Skip to content

Tag: Bureaucracy

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.

Mainstream Media Whitewashing and Fawning Over War Criminal George H.W. Bush

Just as I had been predicting rather recently, the praises and whitewashing of George H.W. Bush are flowing from the mainstream media, and once again, the truth is to be swept under the rug. This is just like the Richard Nixon funeral in 1994, with the newscasters including Baba Wawa then not uttering a word of the Nixon war crimes in Vietnam or his other terrible criminal policies and impositions.

Later yesterday I heard Michel Martin on supposedly “liberal” NPR’s All Things Considered and this morning Lulu Garcia-Navarro was talking to Mara Liasson. And on other stations the news coverage with interviews of people talking about what a “decent” “gentleman” Bush Sr. was. No objective, thorough discussions, just cringe-worthy praise and fawning.

And I don’t expect to hear the truth from the conservative talk radio crowd. Certainly not Bush pal Rush Limbaugh, or Mr. Authoritarian Dennis Prager, who still defends the U.S. military’s bombings of Vietnam.

And I’m not even talking about “Read my lips — no new taxes” and then raising taxes stuff. It’s the Bush war crimes and the police state thanks to George H.W. Bush. We’re not hearing about any of that.

In the newscasts and on the discussion shows not a word about Bush’s starting a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 that included the bombing and destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment centers which caused the Iraqi civilian population to have to use untreated water which led to skyrocketing disease and infant mortality rates. The U.S.-led sanctions and no-fly zones, which I wrote about recently, that were imposed on Iraq and enforced sadistically, prevented the Iraqi people from being able to rebuild those water and sewage treatment centers and the electrical service as well. And the sickness, deaths and suffering of the civilian population was intentionally caused by the U.S. military, as James Bovard and others have noted.

By the mid-1990s hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians because of the sanctions and no-fly zones imposed by George H.W. Bush that were continued by Bill Clinton, “liberal” Bill Clinton. Then hundreds of thousands more deaths by the year 2000. Bush Sr. also established more U.S. military bases in the Middle East, bases and military personnel that don’t belong in those areas! So such an invasion, bombings, and occupations were provocations of those Middle Easterners, those mainly Muslim people living over there.

The Nuremberg Tribunal determined that starting a war of aggression was in and of itself a war crime.

The Bush war in Iraq in the early 1990s brought on heavy blowback. There probably would not have been terrorist bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000, and, very likely wouldn’t have been a 9/11 had George H.W. Bush not started that war, destroyed civilian infrastructure and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones. The 9/11 terrorists had stated as part of their motivations that war and those sanctions.

And then there’s the police state that had already been building up since well before 9/11, but hugely escalated after 9/11. Much of the post-9/11 police state was planned since before 9/11. During the 1990s a Patriot Act-like major piece of legislation had been continuously voted down in Congress. The national security state needed some kind of excuse to finally get that passed, and they got their excuse.

So now, in addition to NSA, CIA, FBI, we have DHS, TSA, and a huge increase in Constitution-free zones on the borders, as well as the roads and highways.

Now as an aside, here’s something a bit of a “conspiratorial” nature. A possible Bush association with the JFK assassination. To most people that would sound really far-fetched. But I’m not too sure about that.

Russ Baker, author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, had this 10-part article, on the possible Bush-JFK assassination connection. Baker gives a lot of detailed information to show that Bush may have been with the CIA (either formally or informally) long before he was its Director under Gerald R. Ford, and may have played a role in the JFK assassination. If Bush was involved with the CIA since the 1950s, could he have been involved in Operation Ajax, CIA’s coup that took down Iranian leader Mossadagh?

Regarding the JFK assassination, most people want to believe the Lone Nut conspiracy theory, which makes no sense. Given that Kennedy was starting to have peace talks with Khrushchev, something the national security state did not want, then why would an alleged communist and Soviet sympathizer Lee Harvey Oswald want to kill Kennedy?

In fact, given how entrenched the national security state was in Amerikan life by the 1980s and ’90s, one can see how the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War would motivate the bureaucrats of the national security state, a.k.a. “deep state,” to try to find or create some new “enemy” to go after. The “Islamic threat” coming from the more primitive societies of Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim countries had already been built up by that time. In Iran following the CIA’s Operation Ajax, the CIA supported the Shah’s new Iranian SAVAK police state from the rest of the 1950s up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. So, there was an ulterior motive in Bush Sr.’s starting his war on Iraq in 1991 and imposing sanctions as mentioned above. A whole new program of provoking Muslims to elicit retaliation against the Western regimes to justify further expanding national security state bureaucracies and their budgets, and so on. The Bureaucracy is the bottom line on that.

And George H.W. Bush was a True Believer in the national security state and the Bureaucracy. He was Mr. Bureaucrat, in my view.

And to those who are saying that being critical of someone on the occasion of his death is “dancing on his grave,” well, no, someone needs to point out the truth of who Bush was and what he actually did. The mainstream news media commentariat and pundit class will not do that, because the mainstream news media are an entrenched wing of the bureaucracy in Washington, including the national security state!

The truth is, rather than abolish the agencies of the national security state following the end of the Cold War because they were no longer needed, Bush criminally started a whole new scheme of conflicts and provocations and expanded the police state in Amerika.

“National Security”? Riiiiight…

Dave Lindorff has this exclusive at The Nation of the Pentacon’s massive accounting fraud.

George Neumayr with this article from the American Spectator on why British spooks don’t want Donald Trump to declassify documents pertaining to illicit FBI FISA Spying on Carter Page, et al.

Zero Hedge with an article on Jerome Corsi rejecting Mueller plea deal and planning to sue. (Not sure what to believe anymore regarding Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, because now there’s conflicting information on this angle.)

And Gareth Porter says that the U.K. and Ecuador conspire to deliver Julian Assange to U.S. authorities. (Talk radio ditto-head conservatives side with Assange now because of DNC-gate, but when they see that Washington fascists want Assange because of the 2010 Bradley Manning Iraq War revelations, the ignorant talk radio ditto-heads will then go back to hating Assange.)

Trump Administration Joins the Climate Change Bandwagon

It looks like WND is now allowing lefty columnists on, either out of fear that a “Fairness Doctrine” for political websites might be implemented, or perhaps just out of kindness. They have a column by Ellen Ratner who comments on the most recent climate change alarmism, and from the Trump administration, of all places.

Like her hysterical fellows in the climate change crowd, Ratner says that the fires in California are the result of climate change, and that global temperatures are rising and that “we are heating up the oceans and the snow on the mountains to a place from which we can’t turn back. We need action now.”

And by that she probably means we need more government interventionism (i.e. more police state), more bureaucracies and new carbon taxes and raising other taxes. Because really the main intention of the climate activists in their propaganda and making the masses hysterical is to further empower the government to suppress progress and innovation and to steal more from the people so that bureaucrats and those tied to government powers can enrich themselves, and that’s basically it.

But a lot of people are brainwashed to believe the “global warming” and climate change hysteria and that it’s “settled science,” and the “97% of climate scientists believe…” and so on.

Many among the masses believe the hysterical propaganda for government expansion in climate change in the same way that many people believed the post-9/11 propaganda.

After 9/11, the vision of planes crashing into buildings and the buildings collapsing was repeated over and over and over and the people believe the mantra that “We were here minding our own business and then Muslim extremists have committed an act of war against us, they hate us for our freedom and they want to kill us all,” etc., etc., etc. Whereas prior to 9/11 there were those who pointed out that in the preceding decades the U.S. government was sending its military over to the Middle East and invading, bombing, occupying foreign lands and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents especially Muslims and provoking foreigners to retaliate, and so on. Prior to 9/11 those truth tellers were ignored, and after 9/11 they were called “traitors” and “unpatriotic.”

And now when the non-brainwashed climate skeptics bring up actual scientific facts, empirical evidence and common sense, they are called “deniers,” which is an intentional reference to Holocaust denial. But the True Believers — and there are many of them — don’t want to hear facts and truth. And we know that it becomes a fanaticism when the alarmists call for jailing “deniers.”

The hysterical climate change True Believers will probably not want to hear that if the sea levels really are rising and that might cause disasters down the road, there is nothing we humans can do about it. Well, you can build barriers along the coasts, I suppose. But even if we completely stop all industry, close down all manufacturing plants and have no more cars and planes, it still won’t stop the climate from changing or the sea levels from rising, because the main cause of climate change is nature. Climate change has been occurring since the Earth began. There have been ice ages, and times of warming. After an ice age and things warmed up, it was not because humans were affecting things with their industrial smokestacks, SUVs and fossil fuels, because obviously those didn’t exist during those times.

And as I mentioned previously, the “settled science” that the climate change True Believers refer to has mainly been computer models which make very bad predictions for future events or conditions. And if they do use actual scientific data, they have to resort to fraudulent and skewed testing.

But True Believers will believe what they want to believe, based on their blind faith in the powers of governments to fix things, based on emotionalizing issues by seeing poor little polar bears stranded on melting icebergs, really based on years of indoctrination and hysteria now. Actually, these people are the “deniers” of our time. When people say that the “science is settled,” they mean that it is settled by consensus. But there is never a legitimate consensus when scientific inquiry and testing and retesting of data are resisted. Actual science is important.

There probably will be global warming in the long term mainly because the sun is getting hotter and by about 1 billion years from now everything on Earth will be dried up and no life will exist. But for now we should look at global warming as a good thing. There are colder areas of the Earth in which agriculture and vegetation would benefit from more warming. That means an increase in food production. And isn’t that a good thing?

Related: See Murray Rothbard’s Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.

In the “Capitalism vs. Socialism” Debate, Freedom Is Found in Capitalism, Not Socialism

George Reisman has 13 illustrations of the benevolence of capitalism. It is a must read, in my view.

It is quite lengthy, but here are some excerpts that caught my eye:

(6) … in a market economy … private ownership of the means of production operates to the benefit of everyone, the nonowners, as well as owners. The nonowners obtain the benefit of the means of production owned by other people. They obtain this benefit as and when they buy the products of those means of production. To get the benefit of General Motors’ factories and their equipment, or the benefit of Exxon’s oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, I do not have to be a stockholder or a bondholder in those firms. I merely have to be in a position to buy an automobile, or gasoline, or whatever, that they produce.

Moreover, thanks to the dynamic, progressive aspect of the uniformity-of-rate-of-profit or rate-of-return principle that I explained a moment ago, the general benefit from privately owned means of production to the nonowners continually increases, as they are enabled to buy ever more and better products at progressively falling real prices. It cannot be stressed too strongly that these progressive gains, and the generally rising living standards that they translate into, vitally depend on the capitalist institutions of private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and economic competition, and would not be possible without them. It is these that underlie motivated, effective individual initiative in raising the standard of living.

(10 ) … capitalism is in actuality as thoroughly and rationally planned an economic system as it is possible to have. The planning that goes on under capitalism, without hardly ever being recognized as such, is the planning of each individual participant in the economic system. Every individual who thinks about a course of economic activity that would be of benefit to him and how to carry it out is engaged in economic planning. Individuals plan to buy homes, automobiles, appliances, and, indeed, even groceries. They plan what jobs to train for and where to offer and apply the abilities they possess. Business firms plan to introduce new products or discontinue existing products; they plan to change their methods of production or continue to use the methods they presently use; they plan to open branches or close branches; they plan to hire new workers or layoff workers they presently employ; they plan to add to their inventories or reduce their inventories.

Ironically … socialism, as Mises has shown, is incapable of rational economic planning. In destroying the price system and its foundations, namely, private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and competition, socialism destroys the intellectual division of labor that is essential to rational economic planning. It makes the impossible demand that the planning of the economic system be carried out as an indivisible whole in a single mind that only an omniscient deity could possess.

What socialism represents is so far from rational economic planning that it is actually the prohibition of rational economic planning. In the first instance, by its very nature, it is a prohibition of economic planning by everyone except the dictator and the other members of the central planning board. They are to enjoy a monopoly privilege on planning, in the absurd, virtually insane belief that their brains can achieve the all-seeing, all-knowing capabilities of  omniscient deities. They cannot. Thus, what socialism actually represents is the attempt to substitute the thinking and planning of one man, or at most of a mere handful of men, for the thinking and planning of tens and hundreds of millions, indeed, of billions of men. By its nature, this attempt to make the brains of so few meet the needs of so many has no more prospect of success than would an attempt to make the legs of so few the vehicle for carrying the weight of so many.

But as Dr. Reisman notes at the beginning of the essay, freedom is the essential element in free-market capitalism. So, I will add that besides economic freedom which is necessary to raise the standard of living for all, there also needs to be personal and political freedom as well. The freedom of speech and the Press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and the right to be secure in one’s person, papers, houses and effects are important freedoms for a prosperous as well as free and civilized society.

In the U.S. we seem to be losing more and more of those personal and political freedoms, as well as the economic freedom that existed here prior to World War I and the imposition of the income tax-theft.

In Orwellian China, what they have now is some sort of “Social Credit Score,” in which almost everything the people do is monitored by the government. Their traveling behaviors, the trains they take or their behavior as a pedestrian following or not following the street lights, their social media expressions, and so on.

If they get a score of “untrustworthy,” those people are barred from trains and planes, and are “unable to move even a single step,” as the bureaucrats have stated. So I assume that the people of China are not or will not be able to “vote with their feet,” if they are not physically able to travel out of the country. How will they be able to travel out of such a tyrannical dictatorship hellhole? The former East Germany would shoot people trying to escape. Those trying to leave the former Soviet Union were considered deserters and traitors, according to Wikipedia.

Hmm, not being able to “vote with their feet” to leave tyranny reminds me of the uncapitalistic national socialist Donald Trump, except his restrictions and the government Wall he wants to surround his utopian closed society are presumably to keep people out and prevent foreigners from going to a better place as they attempt to flee tyranny. (But what will future Washington administrations use the Wall for, Donald? Hmmm?)

So, despite whatever capitalistic reforms China has attempted to make in recent years, it seems to want to become more like North Korea, rather than more like the U.S. (I want to say, “the former U.S.,” given how down the totalitarian drain Amerika has gone. Oh, well. We have the college campus craziness with the suppression of dissent from PC idiocy, and the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the world who want to turn America into a socialist utopia, which, if you read the above Reisman article you will understand how such a utopia is literally impossible and historically always failed.)

If Donald Trump really wants to have the U.S. compete with China, he should dismantle all impediments to Americans’ freedom, especially economic freedom, not increase such impediments as he keeps threatening to do. Dump the tariff-taxes, get rid of the unconstitutional bureaucracies whose purpose is mainly to live high off the hog on the wealth those bureaucrats suck away from the workers and producers of society. Just as the area around Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest part of the country (because of all the parasites associated with U.S. government and all the wealth they siphon off the actual producers of America), the bureaucrats in China are also of great wealth.

As far as the increasing Orwellian government surveillance and molestation of the people and their private lives and movements in the U.S., what we need to do is have some sort of private agency, or agencies, to make government bureaucrats, including all lawmakers, law enforcers, judges, and executives like governors and Presidents, report all their activities and submit to 24-7 monitoring by the people, rather than the other way around. We really need to make it very uncomfortable and unprofitable for anyone to be a government official of any kind, which should help to ensure a freer and healthier society.

If Only “Democratic Socialists” Learned More About Socialism

Benjamin Powell, co-author of Socialism Sucks, has an article at the Independent Institute asserting that “Democratic Socialists” really need to learn more about socialism. If those who declare themselves to be socialists went to actual socialist countries like Venezuela to see first hand how bad things are there because of socialism — just like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — then maybe they might have a change of heart.

Here is an excerpt:

But here’s the problem. The word “democratic” isn’t magic fairy dust when put in front of “socialist.” The socialist portion of democratic socialism still means the state—the government—has undue control over economic decision-making that will result in stagnation.

And, as history has shown over and over again, you can’t really have a free society and free people without economic freedom. Democratic freedoms and economic freedoms go hand in hand.

In his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek made the case that democracy is only compatible with competitive capitalism and that once a country becomes “dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.”

The reason is simple. Centrally planned socialist economic systems necessarily concentrate economic power in the hands of government officials and planners. Without such power they can’t hope to “run things.” Yet this same power limits citizens’ ability to freely exercise their power when they become dissatisfied with the government. That’s because the government can punish them financially if they choose to oppose those in power.

Nullification, Decentralization, Separation, Divorce, Dissolve, Dismiss the Regime

Why are many of the people on the left of such an authoritarian mentality? They are so authoritarian in their worship of the federal government and its illicit powers and feared losing the power so much they disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and engaged in so much obvious cheating during the recent mid-term elections. (Not that Republicans weren’t engaged in cheating or at least questionable behavior as well, such as in Georgia.)

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Sen. Cruella Harris began interrupting Chairman Grassfed as soon as he began the hearings, and it went downhill from there, especially with “Dr.” Ford who “Must Be Believed At All Times!” and Kavanaugh screaming how much he loves beer and telling us what a moron he is by keeping calendars going back to 1982. (Who does that?)

Meanwhile, informed people with a brain actually objected to Kavanaugh based on his terrible rulings rubber-stamping tyranny, and his being a corrupt bureaucrat. But no, the fanatics on the left are concerned about abortion. That’s what they care about. And “Free Health Care for ALL!”and all that.

The fanatics believe that the Supreme Court is the God of government, that those 9 robed bureaucrats have the absolute final say on our freedom (and our enslavement). So it’s so important that they have to interrupt hearings, harass senators who voted for Kavanaugh, and cheat in elections. What a life.

But, as Tom Woods points out in a recent article, especially in his quoting of James Madison, the federal judicial branch is the final decision-maker on constitutional conflicts only between the branches of the federal government (judicial, legislative and executive), but NOT the final decision-maker on conflicts between the federal government and the states.

As Woods has explained in the past, the states, after all, created the federal government, not the other way around. The people of the states are the “boss” of the feds, and the agents of the federal government are the states’ “employees.” Unfortunately, that has been turned around by authoritarians (especially reinforced by Lincoln) who believe that whatever the federal government says, goes. “You will report to us your earnings, where you work or whom you employ, we will take a portion of your wealth whether you like it or not, we will spy on you and know the personal details of your private life and you will not know what we are up to, we’ll just mark everything ‘classified,’ and so on…”

So that stuff that the bureaucrats in Washington have been doing, that fools like Brett Kavanaugh have been rubber-stamping out of loyalty to the Regime and its racket, is unconstitutional, illicit, and criminal. This is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Which is not very well written, by the way. It should have explicitly stated that the people of the states shall nullify any federal government rule, law or order on them whose enforcement they conclude would be in violation of their liberty, persons or property. Otherwise, the Founders needlessly created a federal government and ratified a questionable Constitution, going against the very principles of their Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson and others endorsed that idea of nullification which many people on the left now ignorantly perceive as having to do with racism or “slavery,” even though some states engaged in nullification during the Civil War period when they nullified Fugitive Slave Laws (which Lincoln strongly endorsed and enforced, by the way).

As Woods wrote in an essay in his Liberty Classroom, “nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void.  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?”

But as I wrote in this article, we are now slaves of the federal government.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Concocting a centralized, ruling federal government was a mistake made by the Revolutionaries. Besides the social fascists and authoritarians on the left, now we have a Donald Trump who claims that his job is “running the country,” which, as Richard Ebeling pointed out in this very informative new article, is a “claim to abrogate the liberty of each and every member of that society to have the freedom to run their own life as they peacefully and honestly see fit in voluntary and mutually agreed-upon association with their fellow human beings for their respective betterment as they define it.”

One of the latest examples of the absurdity of this centralized power apparatus in Washington is that the bureaucrats are going to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because he provided the means for whistleblowers to expose the criminality of the federal bureaucrats and their goons. Whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning with the Iraq War Logs, the Afghanistan War Logs, the diplomatic cables leaks, the “Collateral Murder” video, and all the rest.

As I wrote above, the criminals of the regime classify whatever they can to avoid embarrassing disclosures, evade transparency, get away with murder, and punish whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, by the way, was viciously persecuted by Obama’s regime, not Bush, with 3 years of solitary confinement pre-trial and a kangaroo trial and sentencing. (Although I think the main reason the SJW-in-Chief Barack Obama then commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence was because Manning is a “transgender.” Those are the things Obama et al. really care about.)

You see, as many people have noted now in the Obama DOJ and FBI’s surveillance abuses and how the Obama administration was so bad with civil liberties and freedom of speech and his war on the Press, we now have Cruella Harris and Pocahontas and all their moonbat followers drooling to take the apparatus of power back so THEY can once again use the spying powers against enemies and enforce their beloved police state on the people.

So, as I had written several times now, including this article from 8 years ago, the Amerikan sheeple need to let go of their dependence on the regime in Washington and we must go our separate ways.

On the Wars, the Government Military, More Reasons Against Central Planning

Gareth Porter writes about America’s permanent-war complex.

Murray Rothbard on World War I as fulfillment: power and the intellectuals.

David Stockman discusses how Woodrow Wilson ruined everything.

Joe Jarvis writes about why the most expensive military ever still can’t win a war.

Aaron Merat with the story on the wild wild story of the MEK: terrorists, cultists, or champions of Iranian democracy?

And Health Impact News asks, Did a military experimental vaccine in 1918 kill 50-100 million people blamed as “Spanish Flu”?