large numbers of non-Jews to swear their fealty to keeping the government treating them and their children as second-class residents. Officials say the move is necessary to “stop terrorism.”…

…Israel’s Parliament has already approved measures criminalizing the “denial” of Israel’s status as an eternal Jewish state, and threatening to jail any Arabs caught commemorating Nakba, a day of mourning for the expulsion of large numbers of Arabs on Israel’s independence day.

So much for democracy, pluralism and tolerance for diversity in Israel.

David Cameroon Wants Obama On Top, and Sean Hannity Still Fixated On Ronald Reagan

British Prime Minister David Cameroon has stated that the U.K. is in a ‘special relationship‘ with the U.S., and that Britain is the ‘junior partner.’ Do you think that David Cameroon and Barack Obama might trade places when they meet together next week? No, I’m just kidding. They’re meeting in the Oval Office, not the Lincoln Bedroom.

But what is this ‘special relationship,’ ‘partner’ business? I thought that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al. settled all that.

And every time I tune into Sean Hannity, it’s “Ronald Reagan” this and “Ronald Reagan” that. He is fixated on Reagan. Hannity seems to think that Reagan was a great president, and that “America needs another Ronald Reagan.” Well, Ronald Reagan had ‘greatness,’ and a lot of potential, at least according to his anti-government, pro-freedom rhetoric in 1980, but he was not that great a president. As Murray Rothbard noted in 1987,

In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986… the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures….

…Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion…

…the famous “tax cut” of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It’s true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was “bracket creep,” a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall…

…Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president’s rhetorical sensibilities, they weren’t called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of “fees,” “plugging loopholes” (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), “tightening IRS enforcement,” and even revenue enhancements.” I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being “enhanced,” the president had held the line against tax increases.

We don’t need another Ronald Reagan. Reagan added three new cabinet-level bureaucracies, rather than removing the two (Education and Energy) that he had promised to remove. Reagan signed each and every budget that Congress submitted, including the U.S. government’s very first trillion dollar budget. Were he a true, principled conservative, Reagan would have thrown each budget back at Congress and ordered them to eliminate the unnecessary, pork-filled programs that should be handled by the private sector. That’s what Robert Taft (1889-1953) and Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) would’ve done. We need another Robert Taft, and Sean Hannity needs to throw out his Ronald Reagan doll.

Obama the Socialist Fascist Communist

July 15, 2010

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Link to this article at LewRockwell.com

A recent poll showed that 55% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a “socialist,” and many Americans believe that the nation is on the “road to socialism.”

The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades, especially since FDR’s New Deal. Socialism primarily is public ownership of wealth, property and the means of production. So, of course Obama is a socialist. He has expressed that.

For some reason, many people mistakenly believe that Social Security, an important outcome of the New Deal, is a program in which some of Americans’ earnings are taken and put into some kind of “savings account,” to be available to them when they retire. In actuality, Social Security is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme administered by the State, in which income is taken from producers and redistributed to non-producers, mainly retired persons and the elderly. LBJ’s Medicare program is an extension of this.

Further examples to show that Obama is a socialist include his vote as a U.S. Senator in favor of the Wall Street Bailout, often mistakenly seen as an example of “capitalism,” but which was actually an example of socialism: redistribution of wealth from the middle-class workers and producers to the already rich Wall Street bankers and financial executives.

Obama also clearly supports the ongoing military socialism through the wars he has been continuing and strengthening abroad: redistribution of wealth from American workers and producers to defense contractors, consultants and lobbyists, oil executives and Wall Street bankers, which really has been a main objective for American wars throughout the last century. As the late USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler would say, “War is a Racket.”

And as the late economist Murray Rothbard put it, regarding World War I:

Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war may have been the single most fateful action of the 20th century, causing untold and unending misery and destruction. But Morgan profits were expanded and assured.

Things have not changed in 100 years.

Obama’s stated intention has been for redistribution of wealth as a means to help the poor, the underprivileged and so on. But his unstated intention is the same as all politicians of his ilk: to reach into as much private wealth as possible as a means towards expanding State power and control.

Many people also mistakenly believe that Obama’s medical takeover is “socialized medicine,” but we already have socialized medicine in Medicare as mentioned, and other similar programs. ObamaCare is actually a fascist program.

Fascism is another major aspect of FDR’s New Deal, which gave us an untold number of regulations, mandates and enmeshments between business and government. Fascism primarily is State control over privately owned property, wealth and industry. All government mandates and regulation of private economies are examples of fascism. ObamaCare consists of one mandate and regulation after another of private doctor-patient relationships, patient/doctor-insurance company relationships, and a laundry list of medical related industries.

In addition to ObamaCare fascism and Obama’s strengthening of his own executive dictatorial powers as president, some other examples of Obama’s fascism include his new financial regulations, and the environmental regulations that he used as a means of interfering with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s duty to protect the people of Louisiana from the oil spill that threatens their livelihoods.

While allowing doctors’ practices, HMOs, and insurance companies to continue to be privately owned, the federal government will nevertheless dictate to them how their contracts and associations will be run. However, given a variety of factors, this dictatorial control over the medical industry will most likely lead these still privately owned interests into bankruptcy, much like what the federal government has done to the financial and mortgage lending industries, and the federal government will most probably take upon ownership, as well as control, of much of these industries.

That is where Obama’s communism comes in. The “road to socialism”? No, already there. Fascism? Already there. But are we on the road to communism? You betchya!

Communism is, by and large, complete State ownership and control of all industry, wealth and property, and the means of production. So far, we have seen this from Obama in his leading the charge of confiscation of much of the automobile industry, as well as the federal government’s ownership of much of the mortgage and finance industries. And eventually, most likely, the entire medical industry.

Whether Obama is intentionally implementing a communist America by way of long-planned “stealth,” as some people have suggested he is doing, or whether he has a communist agenda by way of his long-time partnership with admitted terrorist bomber and “small-c communist” Bill Ayers, or whether Obama follows the teachings of “radical community organizer” (or “communizer”) Saul Alinsky, is actually not as important as Obama’s actual actions as president.

So far, we have noted that Barack Obama is:

  • A Socialist. He supports public ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth from some segments of society to others.
  • A Fascist. He supports State control over private industries and the means of production, and just about every aspect of citizens’ daily lives.
  • A Communist. He supports State ownership as well as control of industry and the means of production.

But what isn’t Obama?

  • A Capitalist.

Barack Obama is not a capitalist because he opposes voluntary exchange, private property rights, voluntary contracts, associations and markets free of State intrusions, and under the Rule of Law. The true capitalist, voluntary exchange-private property system that coexists with individual liberty is exactly what the American Founders believed in, for which they fought a Revolution to have and preserve for their posterity. This capitalist system is the only system that exists under the Rule of Law that protects all individuals in such a society from the theft and trespass of others including agents of the State.

In contrast, socialism, fascism and communism all institutionalize the violation of the Rule of Law as they institutionalize the violation of all individuals’ inherent rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property.

In those totalitarian systems, the individual is a sacrificial animal for the collective, and a serf for the State.

Alas, America has not actually experienced true capitalism, at least not since the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and especially not since the presidency of hardcore banking and monetary fascist and warmonger-business protectionist Abraham Lincoln.

The choice for America is whether to continue on the road to communism, or to turn back, dismantle all of it, and restore our freedom and prosperity.

‘Scott Brown 41′ Becomes ‘Scott Brown 60′

Sen. Scott Brown has just announced that he will vote for the Chris Dodd-Barney Frank financial reform bill that will further ruin America’s banking and finance industries and give the government further intrusions into Americans’ private financial matters. In addition to RINO Susan Collins, Brown will give the Democrats the votes needed for passage of the bill.

This makes it official: Turning Brown from being a “Brown 41″ into being a “Brown 60.” Well, I wrote about Brown in January, before Brown’s special election, but I will not say, “I told you so.”

Just one look at Brown’s record in the Massachusetts state legislature, from his support for RomneyCare to his support for the Northeastern states cap-n-trade regulations, and his opposition to state tax cuts and support for Massachusetts teachers unions, told us that he could be nothing but a Bob Dole-John McCain-Nelson Rockefeller Big Government Republican.

It was not pleasant hearing the talk radio hosts here and conservatives claim how “conservative” Brown was, and describing him as the “Tea Party” candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brown is exactly like his mentor, Willard Romney — mealy-mouthed, opportunistic ignoramuses.

More on “Jewish State” Collectivism; Warmonger Collectivism

I wanted to bring up some points relating to the way support for Israel connects to support for U.S. government involvement in Middle-Eastern wars.

Some people seem to have a problem with my asserting that in the British Mandate of the late 19th through 20th Centuries and the formation of the current state of Israel in 1948, lands which were rightfully owned by Arabs were involuntarily taken away from them. Some people want to assert that, according to the Bible, the “original inhabitants” of the Land of Israel were the ancestors of modern Jews, and therefore Jews — all Jews, supposedly — have the moral claim on that land as a “Jewish homeland” promised to Jews by God.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the majority of the Jews currently inhabiting Israel are descendants of Europe, particularly Poland, Russia and Germany, and not of the Middle East. Now, if one wants to claim that the Land of Israel is the promised land of all Jews regardless of where their ancestors originated, because God promised that via the Bible, that is up to you. There were Arabs and Arab families who were settled in the Land of Israel up to the late 19th-mid 20th Centuries, and were there for many generations. They were uprooted and displaced, some were murdered and some were exiled. Those are just facts. Some people want to say that those Arabs were “occupying” Jewish lands, and some want to say that Jews via the British Mandate and later the U.N. are doing the “occupying.”

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs had been occupying land that was inhabited originally by the Jewish ancestors, and Jews had a right to oust Arabs like that throughout the 20th Century, then you would have to be consistent and admit that, therefore, because lands in America were originally inhabited by the “natives” of these North American territories and were invaded and taken over by the Europeans who came here, then because the “natives” are the rightful original inhabitants then they have a right to have their land returned to them. (“But the ‘natives’ didn’t have a Bible that stated that God intended that the land they inhabited be not only their land but that of all their future descendants.” Oh well.)

I guess for me, it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because that collection of documents is based on religious beliefs, and the validity of the Bible is based on faith.

But I must suggest that the idea of a “Jewish State” is a collectivist concept. An entire territory to be set aside primarily for people of a particular religion or religious culture? Hmmm. I happen to favor individual rights and property rights.

If you own a parcel of property, it’s yours. Your right is to that property, the right to occupy it, build on it, house a 17-car garage on it, sell it to whomever you want. That’s known as private property rights. However, let’s say that an entire territory is set aside for people of a particular religion or culture — in this case Israel, and Jews. And, for example, one Jewish resident owns a property within Israel. His God-given, inherent right of property includes the right to sell the property to whomever he wants, Jew, Arab, Christian, doesn’t matter. There are some parts of Israel (if not all, I don’t know) in which the Jewish property owner may not sell it to an Arab, because Arabs are not allowed to live in certain areas. Therefore, this means that the individual doesn’t really own that property. The State is the real “owner.” Or, the collective. It’s just like here in the U.S. In other words, if you really believe that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,” and property (Jefferson erred in not writing “property”!), then you would have to acknowledge that anyone has a right to acquire property from a willing, mutually agreeing buyer and settle on the property, anywhere in the world.

Unless you are a collectivist, and have a collectivist mindset. That’s up to you.

There shouldn’t be a Jewish State, a Muslim or Islamic State, a Christian State, a gay State, a Black State, a White State, etc. Those who disagree with me are collectivists. Collectivism has been a damaging mindset throughout modern democracies. In fact, democracy itself is collectivist, therefore we can see what damage it has done, especially to America since the Founding.

It seems inherent in setting up a “Jewish State” to result in Jewish-promoted anti-Arab racism and persecution, and it has. For those who don’t believe this, they have their heads in the sand.

But I wonder if the conservative Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck crowd have guilt feelings about Jews and the wrongs that were done to them, in the same way that white leftists have guilt feelings about blacks and the wrongs that have been done to blacks. Otherwise, just what is it that makes the Christian Zionist conservatives seem like they are more pro-Israel than they are pro-America?

The neocons support war against Iran based on the same kind of State-issued lies and propaganda with which they supported the war against Iraq, which has destroyed that whole country just as the war against Afghanistan has been wrecking that country as well, and killed thousands of innocents as well as thousands of Americans.

Why don’t the bureaucrats and parasites of the U.S. government do things a little more openly and honestly? If you feel that the U.S. should own and control these Middle Eastern territories, then why don’t you just go conquer and seize all the lands by force in a conquest, and claim them as additional U.S. states? At least that would be more aboveboard, unlike what the U.S. government has been doing especially these last 20 years. And when openly taking over all those territories, why don’t they do the ethnic cleansing more openly and aboveboard as well, like the killing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis they’ve been doing since the first U.S. government invasion in 1990-’91, and Afghans and Pakistanis (and soon the Iranians) etc., rather than doing it in the passive-aggressive, euphemized way they’ve been doing especially since 1990?

That’s what collectivists and statists, and vulturous bureaucrats do.

But I will continue to stand for morality and speak up in favor of moral values and human rights, because that’s the kind of guy I am. It’s immoral to uproot families from their justly acquired homes and it’s immoral to kill innocent human beings.

Including the unborn. I wrote a few months ago that “one of the unfortunate rationalizations of the killing of the innocent unborn has been their subordination, their being made to have lesser value as human beings based on their being at a less advanced stage of development,” and that “the U.S. government’s rationalizing, consciously or subconsciously, of its various intrusions into less developed societies abroad may implicitly suggest that those societies’ inhabitants have lesser value as human beings, and implies making such subordination and deaths of others acceptable.”

But when either the U.S. government or the Israeli government initiates war against Iran — they already have with sanctions — it will backfire and cause even more blowback against Israel and against the U.S. that the bureaucrats and parasites of government have already been causing. It is counter-productive as well as immoral to start wars.

Racism, Collectivism and the State

The open and shut voter intimidation case — of black members of the New Black Panther Party being accused of threatening white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election — that was dropped by the Justice Department — is still in the news, but you wouldn’t know it. As Glenn Beck and others in the non-Establishment media have been saying, the mainstream news media won’t cover this story, and haven’t really relayed the story of a former DOJ official testifying before the Civil Rights Commission just this past week stating how several higher-ups in the DOJ refuse to work on cases in which blacks are accused of racially motivated incidents against whites. And the news media certainly won’t show you the video of that incident, and of one of the members of the NBPP declaring,

I hate white people — all of them. Every last iota of a cracker — I hate him. Because we’re still in this condition. We didn’t come out here to play today. There’s too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore (expletive) on our arms.

You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies. Let us get our act together.

Well, this post is probably going to bother some people.

Here is what I have to say about this. It isn’t just these anti-white “extremists” who seem to have a lot of anger regarding past discrimination and/or violence by white people against black people and other minorities. In recent years, most of violence going on in which black people are the victims is perpetrated by other black people, and much of the violence has its roots in the unconstitutional, immoral, counter-productive War on Drugs. No, the anger toward white people because of past discrimination and/or violence against black people (which is almost non-existent now) is not only expressed by some black people but also by some white people, and a major element of this anti-white ignorance and racism is part of a larger political ideology, that of collectivism and Marxism. If you aren’t aware that Barack Obama is heavily influenced by that kind of destructive, anti-freedom ideology, then you are getting your information from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times and Newsweek.

I really can’t believe what I have been hearing with all these things that I only thought was a “little bit of anti-white resentment” from old has-beens and nudnik also-rans like Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel. But the attitude of resentment toward white people (and toward successful black people) by some black people seems to be pervasive in America now, and is being encouraged by the Obommunist left who do not like individualism, individual freedom, voluntaryism, and private property rights, and instead support dependence especially on the State (which translates to enslavement of the masses — of all colors, races, ethnicities, etc.), governmental intrusions against the individual, and have an anti-individual, collectivist mindset.

You would think that after not only the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which mistakenly included intrusions into private property rights and freedom of association rights), but after all the Affirmative Action programs, special favors and privileges, and special government programs to help black youths get a head start or get special education help and post-high school advancement programs, you would think that the activists would maybe drop their resentment and expressions of need for “reparations” and so on. But it seems to have gone the other way. The racism that we are seeing is by blacks against whites, and if you don’t believe it, then look at the Justice Department lawyers who refuse to work on civil rights cases in which the alleged victim is white and the alleged offender is black.

So far, some people on the left won’t like what I’ve written here, but some conservatives might. However, the next part of this probably won’t be the favorite of the conservatives.

I definitely see a connection between the anti-white racism and resentment by the Obommunist Marxists and many among the Israeli population, I am sorry to say, in which anti-Arab racism has grown in the last decade especially. The reason I see a connection here is because of the circumstances involving the founding of the current state of Israel. Those circumstances, that especially started in the late 19th Century up to at least the 1948 official founding of Israel, involved the taking of lands away from and displacement of many Arabs.

Those who are blindly pro-Israel and are ignorant of the history of the past century probably strongly disagree with that, but if one feels it is necessary to be blindly pro-Israel more than being pro-America, as the Israel-First-Above-The-U.S. folks happen to be, then that’s the way it is, I suppose. But as the aforementioned Glenn Beck is constantly saying, “Always tell the truth,” and I agree with that, and I believe that the truth is very important, and sweeping history under the rug or looking the other way and ignoring injustice is a bad thing.

The Jews of Israel, primarily of European origin and not Middle Eastern origin, for an entire century had been given a lot of special privileges and help from Western countries in their relocating out of the oppressive Pogroms of Poland and Russia, as well as from the tyranny of Stalin and Hitler. And the reason many could not relocate to the U.S. was because of government-imposed (not private citizen-imposed) restrictions and immigration quotas, that the U.S. government has no business imposing, and has no business restricting the right of oppressed Jews to come to America. There were many private American citizens and organization who wanted to help the Jews, but our stupid and anti-Semitic government bureaucrats wouldn’t let them.

But here is the moral question: Did the tyrannies and pogroms and American government immigration restrictions justify taking justly-owned land from Arabs in Israel (that some people want to refer to as Palestine), and even displacing the Arabs out of their homes where families had been for many generations?

That moral question aside — and I know that some people will find this offensive (and that will be because they won’t really think about my point here) — I do see a connection between the apparent resentment, anger and anti-white racism (and in some cases, outright blind hatred) by some blacks and members of this Marxist  “Black Nationalism” movement, and the anti-Arab racism that is institutionalized in Israel. If you don’t know that anti-Arab racism is institutionalized in Israel, that is because you probably rely solely on the mainstream media and/or conservative talk radio for your information.

Regarding the displacement of Arabs in Israel throughout the late 19th and first half of 20th Century, to me it is very closely related to the wretched idea of “eminent domain” (i.e. government theft of private property). Will Grigg has written a piece on eminent domain in Chicago just today. But I didn’t want to get into that here.

Regarding the anti-Arab racism in Israel, I am reminded of the article that Benjamin Netanyahu’s own nephew, Jonathan Ben-Artzi wrote for the Christian Science Monitor a few months ago, that I have already referred to here. Jonathan served 18 months in prison in Israel for being a military conscription conscientious objector, and is now apparently studying at Brown University for a graduate degree in Math. In his article, he writes,

…Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns….

….Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns.

…Another example is discrimination in water supply: Israel pumps drinking water from occupied territory (in violation of international law). Israelis use as much as four times more water than Palestinians, while Palestinians are not allowed to dig their own wells and must rely on Israeli supply.

Civil freedom is no better: In an effort to break the spirit of Palestinians, Israel conducts sporadic arrests and detentions with no judicial supervision. According to one prisoner support and human rights association, roughly 4 in 10 Palestinian males have spent some time in Israeli prisons.

Now, it is doubtful that this guy, this intelligent Math and Physics grad student, would be intending to embarrass his uncle, particularly when his uncle is the leader of his country. Jonathan Ben-Artzi probably knows what he’s talking about, having grown up in Israel. He is like me — he doesn’t like seeing people being treated as subhumans. Any people, black or white, Jew, Arab, atheist etc.

As I have written in the past, and several times now, the ones who are causing the injustices, whether it be by the U.S. Department of Justice or the Israeli government or Hamas, are usually agents of the State. It is the State and its agents that have been the perpetrators of persecution and violence against others, including the pogroms, the gulag and the Holocaust, as well as many, many instances of violence and intrusions initiated by agents of the U.S. government and local government against Americans. Much of the anti-black racism preceding the ’64 Civil Rights Act was from government-imposed laws and policies that restricted black people from government-run functions and facilities, for example.

It is governments that are doing the things that have been the most counter-productive and end up actually harming the very people such actions are intended to serve. And this is because governments — States — have the power of monopoly that restricts the right of others from participating in whatever it is that’s being monopolized, and have the power of compulsion over others. When you give anyone the power of restrictive monopoly and compulsion over his fellow people, such power will act as a drug. I know, I keep repeating this. Sorry about that.

The problem with the State parasites and monopolists is, such a position of power attracts present-oriented control freaks who do not have a clue when it comes to studying history or seeing things in the long term, despite some of their rhetoric (“strategic planning”) to the contrary.

Only the U.S. government and its CIA would deliberately radicalize Muslims in Afghanistan during the 1980s as a means of helping Afghans fight the invading Russians, despite seeing how the U.S. government and its CIA’s propping up a brutal dictator for 25 years in Iran during the 1960s and ’70s inflamed combined anti-Americanism and Islamic extremism.

And only the Israeli government would deliberately create or play a major role in the creation of Hamas to counter the PLO in the 1980s, only to find out later on that the Israeli government had created their own worst enemy.

Private security firms would not be so stupid.

A Need for Separation of the Press and State

Glenn Greenwald today has this piece on conservative columnist “Charles Krauthammer’s propaganda,” in which Krauthammer criticizes a refusal to acknowledge that it is “radical Islam” that motivates terrorist violence against the U.S., and refers to Krauthammer’s only partially quoting attempted terrorist bomber Faisal Shazhad as evidence. Greenwald notes Krauthammer’s omission of Shazhad’s full statement that Shazhad’s actions are in response to the U.S. government’s drone bombings killing innocent civilians in Pakistan, and in response to other actions against the Middle East by the U.S. government.

To me, for some reason the conservatives are the ones who “refuse to acknowledge” that what has been motivating the terrorists has been the intrusive actions of the U.S. government in the Middle East for 60 years and longer. I don’t understand why the conservatives in the media have been propagandizing rather than telling the whole story in these years since 9/11.

But it’s not just the conservatives. It’s the whole mainstream news media in general. In Glenn Greenwald’s other piece a few days ago on how “thoroughly devoted the American establishment media is to amplifying and serving (rather than checking) government officials,” Greenwald points to the Washington Post, the New York Times and NPR as examples — not exactly right-wing media outlets.

This reminds me of an article Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote for the Mises Institute a few years ago, Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State. In that article, Hoppe notes the difference between “natural elites” and elites who are both sponsored by and promoting of the State. In the old days before our modern democracies took hold, the natural elites were the elites who achieved status through their own abilities and talents, characterized by “wisdom and bravery,” and who possessed “natural authority,” and were those of highly regarded personal conduct and farsightedness, and were the ones that others turned to to act as judges and peacemakers “often free of charge out of a sense of duty.” Hoppe noted how “the State” was actually formed by the monopolization of those functions of judge and peacemaker.

Hoppe notes that, in the transition from monarchies to democracies, the intellectuals were unable to recognize that the problems with justice under monarchies were the rulers’ monopoly of justice and law and instead of promoting the removal of those monopolies from the government, the intellectuals promoted keeping government’s monopoly but just replacing the monarch with “the people” in a democracy. But, as Hoppe notes, “To the intellectuals, this meant by them, as the people’s spokesmen.”

Hoppe goes on to explain in his article what happened to the “natural elites” as democracies evolved:

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

And Hoppe continues with a critique of “free-market intellectuals,” such as Milton Friedman, and also criticizes Hermione Gingrich and the 1994 so-called “Republican Revolution,” and Gingrich’s praise of the New Deal and Civil Rights Act legislation at that time:

What kind of a revolution is it where the revolutionaries have wholeheartedly accepted the statist premises and causes of the present disaster? Obviously, this can only be labeled a revolution in an intellectual environment that is statist to the core.

Hoppe also noted that “there are more propagandists of democratic rule around today than there were ever propagandists of monarchical rule in all of human history.”

The propagandists are on the left, the right, the center, everywhere on the political map. Propagandists are those who promote the State, who apologize for the State’s abuses and its tyranny against its own people and against those of other nations and territories. And just today we are hearing of a Gen. David Petraeus-Max Boot email “propagandize for me” sideshow goof.

The majority of today’s news media are not the truth-seekers and truth tellers that they were in days past. They are not in the same league as H.L. Mencken, Edward R. Murrow, and certainly not Thomas Paine, nor Thomas Jefferson. And, while journalistic praise was given to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the time of Watergate, just where are they now? And Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times exposed the offenses of the U.S. government at the height of the Vietnam War, but now the New York Times acts as one the Bush/Obama Wars’ chief propagandist rags.

However, hope is not all lost. As Hans Hoppe notes:

Fortunately, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, freedom of contract and association, personal responsibility and liability, and government power as the primary enemy of liberty and property, will not die out as long as there is a human race, simply because they are true and the truth supports itself.

Like Sotomayor, Elena Kagan Another Unqualified Totalitarian

In my previous post I made reference to talk host Michael Savage’s remarks about the Russian Spies case this week, and Savage also remarked about this week’s Senate confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan. Savage claimed that Kagan is the “most unqualified” soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice ever. I think that Michael Savage has already forgotten about Barack Obama’s previous appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor was not only not qualified for the high court, but for any court for that matter. I was never really too sure about her, because among some of the comments I had read about her, some of her former law clerks and other associates stated that she’s “not that bright” and is perhaps a bit full of herself.

Sonia Sotomayor herself admitted to being an Affirmative Action appointee, and that Princeton and Yale overlooked her terrible SAT scores because she is Hispanic and came from a poor background. Well, Barack Obama is our first Affirmative Action president. Neither one of those two could ever have gotten to where they are now sans Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is a policy by government agencies, universities and businesses to purposely hire, appoint or accept people who are not as qualified as others are for certain positions, based on their gender, ethnicity, race or skin color, religion, sexuality, i.e. superficial qualities or characteristics of people that really are not relevant to their ability to perform at a job or in a school, etc. That means that, the people who are not chosen for such positions, are not chosen based on their ethnicity, race or skin color, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. That is how totally dumb and irrational our society has become.

Now, for those who interpret my comments as anti-Hispanic, sexist or racist, I’ll have you know that I am not anti-Hispanic, sexist nor racist. First, regarding Sotomayor, she has stated that

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

In other words, Sotomayor is herself anti-white male, or perhaps both anti-white and anti-male. So, if you’re a defendant or a plaintiff before the U.S. Supreme Court, and if you’re male or white, you can predict how Sonia will vote: Against you. Of course, Sotomayor probably doesn’t appreciate all the white males on those admission boards who advanced her undeserved career of “legislating from the bench,” favoring some plaintiffs or defendants over others based on gender, race or ethnicity.

Sonia Sotomayor has been known to make comments regarding her view that judges should “make policy.” She and people of her ilk live in a lefty looniverse fantasy world where the Rule of Law is not really absolute, and doesn’t really apply equally to everyone.

And then there’s Elena Kagan, who has been campaigning for the Supreme Court since high school, who supports expanding powers for the executive branch, is against freedom of speech, opposes due process and presumption of innocence and is a hard-core socialist (as well as pro-executive dictator). 999 times out of 1,000, Elena will be on the side of the State against the individual — you betchya! I think that Elena Kagan has shown such an extreme lack of understanding of (and perhaps, more accurately, lack of agreement with) the ideas of our Founding Fathers, their Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and the ideas of natural individual human rights to life and liberty and presumption of innocence, and should NOT be on the Supreme Court.

Alas, Kagan will be rubber-stamped by the morons and retards of the United States Senate.

Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are two ignoramuses and defenders of totalitarianism who accurately reflect our first Affirmative Action president, the little Marxist dictator in the White House, Barack Obomber. I have a feeling that Tom Woods’s new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, is going to be very popular in this next year.

Oh, Those Russians!

This “Russian Spies” case in the news this week seems to be yet another one of those precisely-timed government-perpetrated events to distract Americans from the things that matter a little more than suburban couples as “spies swapping identical orange bags as they brushed past one another in a train station stairway.” Things that may matter a little more may be the quagmire in Afghanistan and the Gulf oil spill, some of the damage of which could have been prevented had the Obomber Administration not prevented governors like Bobby Jindal from building sand berms to block the oil from the beaches.

Justin Raimondo notes that his “BS-ometer is clanging pretty loudly,” and he thinks this Russian Spies case is perhaps some more “propaganda:”

This Russian “spy” story is so flaky, so Bizarro World-ish, so obviously a con job that, really, no commentary is required: all one has to do is report the facts of the “case” to see that there is no case, or, as Gertrude Stein said of her home town of Oakland, “no there there.”

So what’s the point? Who knows? There are plenty of people in the US government who would look favorably on a souring of US-Russian relations. Perhaps the Obama administration is retaliating for Moscow’s lack of cooperation with the Iranian sanctions. Or maybe the idea is to divert attention away from the spy networks that really matter ….

Now, I’ve written recently about the Israel-born, raised and educated Lani Kass who is senior assistant and advisor to Air Force Chief of Staff Norman Schwartz and, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, Kass is an important Middle Eastern affairs advisor to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. Kass was a Major in the Israeli Air Force before moving to the U.S. to work as a civilian in the U.S. Department of Defense, is a specialist in “Cyberwarfare,” and supposedly was  part of a recent meeting regarding Israel (and, no doubt, Iran). According to Giraldi,

The meeting took place because of concerns that the United States has been losing the “war of ideas” in the Muslim world.  At the end of last year, General David Petraeus sent a special emissary out on a fact finding mission to meet with the heads of state and top military officers in all of the Muslim countries considered to be friends or allies of the US for a frank exchange of views.  The emissary, an Arabic speaker, learned that no country any longer trusts the United States because it is widely believed that all American policies in the Near East region are subject to veto by Israel.  It was also commonly observed that Washington is complicit in the genocide against the Palestinians because of its failure to do anything to restrain Israel, making it extremely difficult to rally popular support in any Muslim country for US policies.

Petraeus was surprised by the unanimity and emotion of the views that were confidentially expressed and thought the issue to be important enough to move it up the chain of command.  In February, he met with Admiral Mullen and briefed him on his findings.  Mullen was accompanied only by Dr. Lani Kass, who was described to Petraeus as his special assistant for the Middle East.  Mullen expressed some dismay at the implications of the findings while Kass disputed Petraeus’ conclusions and said that the concerns being expressed were greatly exaggerated.  Petraeus nevertheless presented his report to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 17th together with his judgment that the failure to address the Palestinian issue was putting US soldiers in danger because it was inflaming anti-American sentiment and giving groups like al-Qaeda an unnecessary propaganda victory.

Giraldi expresses some concern about Kass’s high rank among or influence on U.S. government officials, especially regarding Middle Eastern issues, but also, given Kass’s strong life-long ties to Israel, to whom her real loyalty is actually directed.

Last night on his talk show, Michael Savage was referring to the Russian Spies case as the spies “wanting to get close to officials to influence U.S. policy.” But I wonder if he’s concerned about this Israeli Lani Kass. I doubt it.

Of course, the Israel-First-Above-The-U.S. crowd probably isn’t concerned about Kass, particularly the Outpatient Neocons, because we know that Israel, or more specifically the Israeli government, wants to bomb Iran as a preemptive strike which would only backfire against Israel, just as the U.S. government’s preemptive invasion of and occupation (and destruction and mass murders) in Iraq has backfired against the U.S., and just as the U.S. government’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is also backfiring against America. But the Outpatient Neocons want to “break things and kill people.”

If the U.S. government invades and bombs Iran, the bureaucrats and statists, many of whom have spent most of their adult lives feeding at the public trough, many of whom have never actually produced anything of actual value to others and are probably incapable of doing so and that’s why they work for the government, will probably distribute one item of propaganda after another to justify it, and the Outpatient Neocons and the Israel-First-Above-the-U.S. crowd will lap it up like a starving dog. The Outpatient Neocons will tell us of all the Iranians who will be thankful towards the U.S. for invading their country and saving them from the awful Ahmadinejad, just as was the case with Iraq as Glenn Greenwald writes today in his great piece, The universality of war propaganda:

…The point is that every nation which launches even the most brutal, destructive and unprovoked wars of aggression employs moralizing propaganda to claim that their aggression engenders magnanimous and noble ends, and specifically often points to segments of the invaded population which welcome the violence and invaders.  Pointing to the happy and rewarded Kurdish minority no more justifies or legalizes the attack on Iraq than similar claims do for any of those other cases.

What’s most pernicious about all of this is that any decent human being has a natural desire to see oppression of the type that the Kurds suffered under Saddam alleviated, and neocons exploit that natural human desire to drum up support for wars that have nothing to do with the noble goals that are touted (which is why so many of them who stood silently by while the U.S. supported Saddam [even as he brutally suppressed the Kurds] suddenly feigned concern for his crimes and his victims when it was time to attack him).  This is how a state of endless war is always justified:  with blatantly cynical, insincere and exploitative appeals to moralizing fairly tales that have nothing to do with the aggression itself…

Russian Spies, Israeli spies, whatever. When the U.S. government attacks Iran, it won’t be in retaliation for Iran having attacked the U.S., as has been the case with most of the U.S. government’s wars. It is obvious to me that the U.S. government will be attacking Iran not on behalf of the U.S., but on behalf of Israel, even if such actions go against America’s own interests. That is why our moron government officials are wasting time and resources going after “Russian Spies.”

America’s Compulsory Dependence on Government

June 26, 2010

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Link to this article at LewRockwell.com

America will soon be celebrating Independence Day, a reminder of how the American Founders became independent from British rule and unshackled their serfdom. But given the U.S. government’s growth in its size and intrusiveness, just how independent are Americans now?

When Friedrich Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, I don’t think that Hayek considered that government’s monopolies could lead a citizenry into serfdom. But it may be that the government’s monopolies of territorial protection and monetary production have been paving that road to serfdom, as they have been also causing widespread economic turmoil and less security.

Whether the government-monopolized production of money is constitutionally mandated or not, the assumption that only the State should control the commodity of money – a universal means of trade and commerce – needs to be questioned. And so far, I have not heard a reasonable explanation of why Americans must be forced to be dependent on only the government’s provision of security without competition.

The original intent of the American Founders was for the federal government to be limited in its size, scope and power. Except for Alexander Hamilton most notably, most of the Founders opposed the use of paper money and government monopolized central banks. And the Founders by and large opposed “foreign entanglements” and imperialistic expansion of the U.S. government on foreign lands.

By default, governmental actions will have the reverse effect of what their proponents intend, in domestic and foreign affairs. This is because of the government’s legally protected monopoly that restricts participation of competitive agents. Monopolists lack incentive and market prices to make sound long-term decisions. In modern America’s immediate gratification culture, government bureaucrats’ decisions are guided by short-sightedness.

By default, when there are problems as a result of intrusive governmental actions, rather than recognizing the real causes of the problems, the typical solutions have been to do more of what has caused the problems.

For example, rather than repealing all the regulations, taxes, bureaucracy and other intrusions that have caused Americans’ medical matters to be dysfunctional, the solution of the Democrat-controlled Congress has been to increase all those regulations and taxes, and the Republican minority’s solution is to reduce them only to a degree that’s politically acceptable in the short term, but not corrective in the long-term.

As 19th-Century Hamiltonian central banking and Lincolnian legal tender laws wreaked havoc in Americans’ economic and financial matters, the answer was for more government control and intervention with the creation in 1913 of the Federal Reserve. Subsequently, rather than recognize that it was the Federal Reserve’s control and manipulation of money and the federal government’s interventions into private economies that led to the Great Depression, the solutions of Herbert Hoover and FDR were to impose more interventions, and greater expansion of the federal government, all of which deepened and further extended the Depression. And in 2010, rather than recognize that it is government interferences with and intrusions into America’s financial and banking matters that have virtually put the whole country into bankruptcy, the answer has been to increase the intrusions, which will expand the corruption, dysfunction and our impoverishment.

And, rather than recognizing that it’s the decades of intrusions of the U.S. government into foreign lands that have been motivating and radicalizing various groups in Middle-Eastern countries, instead of stopping the counter-productive intrusions, the bureaucrats’ answer to the terrorism has been to increase those intrusions. Americans have been passively accepting years of government-issued and media-dispatched propaganda, rather than facing the facts of history.

Unfortunately, for many years the U.S. government, which consists not of competitive entrepreneurs but of career bureaucrats and other parasites, has been in collusion with other governments, to our disservice. America’s foreign policy has been guided by those foreign entanglements and has served the bureaucrats’ corporate welfare cronies and not the American people.

Many Americans are currently experiencing downward mobility as governments have expanded. As the wealth and mobility of the actual producers of goods and services have decreased, the wealth and mobility of the parasites have moved upwards. Eventually, the producers will be outnumbered by the parasites, and the country will then collapse. But it need not happen.

With the compulsion of an entire nation of 300 million people spanning thousands of miles to be dependent on centralized bureaucratic monopolies, it is all too common that the politicians and bureaucrats use such monopolies for political purposes, for the compulsory State monopolist has the power to be above the law, as well as lacks the incentive to make sound long term decisions.

Because Americans have been compelled by law to submit to the Federal Reserve’s authoritarian top-down control over monetary matters without any competitive alternatives allowed, all economic matters in America have been severely distorted. This federal control over money has led to further dependence and usurpation of Americans’ economic matters by the federal government’s enmeshments with foreign governments and their central banks, and agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

And there is an interconnection between that compulsory monetary dependence on the U.S. federal government (and possibly soon a more global governmental monetary structure) and the internationalism and globalism of the Global War on Terrorism. It is not an exaggeration to say that such an enmeshment of the U.S. government and foreign governments has diminished each American citizen’s individual liberty and America’s national sovereignty.

That situation of compulsory dependence of Americans on the dictatorial controls by political parasites is extremely out of bounds of what the Founders intended. It is this compulsory government monopoly and manipulations of money for which non-government-cartelized banks and private providers of competitive currencies would be jailed, and it is the compulsory government monopoly of territorial protection that has consisted of invading and manipulating other societies for which private providers of territorial protection would also be jailed, and that has kept Americans in bondage as serfs of the State.

Rather than freeing people as the American Founders had done – and more freedom creates more prosperity as well as better security – the mainstream answer has been massive expansion of government and reversing of freedom that has caused America to become a dependent, dysfunctional society.

As American Independence Day approaches, we can celebrate the independence the Founders had after they separated from authoritarian rule, but to suggest that we Americans enjoy the independence that the early Americans enjoyed is unrealistic at best.

There are consequences of economic and monetary authoritarianism and of trespassing on foreign lands. Because of short-sightedness, the bureaucrats in Washington continue to make more laws and regulations each day, and print more valueless fiat paper money out of thin air that can only lead to hyper-inflation and economic collapse.

Laws forbidding theft and trespassing really should be absolute, with no exceptions, including intrusions into private economic matters and private property as well as intrusions into foreign peoples’ territories that are contrary to the Founders’ original intent.

Societal chaos can be prevented by allowing for competing currencies and repealing all the government regulations and programs whose authoritarian governmental dictates, lack of market incentives and natural corrupting consequences have led to such dependence and serfdom.

The “road to serfdom” is paved with a centralized, bureaucratic, all-powerful federal bulldozer monopoly, and the result will naturally be catastrophic, as we witnessed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we are now seeing with the collapsing of the centralized, debt-ridden European Union and now the U.S. To restore order, freedom and prosperity, America needs to privatize much of what the federal government does, and let the States have the sovereignty and independence that the Founders originally intended for them to have.

More Jews vs Gentiles…

In Canary in the Coalmine: Europe’s “Decoy Jews,” Paul Belien writes:

“Decoy Jew” is a new phrase in the Netherlands. Jews are no longer safe in major Dutch cities such as Amsterdam. Since 1999, Jewish organizations in the Netherlands have been complaining that Jews who walk the Dutch streets wearing skullcaps risk verbal and physical attacks by young Muslims. Being insulted, spat at or attacked are some of the risks associated with being recognizable as a Jew in contemporary Western Europe….

…In an effort to arrest the culprits who terrorize Jews, the Amsterdam authorities have ordered police officers to walk the streets disguised as Jews. The Dutch police already disguise officers as “decoy prostitutes, decoy gays and decoy grannies” to deter muggings and attacks on prostitutes, homosexuals and the elderly. Apparently sending out the decoys has helped reduce street crime. The “decoy Jew” has now been added to the police attributes…

…Kleinblatt, a famous Jewish Antwerp bakery, which has been handed down from father to son since 1903, will soon break with that tradition because the baker’s son has emigrated to the U.S. “We no longer feel safe and welcome here,” a young Jew who is leaving for London told De Standaard. “Muslim immigrants blame us for what is happening in Israel.” Another young Jew, who is leaving for New York, says: “New York is a paradise for Jews. Unlike Belgium, non-Jews in America are pro-Israel.”….

Supposedly, Islam is the “religion of peace,” but “Islam” actually translates to “submit.” What that means is that it is the duty of the practicing Muslim to get non-Muslims to submit to their ways, their views, and if the non-Muslim won’t “submit” voluntarily, then the use of force is necessary. Now, not all Muslims think this way, thank God, but many do.

In the U.K., human rights activists gathered at Downing Street to protest what is becoming a pervasive infiltration of Sharia Law into British law in the U.K. Sharia law is an extremely repressive form of rules in which the suppression of individual freedom and private property rights is institutionalized. There are also efforts to shove Sharia Islamic law down the throats of Americans as well. However, there are plenty of aspects of Judaism and Christianity that are also repressive. Civil law should be minimal: don’t violate someone else’s life, liberty or property. Duh.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in the U.S. government who do say “duh” and who just don’t get it, regarding the rights of the individual for which our Founding Fathers fought for years to finally achieve protection and preservation. That includes the Jewish U.S government officials, the Christian U.S. government officials, and even the atheist U.S. government officials.

But getting back to the Jew thing mentioned above, it would help if the Israeli government didn’t institutionalize racist anti-Arab suppression into its own law of the land. In Where Kindness Is a Crime, Max Blumenthal writes:

…Haaretz reporter Ilana Hammerman described in dramatic detail a crime she had methodically planned and committed. In defiance of laws supposedly related to Israel’s security, Hammerman picked up three teenage Palestinian girls in their village in the West Bank, took them through the Betar checkpoint, and drove them into Tel Aviv. There they ate ice cream, visited the mall and museum, and played in the sea. Even though the girls lived just a few kilometers from the beach, Israel’s military occupation had prevented them from ever visiting it before their illegal “day of fun.”…

Here is Ilana Hammerman’s article in Haaretz, including a picture of two of the Arab girls (not wearing the usual Islamic Shmatas, though), to which Max Blumenthal refers. Blumenthal continues:

…But the fun ended as soon as a group called The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel filed a request with Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein demanding that Hammerman be prosecuted for breaking the country’s “Law of Entry to Israel” forbidding Israelis from assisting Palestinians in entering Israel. If Weinstein agrees to the request, Hammerman could face as much as two years in prison.

The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel was founded by a religious nationalist settler named Nachi Eyal. When I reached Eyal on the phone, he maintained to me that his concern related strictly to Hammerman’s disregard for the rule of law. “She broke the law and she made a report about her breaking of the law,” Eyal told me. “She wanted everyone to know that you can take Palestinians in against the law and lie to police officers and the Army. I want to send a message that no citizen in Israel can take the law into his hands and if he does they have to pay.”

However, a glance at Eyal’s past campaigns and statements reveal his targeting of Hammerman as part of a broader agenda that has less to do with the rule of law than with opening a new phase in the settlement movement’s political agenda. A former aide to settlement founding father Chanan Porat, Eyal founded his Legal Forum in 2004 to combat the Israeli government’s planned evacuation of the radical Gush Katif settlement from the Gaza Strip. In recent years, the Legal Forum has focused its efforts increasingly inside the Green Line, ramping up the pressure against Palestinian citizens of Israel and anyone who advocates on their behalf.

Eyal has boasted of his latest campaign to push Jewish settlement activity in coastal cities of Israel like Jaffa, Akko and Haifa which maintain sizable communities of Palestinian citizens of Israel. He claimed he has “encouraged Jews not to put up ‘for sale’ signs in these areas in order to dissuade Arabs from buying up these properties.” The Legal Forum is also intent on preventing Palestinian Israelis from building on their own land. “We are mapping Israel’s land resources, investigating illegal Arab building sites and filing suits against such building,” Eyal has said.

The Legal Forum is a prominent player in right-wing efforts to disqualify Palestinian-Israeli legislators from the Knesset. In May, when Balad MK Jamal Zahalka made anti-Zionist statements during a speech in Ramallah, Eyal called on the government of Israel to revoke his citizenship. “If a member of Knesset goes to the enemy and says bad things about Israel they must pay for this,” Eyal insisted to me. “Israeli democracy must have weapons to preserve the democracy or it will be destroyed.”

In another recent campaign, Eyal attacked a military investigation of an Army colonel who publicly justified his use of torture techniques to compel Palestinian detainees into confessions. The investigation “ties the IDF’s hands during the war on terrorism,” Eyal said, “and helps the terrorists.” Eyal’s Legal Fund spearheaded the campaign to suppress a book, “The House of Dajani,” that portrayed the early Zionists in unflattering terms. His efforts led to the reversal of a decision to award the book the Sapir Prize, Israel’s most prestigious literary award.

Now Eyal’s efforts are focused on ensuring that Hammerman’s kindness does not go unpunished — “they have to pay,” as he said. The Attorney General has ordered the police to open an investigation of Hammerman and Eyal is confident that case will proceed to the next stage.

“I think we will succeed because [Hammerman] broke the law and she made a lot of noise,” Eyal remarked. “Israel will not allow these kinds of things to continue.”

People who value the ideals of individual rights and human rights including private property rights should speak out against institutionalized repression of rights, against institutionalized racism whether it be Muslim-perpetrated racism and violence against Jews, Jewish and Israeli-perpetrated racism and violence against Arabs, Islamic terrorist-perpetrated violence against others, or U.S. government-perpetrated violence against everyone.

On the Rand Paul-Civil Rights Act Controversy

David Bernstein comments on the recent Rand Paul-Civil Rights Act controversy at Cato Unbound, and Sheldon Richman responds.

In May, Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul (and son of Congressman Ron Paul) made remarks regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act that were actually too mealy-mouthed for even me to understand, but, essentially he was trying to say that the federal government perhaps went too far with that Act, but he really wouldn’t elaborate directly (because of being a mealy-mouthed politician) by stating (what I think he probably believes, and that I believe) that the Civil Rights Act should only apply to public property and government-run facilities and services, and should NOT apply to private property nor any privately owned businesses. However, this year’s campaign notwithstanding, according to David Weigel of the Washington Post, in 2002 Rand Paul wrote that

a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin … (It is) unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities…

Certainly much less mealy-mouthed and more direct (because he wasn’t running for any public office at that time).

Bernstein explains some of the context of the 1960s:

… the issue that got Rand Paul into hot water: Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations…

… From a philosophical perspective, libertarianism and Jim Crow laws are completely at odds. Consistent with their classical liberal heritage, libertarians believe that the government must treat all its citizens as individuals with equal rights, and therefore may not discriminate on arbitrary grounds, like race.  The government must also apply its laws fairly and impartially, including by protecting members of unpopular minority groups from private violence.  A penumbra of this opposition to government discrimination is that the right to vote must not be denied for arbitrary reasons.  Finally, the government may not require private parties to discriminate.

Historically, many of the leading advocates of civil rights for African Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century—for example, Moorfield Storey, the first president of the NAACP—were, if not hardcore libertarians, at least classical liberal fellow travelers.  In more modern times, the few prominent libertarian commentators of the early 1960s, such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, supported the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination by state and local government officials.   Conservatives, by contrast, typically bought into the notion of “States’ Rights.”…

…segregation and exclusion of African Americans in public places in the South wasn’t entirely a voluntary choice of business owners.  Jim Crow segregation involved the equivalent of a white supremacist cartel.  The cartel was enforced not just by overt government regulation like segregation laws, but also by the implicit threat of private violence and extra-legal harassment of anyone who challenged the racist status quo.  This violence and extra-legal harassment was often undertaken with the approval of local officials; the latter, in fact, were often the perpetrators….

And Bernstein continues to describe how libertarians can be supportive of anti-discrimination laws including covering private sector interests.

And Sheldon Richman makes these points, among others:

Standard libertarian criticism of Title II, which prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations, appears to treat the targeted restaurants and hotels as purely private businesses that, however odious their racial policies, were unjustifiably imposed on by government policies that violated private property rights. But this account misses something crucial. Outwardly those businesses looked like private enterprises, but the substance was different. As Bernstein points out, the social-legal environment in the pre-1964 South, when Jim Crow reigned, was hardly what any libertarian would envision as a laissez-faire environment. Rather, the region was in the grip of a pervasive social system based on white supremacy—one enforced by formal government rules, discretionary official decision-making, and extralegal measures, ranging from social pressure all the way to violence that was countenanced and even participated in by government officials.

A racially liberal entrepreneur who sought to compete next door to a segregated restaurant in the downtown of a Southern city would have been in for a difficult time. How would the city’s zoning, licensing, and building-code authorities have reacted?…

…Professor Bernstein seems to reluctantly accept Title II only because a “massive federal takeover of local government to prevent violence and threats against, and extralegal harassment of, those who chose to integrate” would have been “completely impractical.” Undoubtedly so.

But why does that exhaust the options? Why assume government is the only salvation? That’s an odd position, indeed, for a libertarian. Professor Bernstein does not so much as mention another strategy for ending racial discrimination in public accommodations: direct nonviolent social action by the people affected and those in sympathy with them.

We can’t dismiss that as impractical because it had been working several years before Title II was enacted. Beginning in 1960 sit-ins and other Gandhi-style confrontations were desegregating department-store lunch counters throughout the South. No laws had to be passed or repealed. Social pressure—the public shaming of bigots—was working…

…Title II, in other words, was unnecessary. But worse, it was detrimental…

…The social campaign for equality that was desegregating the South was transmogrified when it was diverted to Washington. Focus then shifted from the grassroots to a patronizing white political elite in Washington that had scurried to the front of the march and claimed leadership…

…Libertarians need not shy away from the question, “Do you mean that whites should have been allowed to exclude blacks from their lunch counters?” Libertarians can answer proudly, “No. They should not have been allowed to do that. They should have been stopped—not by the State, which can’t be trusted, but by nonviolent social action on behalf of equality.”

So in other words, going beyond social pressure (and boycotts, etc.) to change business owners’ treatment of others based on race, and using the armed power of the federal government to force private businesses to change was the beginning of an ever-increasing mountain of laws and regulations and further anti-discrimination laws that have actually caused our society to go the other way, as far as actually causing regressive attitudes and intrusions. For example, anti-discrimination has become “affirmative action,” in which people who are not qualified for a job or for admissions to college nevertheless get hired or admitted (because of their race, etc.) over others who are more qualified (which in itself is discrimination, racial, ethnic or otherwise, and violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act!). And I’m sure there have been plenty of restaurant or hotel owners or managers who have felt compelled to allow someone on their premises that they might otherwise not have wanted to allow, not based on race or ethnicity, but based on the patrons’ behaviors, lack or sobriety or their appearance, but didn’t reject such patrons out of fear of accusations of discrimination or fear of lawsuits.

People who own a business, whether it be a “public accommodations” business or not, have a right to be free from the aggression and coercion of others. The law against theft and trespass really is absolute — or ought to be — and can’t be compromised for any reason including well-meaning social good or “social justice.” People have a right to their private property and that their voluntary associations and voluntary contracts not be violated by anyone.

The real civil rights are with the individual, who has a right to be free from the aggression or coercion of others, whether it be one’s own person or one’s private property, home or business. Unfortunately, that right to be free from the aggression of others has turned into, via “civil rights” the right (or more accurately, power) of people to force themselves into someone else’s private property. That’s trespassing. I know that I’m in the minority who believe that laws against theft and trespassing must be absolute. You can’t say that only some trespassing is forbidden in society, but other trespassing — forcing oneself onto someone else’s private property or into someone’s private business against his will, without consent — is acceptable. I don’t think so.

Jacob Hornberger pointed out regarding the Rand Paul-Civil rights Act controversy that the people on the left would say that private homeowners have a right to decide who can go into their private home based on any reason, but not private business owners, because of the left’s problem with free enterprise and profit.

The left also have a problem with the idea of someone having complete control over one’s own property, as well as one’s own business, even one’s own life as an individual. That is why most of the left are collectivists and not individualists.

The anti-discrimination laws and “civil rights” laws, like zoning and other State intrusions into private property, are of a fascist system. While socialism is public ownership of property and the means of production, fascism is State control over privately owned property and the means of production. Those systems which violate private property rights contrast with capitalism, which is private ownership and control over property and the means of production. Capitalism, free markets, voluntary exchange, whatever you want to call it, is the only system that protects liberty, the rights of the individual, the right to one’s own person and to one’s own justly acquired property, the right of freedom of association and freedom of contract, the right to be free from the aggression of your neighbors, from criminals, from all others, especially the right to be free from the aggression of the State. Fascism, communism, and socialism are all systems in which the aggressions and intrusions by others are institutionalized.

But in the end, private property is private property, and we need to get rid of all the intrusions that federal, state and local governments impose on individuals and private property owners. And that includes the fascist zoning laws, which, as Sheldon Richman made reference to, might have been used in the 1960s South by local government officials to threaten non-biased private businesses to force them to discriminate against Blacks. That would be where the private business owners’ right to bear arms comes in — to protect them and their Black customers from the violence of local officials.