Skip to content

Tag: Bureaucracy

More News and Commentary

Ron Paul on the hysterical warmongers of Congress when Trump wants to remove U.S. troops from Syria.

Veronique de Rugy comments on Donald Trump’s statement, “America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control.”

Jay Engel says that billionaires already gave their “fair share.”

Ludwig von Mises says that “progressive” attacks on capitalism were key to Hitler’s success.

And Bill Wirtz says that the French government is deliberately increasing the price of food.

Enough of the Control Freaks and the Covetous (the Ocasio-Cortezes, Tucker Carlsons, et al.)

Sometimes all this is so frustrating. That is, advocating for freedom. The free America that the Revolutionaries founded has slowly and gradually become a place in which criminals and parasites can rob their neighbors and get away with it.

The biggest mistake committed by the early Americans was to create an apparatus with compulsory control to rule over the people.

And now we have generations of brainwashed serfs who comply obediently, and really believe that the racket in Washington is something that shouldn’t be completely dismantled.

On the Hill there is a poll showing that majorities of Americans support raising the top income tax rate to 70%, including people identifying as Republicans.

Meanwhile, appearing on 60 Minutes was Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, regardless of her denials, promotes the socialism of Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela and not the “socialism” of Sweden, Norway and the U.K. The latter group are capitalist countries (private ownership of the means of production) with a welfare state, not socialist countries.

Now, a lot of people, for example this Fox News commentator, think that Ocasio-Cortez is the voice of an ignorant generation. But the above poll suggests that much of the entire population is ignorant of economics and history.

Regarding her proposal to tax high incomes at 70%, Ocasio-Cortez said, “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”

Oh, yeah? “Contributing” to what? Most of what the federal government is unconstitutional, that is, unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution.

And “contribute” usually means to pay into something voluntarily. But who would voluntarily pay to keep U.S. armed forces overseas? Such invasions and occupations mainly have resulted in provoking foreigners into retaliatory actions against us, and trillions wasted.

And who would voluntarily pay into a scheme of molesters, gropers and thieves, also known as the TSA?

The list goes on and on, totaling more than 4 trillion dollars, much of it needless, useless crap.

But Ocasio-Cortez says that “there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

Morally right? Now, there’s a knee-slapper. On the social spending side, Ocasio-Cortez wants to spend other people’s money, stolen from their paychecks and other income, on “free health care, free education,” free stuff, free this or that.

I think she’s one of those True Believers who really believes that everyone has a “right to health care,” or a “right to education,” even though there are people who do not take care of themselves, eat terrible foods, drink like fish or smoke like chimneys. Those people, quite frankly, should not be considered to have a “right” to force a doctor to have to treat them.

Redistribution of wealth schemes, especially when made involuntary on the people, encourage people to not take care of themselves. Why bother being conscientious with eating habits or avoiding poisonous drugs and booze when someone will be right there to involuntarily treat you, and it’s all paid for?

Unfortunately, as those polls suggest, conservatives have been bitten by the tax-theft bug as much as “liberals,” for decades now. The envy and covetousness is equally spread on the left and right, and all points between, especially since so-called conservatives caved on FDR’s New Deal and more so LBJ’s “Great Society,” with Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News is himself quite ignorant of economics and history, and has been showing an anti-capitalistic covetousness in his talks recently. Shame, shame, shame on anti-free market “conservatives.”

Carlson feels the Bern, last August (and more recently last week).

Regarding Carlson’s slipping into anti-capitalist socialist rants, Tom Mullen points out,

It’s hard to believe Carlson could get so many things wrong in under five minutes, starting with his general premise. He and Bernie argue the problem is the corporations not paying enough, resulting in taxpayers having to pick up the slack. But business enterprises in a free market are supposed to seek the lowest prices they can find for labor and other inputs. That’s how market economies drive down the costs of consumer goods and make all members of society richer.

Carlson does not seem to understand that about the free market.

More recently, in a not-particularly-coherent rant, after noting the decline of American society and the importance of marriage, Carlson states:

Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.

Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

But he never really seems to get what might be the root cause of so much societal decay. In my view, it is the institutionalization of theft, a.k.a. “taxation,” and the population allowing bureaucrats to impose intrusive policies into the private lives of the people.

Involuntary redistribution of wealth schemes empower parasites in central bureaucracies to wield control over others, a control which should not exist in a free society.

If there weren’t an income tax which is imposed coercively and with threats, then many of the power-wielding tyrants would otherwise be sweeping floors in the local Wal-Mart. That is because if there were a genuine free market and no government monopolies over a population compelled to support them, such skill-less bureaucrats would never be able to find actual work, in my view.

But, like Carlson, many people don’t seem willing or able to look at the income tax itself, or understand that it is a scheme of involuntary wealth confiscation via coercion and threats (otherwise known as “theft”).

The income tax-theft has been the underlying basis that has enabled and empowered criminals and gangsters to commit their crimes against their neighbors and get away with it. (For example, would the FBI, CIA, and DOJ have been able to do their dirty deeds had they not been involuntarily financed with the coercive tax-thefts? Nope.)

On the tax-thefts, Murray Rothbard wrote in his Ethics of Liberty,

For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as “taxation,” although in less regularized epochs it was often known as “tribute.” Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.

It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist…

And on the State, Rothbard wrote in his Anatomy of the State (.pdf),

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.

What has been lacking in America for over a century is freedom, economic freedom including the freedom to keep everything you earn (or otherwise honestly acquire) and do with it whatever you want. Americans used to have the freedom to save, invest, spend, contribute to charity, start businesses without government permission or government stealing from the people.

If there is to be an “America,” people need to know that it was founded to be a place of freedom, in which people are protected from others taking their earnings or property by force.

And an America in which people can come and go as they wish. No government permission, no visas, no passports, no being questioned by goons at the government border.

And early on the Revolutionaries who founded America recognized that it was the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the government to keep and bear arms. A free society is one in which people have whatever means of defense they wish to have. No government permission, no license, no registration, etc. That is actually a safer society.

I think the masses now for generations have been so brainwashed with propaganda, they really believe that it is right that they be subjugated by government authorities, that they must seek bureaucrats’ permission to do this or that, that they must submit to government rulers and enforcement goons stealing their money away, and accept all the other totalitarian, police state crimes that government criminals commit against the people.

We need to change that.

Freedom goes with free-market capitalism, while socialism and government theft of private wealth and property are anti-freedom, a police state, and a life of serfdom.

Further reading:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Taking Money Back, Making Economic Sense (.pdf), Free Market, For a New Liberty, and The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard

And Soak the PoorTaxation is Robbery, and The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov

Is Trump the “Psyop in Chief”?

In the past I had been thinking that The Donald being not-so intelligent and easily manipulable has been psy-opped by the national security state, CIA, FBI, the military generals, etc., to get Trump to give them everything they have wanted, and more. And he has been doing that. But because Trump is starting to act on more realistic impulses that go against the “security” bureaucrats, they seem to be leaving him. Yay! (Like John Kelly, Jim Mattis, et al.)

But Donald Jeffries is suggesting that Trump may very well be the one doing the psy-opping, like on the American people, and maybe on behalf of the very deep state, or national security state, he has been the target of. Is Trump actually very intelligent and just pretending to be dumb? Is he just a very good actor? (In my view, the bureaucracy has been after him for decades, in the same way they went after Michael Milken, Martha Stewart, etc. because bureaucrats are generally parasites who resent those with entrepreneurial success. But that’s what I think about that.)

News and Commentary

Ray McGovern says, Send the Mad Dog to the corporate kennel.

Jacob Hornberger on Maria Boutina’s prosecution: a disgrace.

Ryan McMaken on governments targeting private religious schools.

Jack Burns on child slavery in Amerika: kid gets arrested, handcuffed, thrown in jail for missing school.

Lawrence Reed says that C.S. Lewis saw government as a poor substitute for God.

Laurence Vance says that no one should receive federal grants for college.

Thomas Knapp on a GoFundMe campaign to privately finance Donald Trump’s border wall.

And Richard Ebeling asks, The Brexit dilemma: markets or politics?

A Recent Update to the Justina Pelletier Case

I had written quite a lot about Justina Pelletier since my initial 2014 post about her situation. That’s the teenager (now 20) who was the victim of “medical kidnapping,” in which the new hospital changed her diagnosis from mitochondrial disease to a psychological disorder, accusing her of merely having psychosomatic reactions despite the actual medical tests which verified her medical diagnosis. The hospital, Boston Children’s, removed her from the treatment she was getting and then placed her in a facility for troubled teens despite the fact that she was not “troubled,” and her physical condition deteriorated to the point of her having to be in a wheelchair. They had also brought in CPS and removed custody from her parents and transferred custody over to the State. Based on what I have learned throughout all that time, it appears that the hospital kidnapped Justina, most probably for the purpose of using her as a guinea pig for research against her will and without her or the parents’ consent. When the hospital does that to kids, the kids are considered a “ward of the State,” and therefore the Doctors Mengele can do what they want with them.

The Pelletier family initiated a lawsuit against the hospital and the specific “doctors” involved in the kidnapping, false imprisonment and torture.

Most recently, there is an article on The Daily Wire with an exclusive interview of Justina’s father, Lou Pelletier. Pelletier says he thinks the lawsuit will come to trial around January of 2020. (Does it have to take 6 or 7 years after the crimes were allegedly committed by “doctors” for a trial to take place?)

Check out the website MedicalKidnap.com, and you’ll see that these kinds of situations are going on all across the USSA. (They do it to elderly people too, folks.) Just wait until the government takes over your health and medical matters completely. With ObamaCare, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” and so on. In the People’s Republic of USSA, “child welfare” means that children exist to serve the control-freakish desires of the apparatchiks of the State and its Soviet psychiatric wing.

Important Articles, News and Commentary

Allen Mendenhall on Hayek’s case for decentralized communities.

Glenn Greenwald writes about the latest phenomenon in Amerika of employment hiring policies and government laws being imposed prohibiting the boycotting or criticizing of Israel, including having to sign loyalty oaths (to Israel, but not to the U.S.).

Zero Hedge with an article on U.K. spy Christopher Steele admitting he was hired to help Hillary Clinton challenge the 2016 election. So the information in the Steele dossier was false, and it was Hillary who was colluding with the Russians against Donald Trump. But will the anti-Trump Mueller people care about the truth? Nope.

Law professor Jonathan Turley on former FBI director James Comey’s lack of ethics and professionalism.

Doug French says ignoring the bureaucracy isn’t the same as dismantling it.

Alexander Adams discusses the FBI spying on writers.

Robert Wenzel on Wall Street Journal joining Trump in calling for the Fed to stop raising interest rates.

And Health Impact News on medical kidnapping, Big Pharma, and the U.S. foster care system.

Donald Trump’s Nominee for Attorney General, William Barr

After all his criticisms of the “deep state,” the Mueller Russia-collusions “witch hunt” and rhetorically raking the Establishment over the coals, Donald Trump has nominated former Bush41 AG and CIA flunky the authoritarian statist William Barr to be the next attorney general. The reason Trump picked Barr is because Trump is impressed with someone with the credentials Barr has. (Hmm, Robert Mueller has good credentials, too. And Dick Cheney. And … James Comey, and…Hillary….Clinton…)

According to Wikipedia, Barr was with the CIA for four years. That in and of itself should disqualify him! During the George H.W. Bush administration, as an assistant AG Barr advised that the U.S. feds could invade another country to apprehend a suspect for extradition, such as invading Panama to grab Manuel Noriega, whose drug trafficking was excused by U.S. feds in exchange for his cooperation for the CIA in the CIA’s Latin America coups and regime change ops.

Really disgusting stuff, in other words. Further, as attorney general under Bush Sr., Barr advised that Bush pardon former Defense (sic) Secretary Caspar Weinberger, because a possible Weinberger trial involving the Iran-Contra scandal might have implicated Bush himself. (Bush has done worse, believe me.)

Barr is also anti-immigration, just like Donald Trump and former AG Jeff Sessions. If you’re going to be anti-immigration like these socialist clowns, should you really be in America? (How about these schmucks instead go to other countries that don’t have a Declaration of Independence or a Bill of Rights? Hmmm?)

Unsurprisingly, Barr is a drug fascist. Barr’s daughter Mary Daly is a DOJ official, in charge of drug policy, apparently. She and her father Bill Barr are supporters of the war on drugs. For them it is a criminal matter. People buying, selling, possessing or using certain drugs prohibited by the gubmint are criminals, according to these fascists. (But don’t touch the drug warriors’ precious booze, right? Right.)

According to WaPo, Barr sent a letter to U.S. Senators telling them not to reform the sentencing system, writing, “Our system of justice is not broken. Mandatory minimums and proactive law enforcement measures have caused a dramatic reduction in crime over the past 25 years, an achievement we cannot afford to give back.”

Clueless.

Proactive law enforcement measures”? So pre-crime? Thus, not only does Barr believe that the government has the authority to prohibit this or that by law, like drugs, but he doesn’t believe in presumption of innocence and due process.

Presumption of innocence is: leave people alone who are peaceful and not suspected of harming others or violating the persons or property of others, and so on. But, Barr doesn’t get that.

And then I saw this. Law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Barr is “one of the most brilliant lawyers I have known” and that Barr is the “perfect choice” for attorney general. More cluelessness, this. I think a lot of U.S. senators will obediently follow this line of thinking, and they will probably unanimously vote to confirm Barr as attorney general. I’m sure even Rand Paul will vote for him. No surprise there.

If confirmed, given his “law-and-order” authoritarianism the statist William Barr will probably rubber-stamp the police state: the drug war, asset forfeiture, all the unconstitutional post-9/11 policies including NDAA and indefinite detention, warrantless searches, warrantless wiretapping and warrantless spying, and more.

Even though Barr has expressed support for investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, I still don’t believe that Barr will come to the side of transparency when it comes to the Mueller fishing expedition. I don’t think he will side with those in and out of Congress who have presented evidence against certain FBI and DOJ employees showing that they illicitly cleared Hillary Clinton from wrongdoing and these same FBI and DOJ flunkies then went on to conspire to frame Donald Trump in made-up Russia collusions involving the apparatchiks’ FISA abuses to spy on the Trump campaign (apparatchiks including, allegedly, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Sally Yates).

In the end, I believe, AG Barr will come to the defense of the national security state and all its criminality and corruption in regards to “Russia-gate” and the Mueller fiasco. I’ll be surprised if the outcome is otherwise, and if Barr actually encourages Trump to order the FISA warrants or FISA warrant applications declassified, and lets the truth be known to the general public, and if Barr actually demands that Comey et al. (including John Brennan as well) be indicted. And will AG Barr open a new investigation of the Clintons? I rather doubt it. Call me cynical.

Prisoners of the National Security State And Corrupt Prosecutors

Law professor Jonathan Turley blogged about conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi’s being pursued by “special counsel” Robert Mueller, and noted that Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Herr Mueller for attempting to pressure Corsi to intentionally give false testimony.

Turley writes, “There is no strong legal basis for such a challenge.” Hmm, you mean it’s illegal to lie under oath, but it’s not illegal to lie under oath if the prosecutors threaten you otherwise? Is that what Turley is saying here?

Turley concludes, “Prosecutors and police will often push witnesses with accusations and demands. However, if the charge is based on independent grounds, courts are leery of speculating on motive. After all, if Mueller’s team truly believes that Corsi was a critical player with Wikileaks, they are allowed to press a witness on that theory.”

Some of the commenters wrote, “Come on Turley, if you had any reasoned compassion (or stones), you’d see the justice in hunting the wolf and the routine injustice done by federal prosecutors.” And, “Yep. Looks like Turley pulled back the curtain and gives inside baseball type look at our criminal justice system: if persecutors have theories then they can move with unfettered zealotry on potential witnesses with culture of defense attorneys and judges turning blind eye on this type of abusive behavior.” And, “The truly sad reality is how comfortable our constitutional scholar host is at describing how lawfare works without a hint of the injustice of it.”

Some of the commenters then go on to say that Turley’s initial description of Corsi might be biased.

I have a feeling that liberal progressive Turley could be more sympathetic to Corsi and less sympathetic to the prosecutors if Corsi were not a conservative. But I could be wrong. I probably am wrong, because Turley has generally been quite objective in defense of those who are the victims of government overreach or of prosecutorial misconduct.

On those issues, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about Trump campaign minion Paul Manafort and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and about Trump current lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments on the Mueller fishing expedition.

After summarizing Giuliani’s record as a sleazy, corrupt prosecutor in New York during the 1980s, and noting some of Giuliani’s grandiose and frankly deranged treatment of his victims at the time, Judge Napolitano then writes, “The courts have ruled many times that prosecutors, FBI agents and police may lie, cheat, threaten, intimidate, coerce and deceive to extract cooperation and obtain evidence from witnesses. This is the dark side of the criminal justice system. It requires a strong stomach. It can be used against even the president.”

And by “to extract cooperation and obtain evidence” he probably means obtain false confessions or false testimony against others in exchange for leniency, or based on threats of false prosecution, probably for made-up crimes such as “insider trading” or “process crimes,” such as “lying to prosecutors” for merely recalling something inaccurately.

Government judicial system apparatchiks use the system to go after someone they don’t like, or based on political differences, such as the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing already unconstitutional FISA spying authority to either find dirt on their political opponents of the Trump campaign or make it all up, such as with the Steele dossier. That is what this whole made-up “Russia collusions/hacking the election” is all about.

Government apparatchiks, with a monopoly over the administration of justice, also go after innocent people for reasons other than political ones, including advancing an agenda of bamboozling the public to accept more governmental intrusions into their lives and a police state. Such as the FBI infiltrating mosques to motivate young Muslim males to want to commit “jihad” in order for the FBI to thwart terrorist plots that the FBI themselves concoct.

Or the CIA using software to not only hide their own cyber “fingerprints” but to leave fake fingerprints, such as spoofed IP addesses, etc. to make it look like Russians or others did the hacking, phishing, or otherwise computer intrusions.

Or NSA stealing industry secrets, and NSA or Britain’s GCHQ in an “information ops” campaign to “manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations,” using made-up stuff to discredit individuals and companies.

Sadly, because of our government’s apparatchiks exploiting what James Bovard has called “Battered Citizen Syndrome,” the people continue to blindly accept the criminal racket in Washington. Any one of us could be the next victim of bureaucrats’ political witch hunts and crusades.

The current national security state- and Democrat-led “witch hunt” fiasco is yet another example why letting our lives be ruled by elites with a monopoly in “justice” is not good. We should probably dismantle the whole thing.