Skip to content

Month: June 2014

Some More Misc. Items

According to the WSJ (via EPJ), Fed Chairperson Janet Yellen has a huge security team that is angering the neighbors at her new private gated residential community. One resident contrasted Yellen’s slovenly and disrespectful security team to that of former FBI Director Robert Muller which consisted of people who were “businesslike” and apparently didn’t set up camp like the new invaders. I guess Ms. Yellen is really super important, privileged and special, and deserving of not only protection but enabling handlers to do whatever they want and get away with it. That’s the new American way now.

Speaking of the Fed, S.W.A.T. teams in Massachusetts say they are a “private” corporation (as in “private sector”), and thus do not need to obey public records laws. I guess that’s sort of like the Fed claiming to be a “private” entity (and itself thus not subject to the laws that everyone else must obey).

Investigative journalist James Risen has this extensive article in the New York Times on Blackwater employees’ extreme misconduct in Iraq. (Iraq has not only been a crony boondoggle for the merchants of death war profiteers, but a place for neanderthals to express their murderous rage and violence toward innocents and get away with it.)

Richard Ebeling writes about a Declaration of Independence from big government.

Philip Weiss discusses news reporters talking about Sykes-Picot but ignoring the Balfour Declaration.

And William Grigg provides some history of the Prohibition era, and shows how the “law enforcement” wing of prohibition — in modern terms, the drug war — become the gangsters joining the “private” ones.

Some Misc. Items

Becky Akers writes on the blog:

Shaming, isolating, and shunning government’s leeches worked for the American colonists; they dealt so severely with friends and family assisting the British Empire’s tyranny that few Americans dared do so. The Crown had to import from England those “swarms of officers” that the Declaration denounced. The same tactics still work. Are you friends with a bureaucrat or cop? Why? Are your children or siblings contemplating positions with Leviathan? Let them know you take such attacks on freedom personally and that as enemies of all mankind, they can no longer expect a welcome in your home. Don’t be shy about telling the rest of the family your reasons for excluding the miscreant, either.

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment and advice. Everyone should take it personally. The entire federal government is a police state, and the police state is a threat. When someone becomes an agent of the State, and the federal Leviathan monster in particular, one is joining up with an invading and occupying quasi-foreign Regime, making up new rules and diktats as it goes along. Shaming and shunning is the appropriate treatment for traitors, which frankly is what they are, given the modern transformation of the Regime into the criminal racket that it is. Leviathan is a thoroughly treasonous organization in the precise Constitutional sense of the word: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them …” referring, in my view, to those agents of the federal bureaucracy acting criminally against the people of the states, with the feds arming up as they have, and expanding their military powers within the borders and coasts, and “Homeland Security” (sic) forces as well, and their infiltrating local police departments with military equipment, as well as the spying, fusion centers, the TSA gropesters and all the rest. They really are “levying war” against the people, in their war on our security, their war on our medical freedom, their war on our private lives and our food choices, etc., etc., etc.  Each and every one of these foreign invaders and occupiers of the Regime and their enforcers and minions needs to be ostracized.

Besides all that stuff, Murray Sabrin sent Robert Wenzel this letter to the editor he had published in the New York Times in 1976 describing exactly what the Federal Reserve’s “printing press” actually is: counterfeiting.

Karen Kwiatkowski says that if the neocons are so gung-ho on more war in Iraq, they should join up themselves.

Kelley Vlahos writes about Iraq War vets (the ones those neocons caused to be Iraq War vets) asking Was it worth it?

And Sheldon Richman writes about Gen. Smedley Butler and the racket that is war.

The Supremes Mess Things Up Yet Again

The U.S. Supreme Court has gotten some decisions right in recent weeks, such as ruling that warrantless cell phone searches are unconstitutional and ruling that abortion protest “buffer zones” on public streets and sidewalks are also unconstitutional. But in ruling that Aereo’s providing customers with access to view broadcast TV on the Internet violated copyright law and therefore like cable providers they must pay broadcasters a fee, the high court has created many more problems and distortions now. For instance, this ruling will no doubt cause big problems for Internet cloud services and for everyday ISPs as well. The 6 Supremes voting “nay” on Aereo said that the process looks and seems like the way cable TV provides broadcast TV shows to customers, and therefore it is the same thing. Not so, say dissenters Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. You see, they actually read the copyright law, as Mike Masnick pointed out.  (Not that copyright law should matter in a free society, as that is a result of legislation, not law. Therefore it is invalid. But I digress.)

Well, when Congress wrote its laws regarding broadcasting over the airwaves, that really became yet another usurpation, and a new overall monopoly in which Washington’s overlords get to decide who may and who may not broadcast their shows and their views on the “public” airwaves. So, while nobody should “own” the airwaves, we have a Congress and an FCC which since then “own” the airwaves. But in my view, those who get into the broadcasting business should really know what they are dealing with. If some content is traveling freely “in the air,” it is not like it is traveling through a private, physical cable. It is indeed “public,” and anyone and everyone who wants at it should do so in whatever way they wish, without paying some extortion fee to the government or to some other group. If you don’t like that then perhaps broadcasting your shows over the airwaves is not for you. (For some people the ability to broadcast their stuff over the airwaves can be free advertising for them.)

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the rebroadcasters such as Aereo have a right to claim that they created and produced specific programs that customers might see — that would be fraud, a totally different issue.

Am I all wet on this?

More Important Issues to Discuss

Here are some more interesting items to check out:

Kimberly Paxton at The Daily Sheeple comments on “Tricky Dick” Cheney’s prediction of a “massive attack on the homeland.” If it happens, will it be a “false flag”?

Sayer Ji writes about false positive diagnoses and unnecessary ovarian-related surgeries for prevention.

RT with an article on the Massachusetts ACLU suing S.W.A.T. agency for violating public records laws.

Kit Daniels writes about UN gun-confiscation proposals as models for gun-takings in America, despite that gun-related violence has declined in the U.S. (except for perhaps police instigated gun-related violence).

And Phan Nguyen comments on David Duke, Jeffrey Goldberg, and Presbyterian divestment of Israel.

The Hypocrisy of the Drug Warriors

Laurence Vance says that libertarians are right about drugs and the drug war, and fisks a writer named John Waters in Waters’s recent assertion that libertarians are wrong about drugs. Here is the best part of the Vance article, in my view:

I have never read anywhere that Waters was in favor of alcohol prohibition. What, you ask, does this have to do with what he writes about drug prohibition in “Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Drugs”? It actually has everything to do with it. To see the folly of what Waters says about drug prohibition, I have substituted the word “alcohol” for “drug” the five times it occurs in the fifth paragraph of his article:

But this harmless world is not the real world of alcohol use. There is ample experience that an alcohol user harms not only himself, but also many others. The association between alcohol use and social and economic failure, domestic violence, pernicious parenting and criminal acts while under the influence is grounds for prohibition even if we accept no responsibility for what the alcohol user does to himself. The alcohol user’s freedom to consume costs his community not only their safety, but also their liberty.”

Like most drug warriors, Waters makes an arbitrary distinction between drugs and alcohol that does nothing but weaken his case. If he actually favored alcohol prohibition, then perhaps we could take him a little more seriously.

The drug warriors do not seem to see their cognitive dissonance when they refuse to also include the dangers of alcohol consumption, as well as remember the failures of alcohol prohibition from the 1920s. And they really believe that the government owns our bodies and has a right to dictate to us what chemicals we may or may not ingest.

More Evidence of the Decline of America

Here is a discomforting article on Infowars regarding the government’s intrusive and totalitarian “biometric” database. The article cites the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU which warn that we should expect an “overwhelming number” of false matches in the government’s facial recognition, iris scanning and palm print technologies. The FBI will be placing all the collected biometric information in a combined criminal and non-criminal database. Expect many, many people to be the victims of false identification, unnecessary police harassment and S.W.A.T. raids. I realize there has been some good news on the liberty front, such as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that warrantless cell phone searches are unconstitutional and a federal court ruling that the feds’ “no-fly” list is also unconstitutional. But this whole biometric database thing is so extreme, so obviously to become a tool of gangsters and government harassment and suppression of dissent, that this, too, should be ruled “unconstitutional.”

Speaking of the ACLU, S.W.A.T. teams and the police state, Radley Balko has this post on the ACLU’s recent report on police militarization. Basically, S.W.A.T. raids are mostly unnecessary, they are terrorizing innocent people, and the drug war is the main reason for them now. End the drug war, legalize freedom (as Ron Paul would say), and stop the damn S.W.A.T. raids.

And Alecia Phonesavanh writes about how a reckless S.W.A.T. team blew a hole in her 2-year-old son.

Michael Rozeff explains the neocons’ militaristic (but non-productive and un-American) vision of America. The neocons value government power, but not decent, honest aspects of life, just armed military might and State power. Very empty souls.

Free Range Kids author Lenore Skenazy quotes from an article in the Boston Globe by psychologist Peter Gray on how kids who are deprived of their natural instincts to play independently while they are children can contribute to greater incidence of depression and anxiety later on in life. (But the school totalitarians don’t want to let kids play independently, and the neighborhood nazis don’t like to see a child playing in a yard unsupervised, or else they’ll call the police. So now a lot of parents and other adults are helicoptering and overprotective of the kids, and maybe that’s a good reason why so many of the kids whose natural inclinations were stifled and suppressed grew up to be depressed, anxious, and miserable. I think that much of our whole society is anxious and miserable, quite frankly, but the processed foods and prescription drugs also have a lot to do with it.)

Jacob Hornberger clarifies libertarianism versus statism in this post aimed at Catholics regarding the issue of immigration. (I can’t believe just how ignorant so many people are on the immigration issue, especially the conservatives. In my view, to many people their Archie Bunker anti-foreigner narrow-mindedness is more important than free markets, private property rights, and economic prosperity.)

James Bovard discusses the war crimes of the American “Civil” War.

And Jonathan Turley discusses the newest idiocy in American culture: social media clauses in prenuptial agreements. (How did so many Americans become so dumb now? is it the processed foods, the video games, the prescriptions, or the zombie texting obsessions?)

The State vs. Private Property and Liberty

Hans-Hermann Hoppe bravely explains the justness of private property, and the unjustness of the State, and how the capitalist-entrepreneur’s self-defense against the State’s unjust aggressions is just.

John Whitehead describes how the U.S. Supreme Court consistently promotes the police state and overrules liberty.

James Bovard distinguishes between freedom and medals of freedom.

The Daily Bell interviews Ron Paul on the evolution of freedom in the 21st Century.

Speaking of Ron Paul, Charles Burris says that Dr. Paul has been the one voice of reason on Iraq.

Jacob Hornberger discusses Catholics, libertarians, and coerced charity, and Catholics, libertarians, and the drug war.

James Carli explains why conservatives should want to end the drug war.

Paul Hein asks, “Who am I?

Gary North explains central planning by central bankers.

And Becky Akers explains Stalin de Blasio in New York.

“The Roots of Middle East Chaos”

Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss and thoroughly review the history behind the turmoil in the Middle East and the long-term results of government interventionism. Sheldon Richman expands on his recent article, The Middle East Harvests Bitter Imperialist Fruit. Since World War I, the European and American interventionists interfered with what would have been a natural evolving and development of society in that region, suppressing the populations’ natural inclination to grow out of their continuing primitivism. (However, given how primitive Americans are in supporting government wars of aggression and senseless murders of foreigners and destruction of whole foreign societies, and the cell phone zombies, the progressive-influenced “sexual revolution” i.e. immediate gratification and irresponsibility, and local police beating, tasing, shooting and killing innocents, Americans should talk about “primitive” foreigners. But I digress.)

A Massachusetts Moonbat to the Left of Ted Kennedy

According to Boston Herald columnists Holly Robichaud and Joe Battenfeld in recent interviews on WRKO, Massachusetts candidate for governor Donald Berwick may very well upset Attorney General Martha Coakley and state Treasurer Steve Grossman (D-AIPAC) for the Democrat nomination fro governor in this September’s primary. Berwick was an Obama Medicare flunky whose campaign promotes medical “single payer” for Massachusetts victims, and who loves the British National Health Service. As Nat Hentoff writes, in a 2009 interview Berwick declared, “It’s not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Yech.

Most readers already know about the intrusions, the economic destruction, and the tearing apart of the medical system that ObamaCare has caused. Even some progressives have admitted that ObamaCare is lousy. So I don’t understand why voters in Massachusetts would want to entrust politicians even further and more comprehensively with their private medical matters.

But even in Massachusetts, doesn’t Berwick know about the real failures of RomneyCare? Health care costs in Massachusetts went up, not down, and emergency room exploitation also escalated. And RomneyCare also adversely affected some hospitals’ care for the poor, it killed some 18,000 Massachusetts jobs, and ultimately the state’s Rulers imposed health care price controls. (Of course, the free-market way is the answer to the problems in health care, obviously.)

And given that Berwick is an actual doctor — an “MD” — I wonder what his opinion might be of the irresponsible behaviors of Boston Children’s Hospital doctors against Justina Pelletier? Does he think it was okay for them to suddenly remove her from her treatment and medications and unjustifiably place her in psychiatric facilities? And, speaking of the rise of fascism in Massachusetts, have any of the local media stenographers asked him (or any of the candidates) about last year’s Watertown police siege, or Gov. Patrick threatening motorists with jail if they drove during the Blizzard of 2013?

However, I predict that the majority of voters in Massachusetts, with their health and their paychecks victimized by ObamaCare’s disastrous results, will perceive Donald Berwick as an ObamaCare-RomneyCare promoter and will probably elect the lefty socialist Republican Charlie Half-Baker, whose own Medicare savings plan in the early ’90s was used as a model for RomneyCare. Heads I win, tails you lose, etc., etc., etc.