Skip to content

Month: October 2013

Do Innocent Civilians Have a Right to Defend Their Homes From Criminal Police Marauders?

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has this article on the many times now that police and S.W.A.T. teams are breaking into private residences and murdering people who believed that the marauders were criminals. Well, actually those people who break into other people’s homes are criminals. Too many times now the police go to the wrong address, and even when they are at the right address the “laws” they are enforcing are unjust and immoral laws, such as with the drug laws. This is another aspect of how our society has been perverted, as I noted in my article yesterday on

We can talk about whether or not the usurping of local policing and residential security by the State is legitimate some other time, as I have done in the past.

But there is a reason why the writers of the Constitution included a recognition of the right to bear arms. As I wrote in my article, The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left, the 2nd Amendment refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the “right of the government to keep and bear arms.” Many amongst the early Americans believed, and rightly, that the people have an inherent right to protect themselves from those who have been given some extra authority over their lives: the State and its agents. Because the so-called Revolutionaries recognized that human nature was such that no man could be trusted with artificial authority and the armaments of the State. (Well then why the hell did the “Founders” create an apparatus which gives some people such artificial authority over others? But I digress.)

As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote, the early Americans believed that they had a right to not only be armed but to possess an equally powerful arsenal as the government (or more so, in fact).

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

I know, that passage is referring to possible conflicts between the people and the federal government, but not particularly to the people in their communities having to defend themselves from their out-of-control and criminally irresponsible local government “LEOs.” However, many of the S.W.A.T. team murders and wounding of innocents and destruction of private property are federal agents such as DEA, FBI, ATF and IRS goons as well as local police goons, most of whom do not have a clue as to the meaning of the Fourth and other Amendments of the Bill of Rights, as John Whitehead referred to.

My point is that all human beings are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, at least that is what “justice” and the “law” in America supposedly guarantees in America. So those federal agents and local LEOs out there have all sworn an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitutions. That means they are obligated by law to follow the Fourth Amendment as well as the Fifth, the Third, etc. When these armed goons of the government break into the home of an entirely innocent human being, of course he has a right to defend himself and his family. That is what the 2nd Amendment protects, that natural, inherent right of self-defense. This means that all human beings have a right to possess whatever armaments that are required to fend off an attack. It doesn’t matter who the attackers are.

Now, I am not suggesting that people go and violate their local or state gun restrictions, unless they want to risk getting themselves in trouble, regardless of how unjust and unconstitutional such restrictions actually are. But I am merely pointing out the rights that human beings have.

Sadly, there are a lot of people on the Left who don’t like the idea of someone defending himself against the crimes and violence of a government goon or a street criminal, as the Left just wants the government — no matter how corrupt and criminal — to be armed and the civilians to be disarmed and defenseless.

But as I have pointed out in the past, here is a question for those LEOs and armed feds out there: When the economy collapses, or when the food stamps programs get cut massively and mass looting and rioting occur, or when EBT cards are no longer working (like if the power grid is sabotaged) or when there are bank runs, and if your governor or the President gives you unlawful orders to violate a civilian’s constitutional rights, such as through illegal gun confiscation, cash or gold confiscation, or unlawfully arresting or detaining innocent people and so on, whose side will you be on?

Will you dutifully follow unlawful orders from above and thus violate the constitutional oath you swore to obey? Or will you protect the rights of the people whose lives you have supposedly been hired by the government to protect?

Further, as things currently are, the armed feds and LEOs are enforcing unjust laws, such as drug laws and other police state-enhancing laws such as bureaucratic codes and so on. Such officers really need to consider what it is exactly they are enforcing, and ask themselves why they would be enforcing such bad and unjust laws.

Are the drug laws, for instance, really worth breaking into someone’s home and endangering the family’s lives? Do you really believe that someone putting drugs into his own body or selling them to someone else who wants to put them into his body is worse than your breaking into someone’s home and possibly murdering innocent people? (Because, after all, someone who has not harmed others is truly an innocent person.)

A Society Perverted by Orwellian Newspeak, Hypersensitivity, and Lack of Clarity

Copyright 2013 (link to article)

October 21, 2013

America has sadly become a dysfunctional society, run by politicians who are borderline functional illiterates. For many people now it has become an Orwellian nightmare.

We now have a government-imposed centralized medical plan whose obvious purpose was to wreak havoc so that the masses would beg for even more central planning. And a Chief Bureaucrat who rubber-stamped such an atrocity by incoherently referring to the plan as a “tax.”

And then there was the young lady who testified before a congressional panel on the issue of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. That was to show the rest of the world that “feminism” now means women being dependent on others to subsidize their lifestyles rather than standing on their own two feet and budgeting their own priorities.

“Hear me roar, I am strong, I am invincible”? (I think not.)

There have been so many examples of Americans’ dysfunctional behaviors and discourse, I am overwhelmed.

For starters, a recent survey asked 1,058 teens and young adults various questions under the subject of sexual violence, and, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the results showed that 10% of the youths admitted to committing an act of sexual violence, and 5% had “attempted or completed rape.”

However, as Prof. Volokh explained, because of the misleading wording and inaccurate definitions of “rape” and “sexual violence” in the survey,  “… 80% of the reported ‘rape[s]’ involved neither force nor the threat of force, and 59% involved only ‘guilt’ or ‘arguing and pressuring victim,’ with no use of force, threat of force, or even alcohol.”

So the results of this survey claiming that more teens are violent now are not examples of America’s decline, given the wildly exaggerated numbers. What is an example of America’s decline is the lack of communication and reading comprehension amongst the teens, and the survey researchers as well.

So there are two problems here, in my view: one, that more recent laws may be reflecting the confused public on what actual acts are and what they are not; and two, that as the culture and literacy have declined in America, so has the idea of personal responsibility. Innocent people may be getting arrested and in some cases convicted for “crimes” which aren’t crimes, and there are false “victims” who don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions or their inability to say “no.”

And I may very well get emails from people who will misunderstand that last sentence. But that will be yet another result of our society’s decline in reading comprehension and how the Orwellian government-controlled schools distort the meaning of words and concepts as they concentrate on their indoctrinating students to relinquish control over their lives to the State.

And that applies to the schools’ teaching that self-defense is a bad thing, as in gun-related zero tolerance policies.

You see, if only those damn government bureaucrats would stop disarming women by law and let them carry a firearm — openly as well — then chances are that a would-be rapist would think twice about attacking his would-be victim.

But noooo, our authoritarian society today seems to want only the government to be armed but not the civilian population. The schools are teaching the kids to be defenseless and to submit to authority — in essence, let the government commit its crimes, sexual and otherwise, and get away with it.

And then there’s this same-sex couple in Washington state who are suing a florist because she wouldn’t provide them with flowers for their wedding.

Like she’s the only florist around, and you couldn’t go to someone else? Talk about selfish and self-centered.

And worse, the ACLU is on the couple’s side! I guess freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of religious practice (i.e. much of what the First Amendment protects) are not among the civil liberties defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. (But enslaving a florist to serve you against her will, is.)

The Washington state attorney general is also suing the florist on behalf of “consumer protection” laws. But these bureaucrats just don’t understand that protecting consumers doesn’t mean giving them the power to enslave business owners. He might try to protect these consumers’ right to choose a different florist when the first choice will not serve you. That’s what’s known as the American way. You know, freedom?

But really, in today’s newspeak language, “tolerance” means having the power to force someone to do labor for you. Even conservative discussions of other similar cases, such as the New Mexico photographer refusing to work at a gay wedding, centered around free exercise of religion but not what to me are the core issues: freedom of association, and freedom from involuntary servitude. The right to not be forced to do labor for someone for whom you don’t want to do labor. For ANY reason.

And there is another recent example of how our society has declined in literacy, and understanding of free association, freedom of choice and personal responsibility. According to GWU law professor Jonathan Turley, two girls, 12 and 14, have been arrested and charged with “stalking” in their supposedly “bullying” another girl, 12, and allegedly causing her to commit suicide.

After the victim transferred to a different school, the other girls continued to relentlessly “bully” her online.

Now, the way I see it, “bullying” involves physical contact, pushing someone around or hitting, etc., or the explicit threat of violence. I know, in today’s world many definitions of certain acts have expanded to mean something they are not.

But now merely calling someone names is “bullying.” When I was growing up — you know, way back in the Dark Ages — what is now referred to as “bullying” used to be called “teasing,” or “hurting someone’s feelings.” Even if it involved several other kids relentlessly teasing another kid.

And while the updated legal definition of “stalking” refers to “causing substantial emotional distress,” including by use of computer or electronic communication, it is not referring to being teased, insulted, humiliated or tormented by others, but really referring to causing someone to be in fear for her life.

More disturbing is that the sheriff who arrested the two girl bullies stated that his reason was this comment on one’s Facebook page: “Yes ik I bullied Rebecca nd she killed her self but IDGAF.”

So this is an example of a case in which non-incriminating speech is being considered as confessing to criminal “stalking.”

However, the 12-year-old victim had the control to banish or blacklist those “cyber-bullies” from her Facebook page. But rather than the individual web page owner or moderator utilizing that control, a tragic suicide has occurred and unnecessary arrests of children are made.

Hmmm. I wonder where such pathologically mean and nasty kids get their pathological meanness and nastiness from?

Sadly, such mean kids manipulate the obvious vulnerabilities they see in their more sensitive peers. Some adults are themselves pathologically overprotective as they shield kids from “feeling bad,” by not letting them be the “losers” in a ball game, or not even letting them play ball or on playground equipment because they might get hurt.

And thus the society is forming into one of vicious aggressors and monsters versus the hypersensitive milksops, as encouraged by the authoritarians and sadists who support the growing police state.

And, as Laurence Vance recently noted, the same conservative Christians who believe that “Thou shalt not kill” and who want the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses are the ones most bloodthirstily supportive of the U.S. government’s vicious wars of aggression and sanctions against foreigners. These warvangelicals’ Orwellian euphemism for their moral relativism is “American Exceptionalism.”

So nowadays, many people’s feelings are hurt by the slightest words. That is why we now have what is known as “political correctness.” That is also a part of the general nanny-state over-protectiveness of children we have now.

And more and more we have calls for censorship of the Internet, such as bureaucrats sticking their noses into websites/blogs comments sections.

Some bureaucrats are going way out there with really loony-tunes anti-bullying laws, such as the one in New Jersey signed into law by Gov. Chris Christie. That law bans a lot of harmless speech, initiates students to become little snitches, and paves the way for the snitches, teachers, administrators and police to be the real bullies.

And another disturbing aspect of the aforementioned bullying-teen suicide story is the victim’s mother stating, “I just didn’t want to have her not like me, so I wanted to give her access to her cellphone so she could talk to her friends.”

Huh? Afraid her child wouldn’t like her unless given a cell phone? Do a lot of parents think that way now?

Now, if I had teenaged children at this time, I wouldn’t even let them have a Facebook page. “You want ‘social networking,’ ‘friends,’ and ‘likes’? Then go out to your friends’ house or make some new friends at the mall.” Case closed.

You know, require them to participate in real life stuff, and be in the presence of real people.

And I wouldn’t let them have a cell phone either. Talk about a distraction that kids don’t need and shouldn’t have at that time of life.

Excuse me for being such an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud.

But have you seen those youngins out there these days? Walking along the street obsessively holding their cell phones and staring like hypnotized zombies? That’s America’s future now. Future ObamaCare doctors. Ugh.

And it isn’t just the young having to hold onto their electronic baby rattles.

In fact, Infowars had a reporter get people to sign a petition to require people to wear helmets just for walking. And quite a few people signed the petition.

Is there any hope at all for America?


Jack Douglas has this troubling article on a possible 2nd U.S. civil war, that might involve “loose nukes.”

Speaking of nukes, Medea Benjamin has this article on Israeli nukes that we’re not supposed to know about.

Karl Denninger says the Tea Party is not “wrong” on ObamaCare.

Robert Wenzel says that now is the time to move your money out of the U.S. banking system.

And Paul Joseph Watson has this: RFID microchips to be embedded in breast implants (You can’t make this stuff up.)

Some Various Issues to Discuss Today

Because of the comment spammers, some of whom felt it important enough to actually take the time to manually place a spam comment and manually check the box which states to “prove you are not a spammer,” I had to turn off comments. I was rarely getting legitimate comments anyway. It is unfortunate that those kinds of people feel it’s important to intrude themselves and make blogging difficult, and for no good reason.

On the agreement to “reopen” the government and raise the debt ceiling, they are merely kicking the can until January and/or February apparently. The deal includes a $3 billion earmark for a project in Kentucky, which explains Mitch McCrony’s caving, and a payment for the widow of the late Sen. Frank Lousyburg, according to EPJ. But now the banksters such as Chase and HSBC USA are apparently starting to limit international money transfers within people’s own accounts, also according to EPJ. So the banksters are starting their gradual controls of everyday people’s money. They know something’s up. And next month there’s this power grid drill, in which TPTB may actually sabotage the grid as in false flag. “Conspiracy theory”? Oh, well. Whatever.

William Grigg has yet another post with yet more reasons to de-monopolize community policing and security away from government and back to the people.

I don’t usually listen to Terry Gross, but in a promo I heard that Stephen Kinzer was going to be interviewed. So I listened to most of it. He has a new book out on the Dulles brothers, one of whom was CIA director and the other was Secretary of State at the same time during the 1950s. Kinzer stated that U.S. government foreign policy now would be quite different were it not for the Dulles brothers. Apparently, according to Kinzer, the gangsters of foreign policy had already determined by 1954 that taking U.S. agents and/or forces into Vietnam would be a lost cause. But, the criminal mobster power-grabbers and corporatists of the centralized U.S. bureaucracy took America to Vietnam anyway. Here is the interview.

From the U.K. Guardian, here are 10 reasons not to trust claims national security is being threatened by leaks.

Andrew Napolitano explains debt and destruction, and Jacob Hornberger explains the false default scare. This whole “national government” and “federalism” stuff is a sham. Centralism is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. Everything needs to be decentralized and localized (or re-localized).

And here is Lew Rockwell interviewed by RT on defaulting being a good thing:

Why Must Conservative and Liberal Statists Support Collective Ownership of the Territory?

In this edition of the Libertarian Angle, Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss immigration and open borders. Their ideas are not what you usually hear on either conservative or liberal blogs or discussion programs, because the liberals and conservatives all come from the typical statist point of view. The statists are all for sanctions and restrictions on travel and trade, but really when a government such as the U.S. government imposes sanctions and trade/travel restrictions, as well as immigration controls, the government is really imposing those sanctions on us the American people, as well as foreigners. And the conservatives who want immigration restrictions really view “ownership” of the U.S. territory as a collective ownership at the expense of real private property rights. Meanwhile the so-called liberals don’t want to get rid of the very welfare state programs, minimum wage laws and other price controls which prevent the upward mobility of those at the bottom. Go figure.

Some More Misc. Items

Arthur Silber has this follow-up on his post regarding Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden that I referred to yesterday. In the follow-up Silber brings up the new Disney film which may be intended to smear Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. (Supposedly, the new film is to star an actor named “Benedict Cumberbatch.” Hmmm.) And speaking of that new Disney film, Chris Geovanis gives a more in-depth analysis of the anti-WikiLeaks smear campaign film.

Jay Stanley of the ACLU has this post on the prospects of blackmail by the NSA. He gives some history, and details how various government sleazebags and Nazis have already been blackmailing people including high government officials.

Bob Livingston has this summary of ObamaCare’s mandate of death and destruction. Barack Obomber, Nancy Mussolini and Harry Can’t Reid are really evil people, in my view.

Robert Wenzel has this post on the endorsement by Ron Paul of Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli for that state’s highest office. (Given what we are now learning of Cuccinelli’s record, perhaps he should be running from high office.) And, regarding Ron Paul’s endorsements, I don’t think that his endorsing a crony capitalist and police-statist should go against Dr. Paul. But Robert Wenzel suggests that Virginians vote for the Libertarian Party candidate.

In calls for getting the “grown-ups” in the room for budget and debt ceiling negotiations, Sheldon Richman says there are no grown-ups around. The pols in Washington are even more irresponsible than children.

And Pat Buchanan notes that we may see a repeat of the Goldwater-Rockefeller fights again. The Establishment Republicans just don’t get it, and in the long run, they will lose.

Dependence on Government Is Not Good for You

Mac Slavo of the SHTF Plan blog has this post on the recent EBT card failure and Walmart-looting fiasco. And that reminded me of an article I had on on September 20th of last year, Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It to Happen? My article also linked to this article which gave a possible scenario of when or if the SHTF.

So I will repost my article here:

September 18, 2012 Copyright

Civil Unrest: Do Our Rulers Actually Want It To Happen?

There have been several different predictions and scenarios involving how inflation and austerity measures in the U.S. could bring about food shortages and other shortages, food riots, looting, violent protests, flash mobs, and martial law.

All these things can be prevented, of course, if more people could wake up to the fact that government central planning in money and economic matters is inherently flawed and doomed to failure, societal self-destruction and collapse.

Some people see the recent German court decision to approve German bailouts of irresponsible European governments as a new dictatorship for Germany and a boon for investors. And there are others who see this new scheme as the beginning of runaway hyperinflation in Europe that will spread to the U.S.

Following this decision by the high German court, the U.S. Federal Reserve has announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE3). Some people believe that QE3 will cause more economic instability, and further destruction of the dollar.

Eventually the austerity measures we have been seeing in Europe will reach the U.S.

Austerity measures will hit public employee benefits and pensions, and welfare and Medicare recipients (but not the bloated salaries, benefits and pensions of Congressmen and their beloved bureaucrats).

But it seems that the U.S. government has been pushing hard to get as many people dependent on government as possible. Food stamps spending has more than doubled since Barack Obama became President, although the number of Americans on food stamps almost doubled from 2001 to 2009 during the presidency of George W. Bush as well.

And the Obama Administration has gone so far as to push U.S. food stamps onto Mexicans! (And Mexicans can’t even vote for Obama this November – theoretically, that is.)

Also distressing is how private corporations profit from the government’s exploiting the population’s vulnerabilities that the government’s own interventions cause. One example is JP Morgan Chase’s shamefully profiting from the food stamps program.

Incidentally, employees of JP Morgan Chase donated over $800,000 to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and, so far over $155,000 to Obama’s 2012 effort. (There certainly has been no quid pro quo here, as former President George Bush the Elder might say.)

Now, regarding eventual shortages, austerity and civil unrest in America that would involve the unavailability of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payments, in large part affecting food stamp recipients, one scenario I’ve seen details how rioting and turmoil could unfold, mainly beginning in the cities, but eventually flowing out into the suburbs. It is not a pretty picture.

One would think that the government bureaucrats who control these social programs could see ahead what would happen when withholding such benefits, especially with millions of people dependent on them for their daily sustenance. So, in the case of possible future EBT cards not functioning followed by rioting and violence, one has to wonder whether such an action by the government could be purposeful.

In the aforementioned scenario, the writer emphasizes urban minorities as the ones mainly perpetrating the flash mob rioting and violence. But, in 2010 34% of food stamp recipients were white, 22% black and 29% Hispanic, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

However, the flash mobs committing acts of violence in the cities in recent years do not seem to be associated with government austerity measures, food stamps, hunger, etc. In some instances, such violence has been racially motivated, black against white, as witnessed in this account, for example. Unfortunately, the mention of such a modern social phenomenon in the U.S. is politically incorrect, as many newscasters and newspapers reporting on those events censor the race of the perpetrators and that of victims, as author Thomas Sowell has noted. Race demagogues such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel have gained much fame and popularity from such “race-hustling.”

So are the Chicago-Washington community organizers and agitators trying to promote race riots? Obama and his “social justice” cohorts do not seem to have any comments on the violence committed by inner-city punks. The Holder Justice Department has refused to prosecute black against white voter intimidation cases. And Obama wants public schools to stop disciplining misbehaving black students. Hmmm.

And why have U.S. military recruiters allowed so many white supremacists to join the military?

It appears that the efforts of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and now the election of Barack Obama as President do not seem to have healed the friction among the races in America.

So there seem to be extremists on both sides, and the rest of us are caught in the middle.

But when there will be government austerity and EBT card non-functionality, the flash mob violence we have seen recently will probably be much worse, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But, racial conflicts aside, why have the Bush and Obama Administrations increased spending on food stamps so much? Social programs such as food stamps rob people of their incentive to provide for themselves, and they become serfs to bureaucrats.

It is as though these imbecilic bureaucrats are encouraging the masses to get dependent on these bureaucrats, and for devious purposes.

No, they wouldn’t do that. Not that there hasn’t been enough information about Obama and his immoral, unconstitutional acts as President to indicate any sort of deviousness, no.

With the moral hazard of government bureaucrats’ luring people into this kind of dependence and serfdom, QE3 will cause further economic instability, part of the inherent moral hazard of having a central bank and lack of freedom and competition in money and banking. Such Fed policies continually rob the people through inflation, particularly the lower and middle classes.

Added to those moral hazards of these professional bureaucrats are Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, Washington’s lack of prosecuting criminally irresponsible banksters, the 2008 extortion-like bankster bailout, and foreclosure fraudsters.

And Obama’s pushing through Congress the bill allowing for indefinite detention of Americans without charge or evidence, and his signing it into law, followed by his appealing the judge’s striking it down – there probably isn’t any deviousness behind that, and probably won’t be any targeting of political dissenters during future civil conflicts in America, no. (There certainly hasn’t been any of that, not in America, no.)

All these acts of government criminality could be leading America into a total breakdown of society.

So these people in Washington are either extremely clueless and don’t know what they’re doing, or they are doing these things intentionally, in which case they are just plain evil.

So, could the ruling elites be purposefully trying to cause so much massive dependence on government and such massive weakening of the financial and monetary systems, followed by a false-flag type economic collapse and sudden withholding of government benefits and unavailability of our own money in the bank, to intentionally bring about rioting and violence?

And, if Romney is elected in November, would he be any different from Obama?

And so, if these scenarios play out, and there is indeed massive civil unrest in America, we already know that various federal agencies and local and state police as well are preparing for it. The police state that J. Edgar Hoover, Oliver North, and Dick Cheney put in place is being fully embraced by Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, FBI and CIA, as well as many local police neanderthals all across America – it is as though they are drooling for some action, and for a chance for them to show the rest of the world just how tough they are.

Can you imagine people with the kind of extremely questionable character and level of dishonesty and untrustworthiness as Obama and Romney presiding over a situation of military martial law?

In addition to all this, the Obama Administration has allowed foreign troops onto U.S. soil. NATO troops were in training in Tampa just prior to the Republican Convention. They now have Russian soldiers training in the U.S., and some insiders believe that these foreign troops are joining with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security toward some sort of illicit action against Americans under the pretense of “peacekeeping” during a time of civil unrest in America.

In my opinion, having foreign troops coming into the U.S. for any reason is dangerous, and Sheriff Richard Mack agrees with me.

And now, because of inner-city gun-related crime rates, and recent isolated shootings and mass killings, the emotionalistic calls for gun control have been on the increase. This despite violent criminals who disobey laws against assault, rape and murder probably are not inclined to obey gun laws as well.

And, as John Lott has noted, would-be assaulters, rapists and murderers are less likely to commit their crimes when they know their prospective victims are armed.

But because of the emotionalism surrounding certain tragedies, even Republicans such as SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, radio host Michael Savage and TV host Bill O’Reilly have shown irrationality on the matter. How will Americans, in their cars stuck in busy intersections when flash mobs rampage and attack them, be able to defend themselves if they have been disarmed by the government? When looters and burglars break into their homes and businesses, how will disarmed homeowners and businesspeople protect themselves?

And you can say what you want about anti-UN “conspiracy theories” and so forth. But, mirroring a zany 1961 U.S. State Department call for complete civilian disarmament, the 2012 UN Arms Trade Treaty would require signing member nations to enact much stricter national gun ownership restrictions. That was up for a vote in July but has been postponed until probably later this year. Some analysts have interpreted Article 15 of the Treaty to allow for foreign troops in the U.S. to confiscate guns from Americans in their homes. Even having U.S. troops going around door to door to search for and confiscate firearms is itself illegal and unconstitutional, but foreign troops?

It should not be difficult to believe that not just local police but our own U.S. troops would go door to door to seize Americans’ means of self-defense, when we know that they have much experience in doing just that in Iraq, a country in which U.S. troops had no business or reason to be, violating private Iraqi civilians’ own right to bear arms and defend themselves.

As the people’s right to defend themselves against looters, rioters, rapists and killers, as well as against government tyranny, is being criminally whittled away by the degenerates in charge, those same degenerates are arming themselves up and preparing for something that could be interpreted as outright treason.

I have already expressed concern about martial law and explained that U.S. military and other federal armed goons and local police, who have all sworn to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, are obligated to disobey unlawful orders by commanding officers including the U.S. President.

Unlawful orders include those in which a soldier or an officer is ordered to violate a presumably innocent civilian’s rights to free speech, protest, dissent and criticize the government, right to bear arms and defend oneself against criminal assailants including government criminals, right to due process, and “right to be secure” in one’s person, home and effects. If the officer or soldier does not suspect a civilian of some actual crime, then that agent of government is obligated by law to leave the civilian alone, no matter who ordered otherwise. (The Oath Keepers have made a list of orders they will not obey.)

Further treasonous is the rulers’ inviting foreign troops in to aid in the rulers’ abuses.

And, given the criminality of monetary easing to enrich bankers while creating inflation that robs the poor, one might very well describe those actions as treasonous as well.

If only Americans had listened to the American Revolutionaries’ warnings about paper money and tyranny, wealth redistributionism, and their warnings against foreign entanglements.

The State Wants to Keep Its Crimes a Secret

Arthur Silber has a new post, this time regarding Glenn Greenwald’s alleged hypocrisy in his publishing some of the Edward Snowden-leaked documents but withholding others. Silber talks about the power that Greenwald has in his picking and choosing which documents to publish. While Greenwald criticizes the State for its secrecy, Greenwald then goes on to scoff at those who criticize him for not releasing all the documents. We should trust Greenwald’s judgment here, in the same way we should trust the State’s telling us what it wants us to know and not telling us what it doesn’t want us to know.

Silber has previously addressed this Greenwald-Snowden issue in June, in which Silber compared these newer leaks to the WikiLeaks leaks. Then, Silber wrote,

…WikiLeaks provided masses of “raw data”: the original documents themselves, whether they be battle reports, inter- or intra-agency communications, or documents of many other kinds, sometimes with redactions, often complete. And WikiLeaks offered them with no filters whatsoever: no one was going to hold our hand as we read the documents, telling us what was “important” and what wasn’t, and what its significance was, or whether it was significant at all. If we wished to understand the documents and what they revealed, all of us had to do the work ourselves.

What we discovered was that many people didn’t want to do the work. More than that, they resented the fact that such responsibility was demanded of them.

But with the Snowden-leaked documents, journalists specially appointed by Edward Snowden have the privilege of sifting through all the material and picking and choosing what the public should be told and what they shouldn’t be told, what may “harm” some people and what may not, in addition to the many Guardian attorneys who had access to the material. And, as Silber wrote in another essay last June, that is in addition to the many people — government employed and private contractors — who have been given clearances to access so-called classified or “top secret” info. All the more reason to agree with Silber that this “secrecy” stuff is a bunch of BS.

As Silber wrote,

And what “harms” specifically? And to whom — specifically? Harm to those who work for the Death State, perhaps in the intelligence and national security community? Are we concerned about harming them? I surely hope not. Since the Death State claims the right to murder any one of us it chooses, whenever it wants, for any reason it invents, it seems to me that “the public” are the ones who ought to be concerned about being “harmed.” Is it the great unwashed public that these journalists are worried about? Then let them say so. But how would that work? We might be endangered because some of the U.S.’s national security “secrets” might be exposed? The United States is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in the entire history of the human race, with a military capability that could obliterate all of life on the planet many times over. No nation would dream of mounting a serious attack on the U.S. for precisely that reason (and when I say “no nation,” I absolutely include Iran, for all the hysterics who might see this). Moreover, isolated terrorist attacks, no matter how horrifying they may be in themselves, fall far short of an “existential threat” to the U.S., no matter the vast amount of propaganda designed to convince us otherwise. No nation would dare mount a serious attack on the U.S. precisely because they know how powerful the U.S. is — because it is not secret.

The entire edifice of “secrecy,” especially with regard to national security, is a vicious lie from start to finish. Put it all out there. If full disclosure endangers those who work for the Death State, the problem — and the responsibility — is with those who choose to directly advance the Death State’s goals. It is decidedly not with the leaker, or with the journalists.

Whether it’s for “national security” purposes or not, or to protect certain employees of the national security state, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, as far as who is “harmed” by revealing the State’s “secrets,” is this: If you are employed by the national security state and you fear for your life because of Snowden’s or others’ leaks, then don’t work for the national security state. You are at your own risk. Working for the national security state is “risky business.”

Given that the State and its entire national security apparatus is illegitimate (contrary to what many of the indoctrinated and propagandized believe), especially since the end of the Cold War, then all its material, public domain, “classified,” “top secret,” etc., should be a matter of public record. And by the way, the reason the military intentionally over-classifies material is to discourage whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning from revealing the war crimes and other acts of criminality by this so-called “national security” bureaucracy.

What the State wants to be secret is basically its own reckless behavior and its own criminality. That is what it wants to continue to be hidden from the people over whom they rule, the people who employ them and whose coercively-extracted wealth funds the goons’ extravagant paychecks, benefits and pension plans.

So the U.S. government’s national security enterprise and empire overseas has done nothing but provoke foreigners with its wars of aggression and its occupations and destruction. Thus nothing that Snowden or Manning have released and publicized could possibly have compromised Americans’ security nearly as much as the blowback of those criminal actions of the U.S. government, in addition to the thoroughly unconstitutional, immoral and disgusting surveillance state which criminally pries into people’s private lives and gets away with it with impunity.

So, getting back to the first linked post by Arthur Silber from yesterday, Silber wrote regarding Greenwald:

One of the lessons we can draw is the uniformity of the intellectual corruptions that occur when anyone is placed in a position of power — and when he seeks to protect that power, and when he enjoys its exercise. We should note that these kinds of responses to serious questioning are those of someone who can be described as an authoritarian bully (among other terms). As I said, the ironies are numerous, and awful.

And there can be no doubt that Greenwald is enjoying his power over the dissemination of the Snowden documents, and that he keenly appreciates the many values that power confers on him. Not least of those values are the marketing advantages that he seeks to exploit.