Skip to content

Month: July 2013

Is Socialism Finally Collapsing on Its Own Weight?

Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers has these very thought-provoking comments on Adam Kokesh, the military vet-turned-libertarian activist who was recently the victim of more criminal government violence.

Brandon Smith asks if the safety of the State is really worth more than the truth, and Wendy McElroy asks if the people’s trust in government will be restored.

Michael Rozeff has this article on LewRockwell.com regarding the myth that government is “of, by, and for the people.” No, government in Amerika is of, by, and for bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, corporate sleazebags, and foreign government bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, and corporate sleazebags.

Arthur Silber brought up on his blog this article he did from last Fall on the Orwellian consequences of the NSA spying on everyone and engaging in all-encompassing fishing expeditions.

And Judy Morris has these interesting comments on the George Zimmerman trial, racism and gun control.

What is the “Austrian School of Economics”?

If you have been supportive of Ron Paul, either his presidential run or just his ideas promoting economic and personal freedom, then you probably have heard him mention “Austrian economics,” which really refers to the Austrian school of economics. The Austrian school’s main founders and champions include Carl Menger, Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And Ron Paul, of course.

One institution that has been around for decades that has heavily promoted the ideas of the Austrian school has been the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), founded by Leonard Read. Sadly, the institution has made changes in recent years, for the worse. That includes its letting go of longtime chief editor Sheldon Richman, who is now Vice President of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Economist Robert Wenzel recently wrote two posts on such a FEE regression, the first regarding a letter by FEE’s current President Lawrence Reed, and the second one regarding a video by economics professor Steven Horwitz. In his promotion of Austrian economics, Horwitz mentions the more mainstream-acceptable Hayek, but not the other aforementioned Austrian economists who have done much more to promote the ideas of that school of economic thought. And Reed is asking for more “missionaries” to spread the word of liberty. Even Reed mentions only Hayek but not the other Austrians.

In his post on the Horwitz video, Wenzel states that, besides concentrating mainly on Hayek, Horwitz “fails to clearly explain most of the important and unique  characteristics of the Austrian school that Hazlitt lists above. Instead, he discusses only limited Austrian price theory insights that someone from the Chicago School, such as Milton Friedman would feel comfortable supporting.”

To clarify, Wenzel quotes economics writer Henry Hazlitt, who wrote that “one outstanding difference of the Austrians from all of these lies in their method of reasoning. The Austrians emphasize methodological individualism. That is, they not only begin by emphasizing human actions, preferences, and decisions, but individual actions, preferences, and initiatives. Mainstream economists are concerned with ‘macroeconomics,’ with averages and aggregates; and those of the Lausanne school, trying to reduce economics to an ‘exact’ science, and therefore seeking to quantify everything, are obsessed with complicated mathematical equations that try to stipulate the conditions of ‘general equilibrium.’”

That to me is a great summary of the difference between the Austrians and the other so-called “free-market economics” and other “mainstream” economic thought.

Now, to be fair, while I don’t know about the status of Horwitz’s current relationship with FEE, I do know that he has taken his column, The Calling, away from FEE and (a la Sheldon Richman) has moved his column over to the Future of Freedom Foundation.

So, in my view, while one main argument of the Austrian school has been promoting truly laissez-faire economics, genuine free-market economics while rejecting government interventionism, most of the other schools of economic thought tend to compromise on the idea of laissez-faire and accept some governmental interferences and intrusions into private economic matters, rationalized by their mathematical equations and their little charts and cutesy graphs, and so on. At least that’s the way I see it.

As I have admitted, I myself am quite “amateurish” when it comes to economics. But I do have an understanding of freedom and the outlawing of aggression. Many people have a hard time seeing that governmental interventionism is aggression and trespassing, and in my opinion it is of a criminal nature. And so governmental interventionism is therefore immoral, intrusive, counter-productive and undermines the rule of law or natural law of a society which claims to be “civilized.”

Here are some online books and articles for further reading, for those who are interested:

By Mises:

Bureaucracy

Interventionism: An Economic Analysis

Planned Chaos

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality

Profit and Loss

The Theory of Money and Credit

Human Action

__________________________________

By Rothbard:

The Case Against the Fed

America’s Great Depression

What Has Government Done to Our Money?

Making Economic Sense

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure  

Man, Economy and State; Power and Market

Or browse the literature section of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The Uselessness and Illegitimacy of the U.S. Government

Arthur Silber has this post on how the people of both the right and the left are playing out their roles in the Zimmerman aftermath. Silber notes,

The demonstrations concern a case which should not have been brought, and which cannot support the constructions the right and left have placed on it. Meanwhile, wouldn’t all those energies be far better directed if, for example, they were targeted against U.S. foreign policy? Or against the War on Drugs? Or against what is almost certainly the already irreversible rise of the surveillance state? But no: the right and left have learned their parts very well. All the arguments they need have been prefabricated, ready to be hauled out whenever the signal is given.

The Zimmerman case is yet another in an endless series of distractions. It is another bauble to be tossed around by the ever-busy writers and “activists” of this country’s political factions. It is a means of fragmenting and splitting the people’s political power, which would be far more meaningful — and far more powerful — if the warring factions could only be motivated to form strategic alliances. All those energies are safely directed into a non-threatening pathway — while the ruling class continues to consolidate and expand its power over every one of us. To the extent the right and left play their parts with such enthusiasm, they do the ruling class’s bidding. Most of those on the right and the left have enthusiastically placed themselves in service to the State, and the majority of them have no understanding whatsoever of their grievous failing.

And Silber also brings up how Obama had been running for President and reelection as a “white man,” carrying out the racist policies of the State, such as with the war on drugs and so on.

In other words, Obama’s official policies include an anti-black (or anti-minority) agenda. I see that as a plausible explanation of Obama’s official policies, but as I mentioned in this recent article, Obama and his closest minions (such as AG Eric Holder, for example) have shown themselves to be very anti-white racists. (e.g. Obama’s white grandmother a “typical white person,” Holder and his DOJ refusing to prosecute black defendants against white victims, and Eric Holster responding to criticism making references to “my people,” like because of past injustices it is wrong to prosecute someone who is a member of “his people” now, etc.)

These clowns are further examples (like after Bush and Cheney we need more examples) of how they themselves are delegitimizing the State, an institution which is already inherently illegitimate. And the clowns are reminding those who are not totally brainwashed by government schools and television that the State exists for its own sake, for its own self-perpetuation and for the hunger for power of those who operate the State’s mechanisms of aggression.

And Claire Wolfe has a post expressing just that:

This thing I don’t have the right words to express is that there is no legitimate U.S. government — merely a clever puppet show of one. There is no federal government to which anyone, anywhere owes the slightest allegiance. The country is run by its “security” apparatus.

This government is a foreign thing. And all those people you think you’re electing merely dance at the end of its strings. And it will never be “reformed” or “held accountable” because by its very nature it is totalitarian. It exists to rule you, period. And as long as your money and your belief feed it, rule you it will.

Michael Rozeff notes today how it began, with the U.S. Constitution, which served only to create a State, at the expense of liberty. The Constitution formed the federal government which, sadly, was never necessary to begin with.

You can’t hire a group of central planners to administer over a population of 300 million, within an entire territory spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles. It just can’t be done.

Even in national security, the national security central planners are the “temporary caretakers,” as Hans-Hermann Hoppe would call them, who make as much personal use of the government’s resources (stolen from the people, a.k.a. “taxpayers”) as possible to further their own careers in parasitism and feather their own nests.

And people still don’t understand how Lincoln’s war to preserve “The Union” was really to preserve, expand and strengthen the U.S. government. It was the official end of self-determination in America, and the end of independence as well.

And Woodrow Wilson expanded World War I another year when it was already ending, creating the environment for a World War II, into which Fascist Delano Roosevelt entered the U.S. deceptively.

When the Cold War ended, the U.S. government central planners then started new conflicts and provocations against foreigners to keep the sham of territorial protection going.

But as I noted in this article, our society and culture have declined which coincides with the growth in government and dependence.

And as I noted in this article on Lincoln’s crimes and the right of secession, it is quite immoral to compel or coerce an entire population to be dependent on central planners and government bureaucrats for their protection. It really is nothing but a “protection racket.”

So, as part of the decline of our culture and society, the “race hustlers,” such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel, and the many ignoramuses on the left exploit tragedies such as the Trayvon Martin killing in order to misdirect their anger and rage associated with lack of opportunities (caused by the left’s own economic policies of restrictions and regulations) against an entire race of people: current generations of white people who had nothing to do with slavery. Columnist Dennis Prager explains that phenomenon a bit more.

Early on in America, individualism was of much important value. But along with the growth in governments in America – federal, state, and local – has been the resurgence in collectivist thinking and a group-think, mob rule mentality.

Well, as Hoppe has written, Democracy is truly the “God That Failed.”

Some Related Misc. Items

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair have this piece up at Counterpunch, The American Way of Torture. It is a very concise overview of torture in America committed by government predators and overseas as well.

The writers begin, “Torture is now solidly installed in America’s repressive arsenal, not in the shadows where it has always lurked, but up front and central, vigorously applauded by prominent politicians.” And they go on from there.

In more recent years, I have learned that the real purpose of torture by sick military and CIA goons is to extract false confessions, as well as get their victims to falsely implicate other innocent people. Washington’s Blog and Andy Worthington had very good posts in the past detailing these facts:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantanamo-story-judge-confirms-that-an-innocent-man-was-tortured-to-make-false-confessions/

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/27/guantanamo-and-the-many-failures-of-us-politicians/

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantanamo/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/u-s-government-used-communist-torture-techniques-specifically-designed-to-produce-false-confessions.html

________________________________

Apparently, the Oakland police bureaucrats stood aside and let hooligans and thugs terrorize innocent people and motorists, and the so-called “peace officers” did nothing to protect the people. Further proof that their existence is totally useless. Fire ALL of them!

No. More. Police. Socialism.

________________________________

And the CIA will now much more openly and blatantly propagandize the whitewashing of government’s criminality against the people, using the TV networks etc. to help them do it. Thanks to the drunks and imbeciles in Congress.

And related to that is Charles Burris’s post today on the Statolatry which has been largely responsible for the decline of America and culture. Do you love and worship the State? Yech!
________________________________

And Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman from the Future of Freedom Foundation had this discussion on the George Zimmerman trial:

The Law Should Reflect the Non-Aggression Principle, Not Legislative Baloney

July 12, 2013

Copyright 2013 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

I received several emails responding to my article, Some Politically Incorrect Thoughts, mainly on the George Zimmerman case.

Two different emailers commented on my view that George Zimmerman was “stalking” Trayvon Martin and that his stalking provoked Martin. Both emailers brought up Florida law regarding the definition of “stalking.”

Frankly, I couldn’t care less what a state government’s statutes define as “stalking,” because it doesn’t matter what those laws are, because they are not real laws. Those laws are what some legislators say they are. But who the hell are those legislators, and what the hell do they know?

Those laws that these politicians make up are not real laws – they are not natural law, which is basic and consists of the non-aggression principle and common sense, in my opinion.

As far as responsibility and culpability are concerned,, George Zimmerman saw some guy leaving a store, and because the guy wore a “hoodie,” therefore that’s “suspicious.” Martin gave no indication that he was engaged in any kind of criminality (such as if he had just robbed the store he was leaving, of which there was no such indication), or threatening behavior, as far as I can assess, based on all the information I have heard thus far.

Yet Zimmerman chose to pursue by following Martin rather than merely identifying himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer, and asking who Martin was or if he lived in that “gated community.”

So yes, Zimmerman “started it” with his stalking. And I mean stalking in the practical sense, because “legal” definitions mean nothing. “Legal” definitions come from State-employed parasites, many of whom are law school graduates but who know nothing about The Law, and who do not understand aggression vs. non-aggression, and whose loyalties are mainly to the State and not to justice or freedom and peace.

Unfortunately, America is a country with many zombies now, many people wandering along, holding and staring down at their cell phones, constantly having to check for email or texting nonsense to people who couldn’t care less.

And a population of ignoramuses who don’t pay attention to the actual details in the news but unthinkingly believe what their President or congressfelons tell them.

So, because of all this, there may be rioting if George Zimmerman is found “not guilty.” Paul Huebl expresses concern about possible rioting in the streets of the cities, and I am concerned, too. The fact that I am white and live in a city area doesn’t help relieve anxiety.

The police state isn’t helpful either. What we saw in Watertown a few months ago was quite distressing. That was a good example of when the police themselves become the criminals. They criminally and unconstitutionally ordered people from their homes at gunpoint, searched homes without warrants and left doors wide open, terrifying residents and leaving their homes vulnerable. It was a thoroughly criminal operation, and they didn’t even catch the suspect they were looking for – some private citizen found him hiding in a boat.

Alas, most of the sheeple there approved of what was done to them, obediently believing what their armed and badged enforcers and marauders told them, in the name of “keeping them safe.” It was “for their own good,” after all.

Possible Zimmerman-related rioting would likely be mainly by black people committing acts of violence against white people simply for being white. This has been happening a lot in recent years.

Or otherwise minority or city youths feeling angry and desperate because of what the white liberal politicians have done to destroy their opportunities and their futures.

Can you imagine AG Eric Holster being in charge of quelling such rioting?

But why would it be necessary for police to shut off cell phone service in such times of rioting, as Huebl suggests might happen? To make it difficult for the rioters to organize and to relay where police cars might be situated and so on, supposedly.

But what about the other people who want to protect themselves from rioters? Don’t they have a right to organize? Of course they do.

So police shutting off everybody’s cell phone service would be a crime against those who need communications to protect themselves. The police in this instance would be aiding and abetting the violent rioters!

And Huebl mentioned the possibility of shutting off utilities as well. Huh? What the hell is the point of THAT? But then, we are talking about government bureaucrats, after all.

Yet another reason why even utilities services need to be decentralized and privatized.

Well, I have stated before that I’m just as terrified of the out-of-control police now, as much as violent rioters, white or black.

Salon.com recently published an excerpt from Radley Balko’s book,Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces. But it’s not just the crazed militarizing of the police that is frightening. As Balko mentions, the police are arresting and assaulting and murdering people merely for gambling on football games, and they are violently enforcing licensure laws, and enforcing medical marijuana laws.

In other words, non-crimes. The police are committing actual crimes against innocent civilians to enforce laws against non-crimes! That is what “The Law” means now in Amerika. Another reason why statutes and legislated “laws” are not law, but nothing but a bunch of crap. Just an excuse to give power-hungry neanderthals the power to commit acts of aggression against innocent human beings and get away with it.

I think that Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s work on distinguishing between artificial State law and private law needs to be seriously considered. More in-depth analysis can be found in Hoppe’s book, Democracy, The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.

In my opinion, the natural law against aggression doesn’t take into account what a State-employed politician says, or what some State-employed crony judge says. Natural law against aggression is based on common sense, private property and self-ownership. You own your life, your person, your papers and effects, and you have an absolute right to protect yourself against ANY aggressor.

In fact, Gary North recently wrote about the moral and practical way to deal with aggressors and invaders:

In Houston on Sunday afternoon, three armed men entered a home and demanded payment. They got payment. The owner of the home grabbed his gun, shot two of them dead, and scared off the third, who ran.

This is the kind of welcome that should greet all such intruders in America, every time. It should greet all such intruders, all over the world, every time. If there were more greetings like this, there would be fewer intruders like this.

The case will automatically be referred to the grand jury, but authorities will tell the grand jury that this force was justified. In Houston, the voters believe that armed resistance to armed intruders is the proper response. This opinion has filtered down through the political system. In Houston, people are armed. Intruders may be armed, but they know that they may meet others who are even better armed inside the homes which they invade.

The two dead intruders will not be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for several years at the public’s expense. They will simply be buried. From a a tax-efficiency standpoint, this is surely the way to handle armed intruders.

In Houston and in Texas generally, this is the prevailing opinion. Intruders in Texas take their lives in their hands. This is where intruders should take their lives. Briefly. Then, the remains of the intruders can be taken to the appropriate resting place.

In some parts of America, this opinion would be regarded as barbaric. Especially among intruders. Illinois, New York State, and Connecticut side with the intruders. The third intruder, assuming he remains in the same line of work, would be wise to move to Illinois, New York State, or Connecticut. He should move out of Houston.

The Zombies Are Out There

Sibel Edmonds comments on the military’s giving all the files related to the alleged Bin Laden raid to the CIA, and then deleting the original files forever.

Brainwashed sheeple really believe that the raid actually killed bin Laden, even though he most likely had died around 2001 or 2002.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years–U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/08/paul-craig-roberts/the-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/05/paul-craig-roberts/americans-are-living-in-1984/)

But we shouldn’t ask why the helicopter, which carried members of the Navy SEAL Team Six who were involved in the Bin Laden “raid,” crashed and killed over 30 SEALs just three months after the “raid.” (Hmmm.)

Did we ever really get the full story on 9/11? After all, the post-9/11 police state and wars were all planned in advance of 9/11, don’t you know.

And for all those who believe the official fairytale of the JFK assassination, Jacob Hornberger has this post on the 1963 U.S. military coup.

But after hours and hours every day and years of television-hypnosis and now cell-phone addictions and pharmaceutical druggies, Amerikans are really subservient, unthinking zombies and even the State-controlled news media are zombified.

It’s 2013. My, how advanced Amerika has become!

Some Politically Incorrect Thoughts

July 10, 2013

Copyright 2012 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

Recently I have been having some politically incorrect thoughts, among other kinds of thoughts, and I will share them here.

To begin, I think that George Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter, not murder, in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Some people believe that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been charged with anything, as his shooting supposedly was in “self-defense.” But in my view, if Zimmerman initiated the act of stalking and provoking Martin, then Zimmerman is responsible for the ultimate consequences of his choice to stalk and threaten Martin, especially when Martin was not acting suspiciously.

I know, a lot of people disagree with me on that, especially many conservatives. Many conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility, and they disagree with my belief that individuals should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps Zimmerman should have instead considered buying one of those private drones for surveillance, if he felt that the unfamiliar Martin seemed suspicious. That way, Zimmerman wouldn’t be physically stalking Martin, and would have avoided being a threatening presence and the ultimate confrontation could have been prevented.

Now, now. Don’t get upset. There is nothing wrong with using privately-owned surveillance drones for one’s own private property or for a “gated community.”

And there would then be nothing wrong with private counter-surveillance drones if need be.

But being a police-wannabe or a government agent-wannabe as Zimmerman apparently is, nevertheless stalking people is just not a good idea.

But when Zimmerman is found “not guilty,” there will be race riots (regardless of Zimmerman’s Hispanic heritage).

This is because of collectivism, of course. If one white guy is perceived to be guilty of murdering a black guy, then all white people have his guilt, just as, in the minds of many, all white people have the guilt of the slaveholders in the past.

But, as the individualist Ron Paul has pointed out, those people who can only think in terms of racial groups are racists.

And Fred Reed noted, despite what the white-dominated U.S. Congress and state governments have done for black Americans, with the ending of segregation, with State-controlled charity and affirmative action, “Whitey” is still responsible for the severe problems which black people continue to endure.

Obviously not all people of color think those things. But those who have that kind of mentality do not appear able to see themselves as racists.

Sadly, many of the central planners’ collectivistic programs to benefit black Americans have gone against such intended beneficiaries, and against their liberty. So, the “antidote to racism is liberty,” as Dr. Paul put it.

But when the economic collapse and “civil unrest” occur, as a result of the collectivists’ central planning run amok, and the EBT cards and ATMs stop working and there are food shortages, well, perhaps you might want to consider getting out of the city ahead of time, that’s all (especially if you are white).

Speaking of “Whitey,” the trial of Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger is still ongoing, and it’s really a barrel of laughs. Last week, for example, one witness was asked to identify Bulger. So, as described by the Boston Herald’s Laurel Sweet on Howie Carr’s radio show, the witness looked around the courtroom like he was on To Tell the Truth, and finally pointed at Bulger, “How you doing Jim?” Heh.

Who needs a laugh-track when you have the Whitey Bulger trial?

Though the George Zimmerman trial may need some laugh-tracks, after those bad “knock-knock” jokes. But I digress.

Seriously, just what is it with these zealous government prosecutors who have this compulsion to overcharge defendants, as with George Zimmerman? Is it mainly to further their own careers? But the prosecutor must have known that there was no evidence to support an actual murder conviction. Hmmm. The cynic in me wants to suggest that TPTB may have urged the prosecutor to overcharge, to intentionally get a “not guilty” verdict, for the purpose of…who knows.

But the prosecutors these days are really getting away with real crimes just as many cops are, including knowingly pursuing the convictions (or worse) of innocent people.

And what was it with that sick pursuit of some Internet geek kid like Aaron Swartz, as prosecutors harassed and hounded him to the point of suicide, in the name of what? His “victims” didn’t even care to press charges.

And the corrupt lawyers and judicial apparatchiks all stick up for each other, too. It’s a sick culture now.

For instance, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently refused to disbar a bad prosecutor, as requested by the OK Bar Association. Their reasons were that because many prosecutors were corrupt and abusive in those “old days” (way back in the 1990s!), this one should be excused.

Well, I think that state Supreme Court justices such as those in Oklahoma who defend the “bad apples” should themselves be impeached! They are not “OK.”

And I don’t understand why so many cops are out of control now. Some people view them as “heroes,” and many of them may very well have been – in the past, but now not so much.

To me, a “hero cop” is one who has courage. A “hero cop” is one who turns in a bad cop. That takes courage.

But in today’s criminal police state, even the good apples are sticking up for the criminal cops. The good cops who act as whistleblowers are being fired from their jobs, or otherwise demoted, transferred, or ostracized.

And to me, a “hero cop” refuses to enforce bad laws. A law is bad if it has nothing to do with protecting the people from the aggression or fraud of others. That is to say, most laws.

A law enforcement officer – local, state or federal – who refuses to enforce drug laws is a “hero,” and those who refuse to enforce criminally invasive regulations of otherwise peaceful trade and commerce are “heroes,” in my view.

Supposedly, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is either a “hero” or a “traitor.” Well, he certainly isn’t a traitor – it’s the other way around. The government agents who are breaking into and trespassing innocent Americans’ communications – those government criminals are the real traitors.

But I don’t think Snowden is a “hero,” as many of these invasive and criminal spy programs had already been revealed years before. And also because Snowden’s release of information to Glenn Greenwald and the U.K. Guardian seems to have been too controlled, too unnecessarily redacted, as though it is still to protect the State.

That monster Leviathan State. The good little helpers out there still need to protect the damn State, and they can’t see that it is just something not worth protecting!

And I share The Daily Bell, Naomi Wolf and Robert Wenzel’s skepticism as well. Wolf points out how “super-organized” Snowden was in his PowerPoint presentations and in arranging his interview with Greenwald, in which “he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling.”

Am I too cynical?

Now, if any whistleblower is an actual “hero,” it is Bradley Manning. So many documents Manning released to WikiLeaks were not at all redacted, and the American people were able to get a real glimpse of the war crimes by the military, and the incompetence and corruption of our diplomats.

But I’m sure that James Claptrapper would disagree with me on that.

Related: Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger asks, Has Edward Snowden been added to Obama’s Kill List?

And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi very well sums up what our buffoonish Rulers have done to America, and to our freedom.

That reminds me, do you think that Rolling Stone investigative journalist Michael Hastings was assassinated? How about Andrew Breitbart?

Unlike Snowden and Manning, those two now-dead ones were journalists. Hmmm.

Well, whether those deaths were of foul play or not, I must say that government’s criminality is so in-your-face now.

And now, our incompetent and/or corrupt judges are allowing the NSA to make use of private communications “inadvertently” collected sans warrants.

So why don’t they just go into people’s homes and search everything there, hoping to find some indication of crime or “terrorism,” or whatever? (Oh, wait, they already did that in Watertown.)

The feds can not only “inadvertently” grab encrypted info but keep it indefinitely, and for the purpose of attempting to ultimately decrypt it in order to invasively and criminally pry into your private communications with others.

But there are other reasons why we should be concerned with this criminal behavior by government, besides the invasion of American’s privacy and security. Such compromised private communications could involve those with someone’s business associates.

One can easily predict that the bureaucrats will make use of all this criminal spying, and expand it to non-national security-related policies, such as enforcing patent laws or “insider trading” laws.

You see, one reason for encryption is to protect private business information, such as from one’s competitors, which one has a right to do, after all.

Some government bureaucrats, however, could be using the surveillance to steal private information for the purpose of cahoots with victims’ competitors. Such government spying and information-stealing could be a much more invasive and criminal means of the bureaucrats’ own illicit version of “insider trading,” if you know what I mean.

So besides the abuse of average Americans’ private information, this surveillance criminality can also compromise the people’s right to protect their honest ways of making a living (something which most government bureaucrats know nothing about!).

So Whitey Bulger isn’t the only gangster who should be prosecuted, if you ask me.

Now, in Edward Snowden’s interview with Glenn Greenwald, Snowden made it clear that this surveillance state will only get worse, and warned of possible “turnkey tyranny,” especially with future administrations in Washington (i.e. those who may not be as favorable to civil liberties as the Obama Administration has been).

Some further causes for concern include the IRS scandal and the wiretapping and persecuting of journalists. Obviously, these government crimes have nothing to do with “national security,” but with silencing critics of the Regime and cracking down on dissent. And bureaucrats might also get carried away and attempt to snuff out those who probe too intensely into the Rulers’ shenanigans.

But how carried away will these Washington commissars get? Will they use such powers to pursue political correctness and anti-discrimination laws as well? Will they send drones after those who make politically-incorrect comments?

So, even though Premier Obama doesn’t seem to understand things like, I don’t know, the U.S. Constitution, or due process, and the fact that he has never allowed his college transcripts to be made public, and the fact that many white people voted for his teleprompter him mainly because he’s black, I better not refer to him as an “affirmative action president,” or I might be indefinitely detained or worse. (And I shouldn’t mention that he referred to his white grandmother as a “typical white person” either, not that that would mean anything.)

But we’re not allowed to point certain things out, no matter how true they might be. As Dr. Thomas Sowell observed, even news “journalists” censor the racial aspects of riots and mob violence. People are more sensitive now to certain verbal subject matter, but actual violence is excused. Oh, well.

As Edward Snowden mentioned, it’s only going to get worse, all this stuff. Or is it?

Perhaps we can just be risky and do and say what we think is right (and hope for the best).