Skip to content

Month: May 2015

My Comments on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

The U.S. Senate voted down, for now, the unconstitutional Obama-McConnell Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP treaty that supposedly was to promote “free trade.” No, it wouldn’t promote free trade. The first thing people must know is that these kinds of “partnerships” are partnerships between or among governments, and government bureaucrats, first and foremost, that also includes special partnerships among the world’s wealthiest and influential corporate executives in collusion with government bureaucrats.

If you really want to promote free trade for Americans, then remove and repeal any and all governmental restrictions on Americans’ (and others’) right to trade with anyone else they want in any way they want, anywhere in the world, as long as they are peaceful and don’t use fraud, coercion or aggression. No more regulations from any government agency, no wage or price controls, no licensing, no fees, nothing. You see, that’s what “free trade” is, the absence of legal and enforceable restrictions imposed by bureaucrats. Those restrictions are intrusions, and are criminal intrusions in fact, because if any non-government individual imposed by force such intrusive and coercive demands, mandates, or otherwise controls on the trades, commerce and movements of their neighbors, those intrusions would be considered criminal. Regardless of whatever rationalizations that government bureaucrats and their minions have for their criminal intrusions, they are still criminal intrusions. I hope that some day the brainwashed masses who obediently believe what politicians and activists say about the importance of this regulation or that tax, will wake up to the truth of what these schemes and scams really are.

And also, regarding the TPP specifically, we already know on the face of it that it is a scam, because why do the details of this have to be kept in secret? You want your representatives in Washington to vote on new regulations and mandates without knowing the details? Are the details considered classified national security secrets? Of course not. So obviously when these corporate executives and lobbyists and politicians don’t want the people to know exactly what’s being forced on them, then that means they are hiding something very smelly and stinky. They are hiding their crony public-trough-snorting and establishment-profits-protecting schemes, and they are also hiding a good dose of totalitarianism as well. Plenty of intrusions on the people’s First Amendment-protected rights and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights as well, especially their rights to use and express themselves on the Internet. The Internet and especially political dissent is exactly what the police statists and bureaucratic control freaks want to stifle and censor. IP and Copyright are ruses. Don’t fall for it.

Political activists and bureaucracy power-grabbers thrive in secrecy, with their criminal obstructions of the people’s Freedom of Information Act rights and with their prosecuting political opponents and journalists and whistleblowers. At the same time, these fascists want to spy on the people, and search and peek and pry into the people’s private lives and daily activities. The Rulers, politicians, activists, trespassers, coveters of other people’s wealth and property, they all want access into your life, your home, your personal effects, your wallet and your bank account. They are criminals, and the people who are behind this TPP who are against actual free trade, they are criminals, and I hope that more and more people are waking up to that fact.

More News and Commentary

Richard Ebeling says that spending and redistribution are not the answers to slow growth.

Jacob Hornberger writes about immigration checkpoint tyranny.

Laurence Vance asks, What should we be saying to veterans?

John Whitehead believes that the government is on the warpath and that “We the People” need to circle the wagons.

William Grigg on the day police firebombed West Philadelphia.

Ron Paul asks, NSA spying ruled illegal, but will Congress save the program anyway?

James Bovard on the Boy Scouts’ reforming themselves into oblivion.

Robert Wenzel says, If Rand Paul would only do these three things, I would support his campaign.

Robert Murphy asks, Was it Carly Fiorina’s job to create jobs at HP?

Kurt Nimmo discusses Marco Rubio who supports NSA spying on Americans.

And Jerry Cianciolo says, I’m healthy, please leave me alone.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign So Far

Here are the announced candidates so far in Election 2016:

Hillary Clinton. Despite the State Department email scandal, the Clinton Foundation “charity” scandal, and all the previous scandals from her earlier years and all the suspicious deaths associated with the Clintons that nobody remembers (or cares about) anymore, she still has a rather high favorability rating, including among Democrats in New Hampshire. Some people are saying that they will vote for Clinton because she is a woman, regardless of her corruption or her policies. But I have yet to hear about her having any fainting spells in recent months, as supposedly she has been having for several years because of her alleged brain related illness. I now don’t believe any such stuff that this Robert Morrow person has asserted about Hillary.

Bernie Sanders. I really don’t know what to say about him except that he is entertaining, especially with that accent. But in 2011 Sanders voted with 99 other U.S. Senators to impose sanctions on Iran. Sanctions against the civilian population of a foreign country are immoral, and as Ron Paul has pointed out, when a government imposes sanctions on another country, that is an act of war. More recently, in January Sanders voted with 99 others in the Senate for an amendment to be able to reimpose sanctions on Iran if Iran violates a nuclear deal. Therefore Bernie Sanders is a warmonger, in my view. He agrees with the tactic of targeting civilian populations as a means to certain desired ends. He also introduced the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction” Act of 2007. No need to comment on that, of course.

Ted Cruz. Cruz supports the Keystone XL Pipeline. If you believe in decentralization and private property rights, you probably don’t support that proposal. But if you believe in corporate cronyism, central planning and eminent domain, then Cruz is the guy for you.

When Cruz announced his campaign for President at the world’s largest Evangelical Christian university, Liberty University in Virginia (not his home state), and said “it is a time for liberty,” obviously he meant liberty for heterosexuals but not gays and lesbians. While Cruz criticized the “liberal fascism” targeting Christians, he himself is a fascist in his seeming to want to impose his own personal belief about marriage onto others, in my view. So his workaround that is his supporting “states’ rights” on the same-sex marriage issue. And also, while he talks about religious freedom, his views on marriage are mainly based on his religious beliefs. It seems to me that Cruz’s social views are in line with the Moral Majority, a group founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr.

Speaking of the Moral Majority, during the 1980s I recall several of those popular Christian televangelists expressing a yearning to “Christianize America,” including the Rev. Pat Robertson and the founder of that aforementioned Liberty University, Jerry Falwell, Sr. Those two especially were outspoken in their religious proselytism. However, it seems to me that the outspoken Christian activists of today, knowing that many more level-headed and liberal-minded people are very wary of such religious zealotry, are more cautious in their activism. For instance, Ted Cruz is very religious, obviously, in his Christianity but doesn’t actually say he wants to impose Biblical law into U.S. law as his father Rafael seems to advocate. So he is being more subtle than the Falwells and Robertsons of the 1980s, it seems to me. Thus far, I think that Ted Cruz probably agrees with Michele Bachmann, that Jesus is returning and all that. Bachmann stated recently, “We in our lifetimes potentially could see Jesus Christ returning to earth and the rapture of the church…” It’s that rapture thing, the End Times. She said that Americans are “embracing a pagan view,” which sounds a little like the kind of rhetoric we hear from Cruz. And Bachmann said, “Any nation that accepts God and (His) principles is blessed, and those who push away are cursed.” Now, I’m not saying that Ted Cruz believes in End Times (although he probably does) and that people are “pagans” whose private lives don’t jibe with how these Christians’ interpretations of the Bible say they ought to be. But I do think I’ve heard enough of Ted Cruz to believe that his thinking deep down probably is in agreement with Bachmann’s (and with millions of other Bible-believing Christians who agree with the philosophy of the late Jerry Falwell and “Christianizing America” — and it’s another good explanation of why Cruz is such a supporter of Israel, as Christian Zionists generally want to see Jews convert to Christianity in order to be “saved” when those End Times arrive). So, I don’t think I’ll be voting for Ted Cruz any time soon.

Mike Huckabee. Do we really have to deal with this goofball a second time around? That’s just as bad as Willard Romney for a second time.

Carly Fiorina. Another goofball. I think she’s really just a faux “private sector” businessperson. And she believes that the U.S. government should have a strong presence on other territories? So much for a devotion to free markets. And she’s a member of the “CIA External Advisory Board”? Yech.

Marco Rubio. On the subject of marijuana legalization, Rubio said, “I don’t believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you’re sending a message to young people is it can’t be that bad, because if it was that bad, it wouldn’t be legal.” Brilliant. (And he thinks that George W. Bush “did a fantastic job as President.” Great judgment! Perhaps “Marco Stupido” would be a better name…)

Rand Paul. I have written about him already. He is a disappointment, to say the least.

Ben Carson. Yesterday Chris Wallace interviewed retired neurotic surgeon Dr. Ben Carson. When Wallace asked Carson about his support for a flat tax, Carson answered, “Well, I like the idea of a proportional tax. That way you pay according to your ability.” Hmm, that sounds very Marxist, if you ask me. Of course the real answer is freedom, and abolishing the income tax and the IRS completely, and replacing it with nothing, as another medical doctor, Dr. Ron Paul has stated.

Carson also mentioned “making the government run more like a business,” which is impossible because government is not a business. Government is a system of monopolies of “services” including in the fields of security, health care, retirement schemes and other intrusions which the people are forced to have to use, participate in and fund involuntarily. No actual business forces its consumers to have to participate and fund involuntarily — if so, those “businesses” would be called rackets, and those who run them and enforce their orders on their “consumers” would be charged with racketeering, fraud, extortion, etc, etc. If you want to really “run government like a business,” then eliminate those bureaucracies completely, just close them all down immediately, and repeal any laws and regulations which interfere with any private individual or group’s endeavors in any field which they want to engage in production and labor to serve the consumers. That is the way it used to be before government bureaucrats and politicians seized control and usurped so many of what used to be private industries and fields.

For more on why you can’t run the government like a business, see Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Chris Rossini, and Robert P. Murphy.)

Well, that’s all for now. I hope there will be no more politicians announcing any run for President. I can only take so much of this.

“Public Servants Recognition Week”: Another Example of Amerika’s Stockholm Syndrome

This post by Becky Akers really cracked me up, on “Public Servants Recognition Week,” in which We the Sheeple are obligated to show thanks to the criminals who enslave and threaten our lives and livelihoods. And she quotes the narcissistic gigolo of the State Department John Kerry as saying that “public servants aren’t thanked often enough.”

Yes, for decades “public service” has no longer been when entrepreneurs and volunteers actually serve the public, but, in line with our modern societal decay and degenerate culture — much to do with the State’s usurping and seizing of just about every aspect of daily living — government “public servants” serve themselves to the public trough (and just about everything else the kleptocrats can get their filthy hands on). Hence why such an apparatus so easily attracts narcissists of Kerry’s ilk.

Another aspect of the narcissism of today’s “public servants” is how they impose themselves onto others or trespass into others’ lives, and criminally so such as with that CPS gestapo taking the kids in Kentucky recently. And many of these “servants” are the ones who expect their victims to thank them for their intrusions and criminality.

Another example of the narcissism of public “servants” is how the U.S. government has been starting wars of aggression against other countries and occupying their lands (such as Iraq in 1991 and Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001), and occupying with U.S. military bases those other territories they didn’t happen to attack (such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). Early this morning on WMEX radio I got another reminder of the typical American Exceptionalist in a syndicated talk host, Rebecca Costa, who was referring to Benghazi and U.S. embassies abroad, and that they (the people on those foreign lands) should be thankful for the U.S. embassies there. In another recent edition, Costa interviewed former New Mexico Governor and UN Ambassador Bill Richardson and she not only thanked him for his service but pretty much begged him to run for President, like America needs you now, Mr. Richardson. I thought I was going to toss my cookies. (Although he did run in 2008 and dropped out in January before any primaries. Perhaps she forgot.) But speaking of how foreigners should be thankful for U.S. governmental intrusions onto their lands, I wonder if she thinks the people of Iraq should be thankful that our military bombed the hell out of their country and ultimately caused the chaos, sharia law theocracy and ISIS the Iraqis enjoy there today. Perhaps the people of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia should thank our CIA for the drones murdering so many civilians on a daily basis as well.

And another example of Stockholm Syndrome-suffering sheeple was back in 2013 during the week after the Marathon bombing, in which hundreds and hundreds of police goons swarmed Watertown to look for a single teenage bomber, they pounded on residents’ doors, ordered residents at gunpoint to leave their homes while goons unconstitutionally searched their homes. The narcissistic government goons wouldn’t have acted so hysterically had the Marathon bombers not killed a fellow comrade-in-blue. But the Watertown sheeple were extremely thankful of their assailants and offenders’ trampling their rights and criminally trespassing in their homes.

Some More News and Commentary

Ed Bugos on shaking the shackles of collectivism.

Paul Joseph Watson writes about the Amerikan gestapo seizing 10 kids from an “off-grid” family in Kentucky. (William Grigg has more.)

John Whitehead writes about the cop culture vs. the Bill of Rights.

William Grigg discusses the differences between government police and private police.

David D’Amato says that the Rev. Al Shrapnel’s Progressivism is authoritarian nationalism.

Jeff Berwick describes how to de-monopolize (privatize) the government police.

Ron Paul says that the misleadingly titled USA Freedom Act ultimately amounts to lost liberty.

Michael Rozeff details the impossibility of narrowly targeted or pinpoint drone attacks.

Richard Ebeling discusses free trade benefits vs. fear of foreign goods.

Alex Newman believes that the establishment Press discredits itself with Jade Helm deceit.

Brendan Bordelon describes how five Republicans let Congress keep its fraudulent ObamaCare subsidies.

Tony Cartalucci says the Mohammad drawing contest and subsequent shooting was an “Operation Gladio,” Texas style.

Andrew Napolitano says, Restore the Fourth Amendment.

Michael Boldin on nullification.

Philip Giraldi on Obama’s unaccountable drone war.

Robert Wenzel shows how Bitcoin is going crony capitalist.

Laurence Vance on employment and a free society.

Mark Nestmann says, Get prepared for the government’s war on cash and possible $50 and $100 bill “recalls.”

Brandon Smith describes how the elites will wage war on America.

Robert Murphy asks, Is it okay to sell babies?

Eric Margolis on nothing learned from Vietnam War.

Ryan McMaken writes about the high cost of centrally planning the global climate.

Jacob Hornberger on Operation Jade Helm.

Eugene Volokh discusses “hate speech.”

And Chris Rossini on the dazed and confused Left.

On Pamela Geller and the Right to Offend Muslims and Everyone Else

Thanks to Pamela Geller, once again the talk shows are ablaze in their discussions on freedom of speech and what the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects and doesn’t protect. Even NPR talked about Geller’s recent publicity stunt in Garland, Texas, a contest for people to draw the Prophet Mohammad. Knowing how extreme some Muslims are in their intolerance of any criticism or satire of Mohammad or Islam, Geller seemed to want to push the envelope, almost as though she wanted to cause the shooting which occurred after the event, in which two self-radicalized jihadis were shot and killed by security personnel.

Sadly, there are some people who don’t understand the difference between words which are direct threats or provocations (e.g. “I’m going to shoot you,” etc., etc.) and words to criticize, mock, insult, or offend others (e.g. “Fat people should lose weight,” “Dom DeLouise is a fatso,” “Islam is extremely repressive,” “Israel oppresses Arabs,” “Jews are greedy,” “Christians are greedy,” etc., etc.). Those people are saying that Geller’s having such a Mohammad drawing contest, knowing that it would offend Muslims, can be considered a provocation or a “threat,” and so it shouldn’t be protected free speech.

From what I’ve heard so far, such attitudes are coming from the Left. However, during the 1980s many on the Left came to the defense of artist Andres Serrano when his disgusting “Piss Christ” was the controversy back then, and they defended the homoerotic and sadomasochistic artist Robert Mapplethorpe and his offensive works which sparked controversies around the same time. Oooh, the Christians and loud conservatives were up in arms over all that stuff, that’s for sure. But for the “liberals,” who now want to ban “hate speech,” the anti-Christian and sicko-sexual stuff is righto with them.

And there are others who can’t distinguish between mere words and actual physical actions. On one NPR show yesterday, On Point, a guest compared the Mohammad cartoon contest to throwing rocks in someone’s window. I couldn’t believe it. Apparently, some people are so thin-skinned they perceive some manner of speech or expression as being an actual physical action. Do they want to arrest and jail the offender, charged with assault or destruction of property? In Saudi Arabia, their rulers and minions behead those who are “blasphemers” and who “insult Islam” or Mohammad. Of course, Saudi Prince So-and-So obviously has direct communication with the Prophet Mohammad and knows for sure that the Prophet has been “insulted,” and so followers should act accordingly.

Some commenters have argued that Geller’s Mohammad drawing contest amounted to a form of “incitement.” She incited the jihadi fanatics to go over there to shoot up the place. No, not really. She may have provoked them or angered them, but because there is something called “free will,” those two wackos went over to the contest area and acted by their own free will. They deliberately chose to do that. The same goes for those accused of “inciting a riot,” by the way, such as Michael Brown’s stepfather in Ferguson who yelled at the crowd to “Burn this ***** down!” as though his speech had criminal responsibility for others’ subsequent acts of arson. No, only the rioters who set fire to cars or buildings — acting on their own free will — are responsible for their own acts, as Murray Rothbard noted.

Even the conservatives are confused on Geller’s right to hold whatever contest she wanted to have, regardless how offensive. While some conservative commentators such as Jeffrey Kuhner and Megyn Kelly have been defending Geller and Co.’s freedom of speech rights to hold that Mohammad-drawing contest, other conservatives (as well as people on the Left) such as those at National Review have been critical of the whole thing.

But while some conservatives defend the right to criticize Islam and “sharia law,” I wonder how many of them defend the right to criticize Israel. Not many. As I have noted before, criticizing Israel is to many people a blasphemous act, and such critics are immediately viewed as “anti-Semitic,” etc. That is because criticizing Israel is the epitome of “political incorrectness” in our modern, intolerant and ignorant Amerika. For instance, many conservatives protested the Metropolitan Opera’s performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (an opera based on the Palestinian terrorist hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro), and demanded that such performances be canceled. They referred to the opera as anti-Semitic or Jew-hating, which it was not, and as “glorifying terrorism,” which it didn’t. Obviously, these critics probably didn’t even see the opera but wanted to proudly show the world their ignorance. Does Pamela Geller defend the right of the Met to put on that opera? Hmmm.

But many of these same people who defend the right to criticize the entire religion of Islam and make fun of the Prophet Mohammad just cannot hear any criticism of Israel (and I mean the state of Israel to be specific, not the religion of Judaism). They probably wouldn’t like my bringing up what a generally racist society Israel is, as shown in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll. But we’re not allowed to say the truth about all that. Let’s all live in a world of myths about Israel, and if someone brings up the truth about it, label him “anti-Semite.” And we can’t talk about Israeli soldiers’ war crimes against Palestinian innocents, so that is why an organization called Breaking the Silence had to be created. Let’s stifle and bury the truth, so that the others won’t know about the sad truths of modern “civilization.”

So, I can’t criticize Israel because the Israel Firsters get all upset over it, and an opera can’t be performed so shut it down and don’t let opera-goers decide for themselves whether it’s “anti-Semitic.” And also — speaking of myths — I can’t express skepticism of so-called human-caused global warming or I’ll be called a “denier” in the same way that Holocaust-deniers are called “deniers,” even though we know the Nazi-perpetrated Jewish Holocaust really did occur, but human-caused global warming? Not so sure about that one. The warmists who rely on junk science and computer models but not actual empirical data want to actually throw in jail skeptics or those who disagree with them. They and the anti-Muslim collectivists seem too much like the witch hunters and Inquisitionists if you ask me. Can you people possibly evolve yourselves into the 21st Century? Ya think?

And of course there are those people who call you a racist if you criticize Obama, his fascist health plan a.k.a. ObamaCare, and all of Obama’s terrible policies that have nothing to do with his race but with his incompetence, corruption and criminality. But, because some people are so obsessed with race they really believe that such criticism of Obama = racism. And freedom of speech also means I can make fun of Obama’s alleged homosexuality (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and that he was an alleged Chicago bathhouse frequenter, just as I can make fun of Michelle Obama the food and nutrition buttinsky.

So I say good for Pamela Geller for in some way stimulating a renewed debate on freedom of speech vs. censorship, mere words vs. actual physical violence, for waking people up to the dangers of Islamic extremism and “sharia law” that’s hiding under our beds like the communists in the 1950s, even though she completely ignores (or supports) our own government’s starting wars of aggression overseas these past 25 years which have done nothing but provoke said Muslims to become jihadi fanatics and killers in the first place.

The Results of Venezuela’s Price Control Dictator

It appears that the loony leader of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, incapable of understanding the economic and humanitarian crises caused by the monetary, wage and price controls inflicted on innocent Venezuelans by their government, now wants to nationalize food distribution and at the same time raise the minimum wage even higher. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger pointed out,

Whenever the governing authorities pass laws requiring an owner or supplier to sell an item for less than the market price, the result will be a shortage. It’s just a law of economics. And contrary to what government officials throughout history have believed, no government can repeal a law of economics any more than it can repeal the law of gravity. The artificially low price has a twofold effect: it causes supplies to be withheld from the market and it induces people to consume more than they ordinarily would. There’s only one solution to the shortages and long lines: eliminate the price controls.

Hornberger also observed that in Cuba many Cubans were fearful of their existing government-imposed food rationing program being turned over to free markets, as though, despite the disastrous results of government-imposed food controls, private food distributors and producers couldn’t be trusted.

But just look at the situation here in the U.S: Except during times of certain weather-related events, for instance, when store shelves empty out rather quickly, you can find plenty of food and many varieties as well in every grocery store and convenience store throughout the country. That is because each producer from the farmers and manufacturers on down to the stores themselves, have the freedom to set their own prices based on the markets natural tendencies and the consumers’ choices and demands.

You see, the socialists have it backwards when they want to criminalize peaceful buying and selling. The real criminals are the bureaucrats and dictators who use their armed power to control trade and commerce, because such power-wielding criminally prevents consumers from getting the goods they need from the producers and distributors.

Despite Its Criminal Rulers, There Is Still Hope for Venezuela

Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar Orchestra performed the Concerto for Orchestra by Witold Lutoslawski in 2013, conducted by Joshua Dos Santos. Lutoslawski composed that work in the early 1950s. I find this to be a very impressive performance. It’s too bad that these young musicians live in such an oppressive society run by bureaucratic control freaks.

Martial Law Would Invite War Crimes to the U.S.

Laurence Vance writes that crimes of sexual assault in the U.S. military are under-reported, and that civilians are victims of these “heroic” men in uniform. That reminds me of an article I wrote a few years ago on Strike the Root on such matters. So, speaking of martial law as I wrote about in my previous post, I will repost that article right here.

Protecting Ourselves From the State

April 11, 2011

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

Every now and then, I learn of yet another new aspect of the State’s institutionalization of violence throughout what used to be a much more peaceful society in America. But thanks to the government-run schools, whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate the children to love and be subservient to the State, and thanks to a culture dependent on staring at the boob-tube for its daily hypnosis, we have allowed the State – especially the federal government – to grow to an enormous and dangerous extent, in which if we are to survive, we had better concentrate on stopping that out-of-control Leviathan.

To begin with, I am anguished by an article in this week’s Newsweek, The Military’s Secret Shame, describing how male-against-male sexual assault is now rampant in the U.S. military. According to the article, 50,000 male veterans had been diagnosed as suffering from “male sexual trauma” last year. However, the problem involving female sexual assault victims in the military is also rampant.

According to the Newsweek article, among U.S. military soldiers, “male-on-male assault…is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability.” Verbal and physical attacks now reported include those in which the assailants are throughout the chain of command, by soldiers against their fellow soldiers, as well as by superior officers. In one incident, for example, “a group of men tackled (a soldier), shoved a soda bottle into his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. When he reported the incident…his platoon sergeant told him, ‘You’re the problem. You’re the reason this is happening,’ and refused to take action. ‘You just feel trapped’…”

In another incident, according to the Newsweek article, a soldier “was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States. When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, ‘It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.’”

Now, if you are a commanding officer in the military and you were confronted by a soldier with such a complaint against other soldiers and you replied in the aforementioned manner, then shame on you. That kind of response by a military officer, supposedly in charge of a unit whose purpose is to “protect and defend” their fellow Americans, is a cowardly protection more of criminals than of fellow citizens. I have heard a few conservatives – those who blindly defend the military, anyway – refer to the Left as “criminal coddlers,” but it appears that the criminal coddlers are also in our military. I would go so far as to say that, not only should soldiers and officers who commit acts of physical assault against others be criminally prosecuted for those crimes of assault, but their commanding officers who ignore the complaints and who protect the assailants should be prosecuted for acting as accessories to those crimes.

In reading those responses by superior officers, “You’re the problem,” “It must have been your fault,” “You must have provoked them,” I am hearing mindless robots, hypnotized zombies in a trance. It is as though they had been given some sort of Military Instruction Manual in which the first instructions are, “The State is good,” “The soldier is bad, and needs to be disciplined, for his own good,” “Always obey authority,” “Submit,” “Yield to the power of the group,” and so on.

At least, that is how it sounds like our “warriors” are behaving. But these behaviors are truly un-American, certainly not ways that perhaps Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine would behave. Truly American principles include respect for the rights to life and liberty of the individual. Even within any police or military, it would be a truly American principle – and the law should reflect this – that one may not use aggression against the persons and property of others. In other societies, however, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, for example, the use of aggression against otherwise peaceful individuals is institutionalized in their laws or public policies, whether it be based on their religious principles, such as Sharia Law, or based on communistic policies that violate individuals’ persons and property.

But in America, in which violence now seems to be so part of the culture and within the military ranks, it’s just barbaric, and sick, and there’s no excuse for it. Should we be surprised to hear of military “Kill Teams,” etc., in which soldiers have been shooting and mutilating innocent civilians abroad and being celebrated by their fellow soldiers? Just how pervasive is this sick behavior within the ranks of this institution that we think will defend us when we’re attacked? There was one soldier within the notorious “Kill Team” unit who was shocked at the indifference amongst the unit toward the lives of their victims, and noted, “I talked to someone and they told me this stuff happens all the time…everyone just wants to kill people at any cost….” And, he wrote that, “The Army really let me down when I thought I would come out here to do good maybe make some change in this country I find out that its all a lie (sic)….”

There is an even more troubling aspect to all this. When seeing that Libyan leader Col. Gaddafi had turned his military against protesters, rebels and civilians, as well as other leaders doing the same thing in other countries such as in Bahrain, some commenters have suggested that such tyrannical violence could never happen here in the United States.

However, there already is precedence of that in America, so those who say “It can’t happen here” are incorrect. As economist and historian Thomas DiLorenzo has noted, during the mid-19th Century War to Prevent Southern Independence, President Abraham Lincoln’s army murdered hundreds of military conscription protestors in the North, and

“Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers…censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment….”

And all that was in addition to Lincoln’s army and its co-conspirators murdering tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians, mostly in the South.

More recently were the U.S. government’s siege and murders at Ruby Ridge, and the U.S. government’s mass murders at Waco in 1993. And of course, there are the countless murders and assaults by local police departments against unarmed, innocent Americans on a daily basis. And due to the increasing militarization of local police, we really ought to be concerned, especially given how commonplace it is that military veterans, including those with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, are joining police departments.

It seems that what used to be a genuine loyalty among Americans to our families and our country, and to the values of peace and liberty that were prevalent at the time of America’s founding, has gradually turned into a loyalty to the State, especially to the federal government. This blind loyalty and obedience to the State, in which the loyalists look the other way when authority figures act abusively against their own people, is at the heart of growing perversions within our society and our culture.

But given the rampant militarization and growing police statism in our society, this is the time that we will really need those courageous members of the police and military who are not afraid to act disobediently toward their superiors, especially if given orders to act violently against their fellow Americans. We must encourage those who are actually brave enough to stand up to authority to protect us from the government.

As Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has noted,

“Historically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed “patriotic” calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged…

“The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one — the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as “civil disobedience” — the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic…”

For those who think it is absurd that the government could ever turn against the citizens here in America, we already have those occurrences as part of our history. So when we are faced with not just an economic downturn but a crashing, defunct dollar, hyperinflation and widespread unemployment, impoverishment and food riots, and martial law, then that will be the time to be concerned about our own military and local police turning the guns on us. Now should be a good time to question the legitimacy of a standing army in the first place. For the past century, the U.S. military has been used not as a defense against foreign invaders on our shores and borders, but as aggressors, as the president’s own personal army, from Wilson’s “making the world safe for democracy” to Bush’s crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama’s reckless destruction in Pakistan and Libya. These statist presidents have made a mess of things, and if there were no organized military at their disposal, they couldn’t have caused so much worldwide damage.

But what are some ways out of this, ways for us – those of us who just want to live our lives peacefully – to prevent our persons and property from getting abused and violated by people who would brutally kill and mutilate unarmed civilians at whim, who would gang rape their fellow comrades for the sake of exercising their lust for power? In fact, how could we possibly expect those with assigned armed officialdom and authority to protect us from criminals and foreign invaders if the officials show themselves to be harmful even to each other? We certainly can’t rely on the State for protection after all, given that these are agents of the State. There isn’t even anything that the “good” agents of the State, such as Ron Paul, can do, because the population in general has become such obedient defenders of the State and its violence, and the political class and its army of bureaucrats – military and otherwise – have become just too entrenched.

One way to prevent the possible horrors that, if the current trends continue, are inevitable, is through secession. The states need to secede from the federal government and declare their independence and sovereignty. I know there are some who believe that such attempts toward independence would merely replace federal government control with state government control, in which our lives and property would still be under the territorial compulsory control of state government. However, once the people of the states have unshackled the oppressive tyranny of the centralized federal regime in Washington, they can then work to get rid of their state’s government, and give cities and towns more local independence and sovereignty, and so on.

Unfortunately, the above possibility still does not seem to be a possibility, because too many people are fixated on trying to get the agents of the State to do the seceding, such as through state legislatures drafting one useless secession legislation after another. Such a prospective way toward freedom is just not realistic.

What is necessary is for the inhabitants of these U.S. territories to engage in non-compliance in the way of non-violent civil disobedience. The most necessary acts of civil disobedience will be those members of the police and military to not follow orders by their superiors, orders of actions that such officers know deep down are immoral and that they know they should not obey.

Other acts of civil disobedience that may be necessary in the possible coming days of the federal government’s crackdown on our liberty include acts in the medical area, in energy and in the judicial area.

Private doctors and patients, clinics and insurers, and other medical providers need to totally disregard all arbitrary federal and state laws and regulations that violate their inalienable rights of voluntary contract and medical privacy. The more that government has intruded into our medical matters, the more tyrannical it has become.

The people of the states, especially private land owners, need to ignore all environmental and energy-related federal and state laws and regulations, and begin exploring for natural resources for their energy needs. Obviously, the compulsory dependence on government’s control over our energy needs was never a good idea. The federal government continuously acts aggressively abroad, provokes foreigners, and will no doubt cause another oil embargo against the U.S. These imperialistic military campaigns are what have fueled the aforementioned growing sickness of rape and barbaric behaviors within the military, as well as the militarization of local police departments.

Also, private citizens need to set up their own private judicial decision-making services, as described in economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Private Law, as an alternative to the current self-serving, State-mandated judicial monopoly.

If Barack Obama, U.S. governors and local authorities send the military, National Guard and police after such non-violent yet civilly-disobedient, peaceful Americans, these violent authoritarian actions should be seen as the true criminal actions. It is certainly not criminal when peaceful citizens engage in voluntary associations that harm no one. Except that such good people are not showing obedience to the State, and that’s the bottom line.

It is for all these reasons that Americans needs to work on persuading their members of local police forces, as well as local military vets, of the true, criminal nature of the State and why they – the local police and military agents – should themselves disobey orders given to them by the government.

What Are U.S. Military and Local Law Enforcement Preparing For?

Infowars has this post with quite a few videos of multitudes of military vehicles, tanks and equipment being transported by rail along several western U.S. states, in preparation for so-called Operation Jade Helm, a combined local law enforcement/U.S. military drill set for July 15- September 15, to train for riot control, apparently. However, this article reports that some people view concerns being raised in the communities in which such drills will take place, are really “conspiracy theories” and are out of “paranoia.” Some people think that the feds are preparing for “something big,” and that besides civil unrest and rioting there may in fact be martial law. Further, the Inquisitr article says that some people see a connection to recent closings of large Wal-mart stores as related to all this, and that the stores are to be used for “military supply depots” and to “process civilians” to move them to “FEMA camps,” etc., etc. I knew that there have been really stupid, waste-of-time terrorism drills going on, and that many local and federal bureaucrat enforcers have been much more out of control than usual since 9/11.

I really don’t know just how legitimate the concern is that there will be martial law in the U.S. However, can there have possibly been some sort of ulterior motive (or order) for the mayor of Baltimore to tell the local police to “stand down” and let rioters assault officers and commit criminal acts of looting and arson? Was she acting on orders of Obama or his minions? And if so, is there some sort of agenda going on for the feds (and military) to take over local law enforcement throughout the country? Now, I’m only asking, not particularly suggesting.

I have written in this article on martial law why it would be criminal and unconstitutional for any U.S. military to obey unlawful orders to either arrest or detain someone who isn’t suspected of criminal activity. (Although in that article I didn’t mention the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it unlawful for the feds to use U.S. military in local law enforcement. That Act was amended in 2006 by Congress under President George W. Bush to allow such use of U.S. military; however, such changes were repealed in 2008, thank God. Then Obama signed the NDAA which did give the U.S. military the power to arrest and detain indefinitely any American suspected but not convicted of joining al Qaeda or the Taliban, a law which is still on the books.)

So if you are a U.S. military soldier or officer (or local law enforcement officer for that matter) who has sworn to obey the U.S. Constitution, remember that the Constitution includes the Bill of Rights. And if any U.S. President or other superior officer orders you do something to a civilian which violates that individual’s rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution, that order will be an unlawful order which you really are legally, constitutionally and morally obligated to disobey.

Free Lives Matter

Here is my latest article on, Free Lives Matter.

May 2, 2015

The recent situations involving racial tensions, police criminality and violence in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere have solutions just waiting to be implemented. And those solutions involve freedom, believe it or not.

For example, if free lives actually did matter, it is doubtful that a government’s monopoly over policing and security could be justified. The same could be said for restrictions on the right to self-defense.

When free lives matter, there would not be white police shooting and killing black victims, because anyone involved in community policing or security would be civilians, either as paid workers or volunteers. No one would have any artificial legal authority over anyone else, and each individual is accountable for one’s own actions. No one would be above the law as currently government police are.

Further, with no restrictions on the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, if white security officers were seen in the process of beating, assaulting or shooting non-resisting presumably innocent people, such security thugs would be gunned down by the neighbors. Currently, civilians would be arrested or probably killed if they might act to protect innocent victims of the brutality of government-monopolized police.

There would also be no such thing as “stop and frisk.” In New York City the NYPD have been forced by court orders to “reform” such a practice of stopping mainly black and Hispanic people without reasonable suspicion and frisking and searching them.

Can you imagine civilians just going around and ordering others to stop and then forcibly frisking and searching them? (But then, there would be fewer young people just hanging around that police currently want to search, as government bureaucrats wouldn’t be causing the elimination of entry-level or low-skill jobs available for the young people to have. But I digress.)

And in a situation such as the Baltimore protests which turned violent recently, there would be no order on security people to “stand down,” in which the Baltimore government police were ordered by the mayor to “retreat” and to let the rioters loot and burn down buildings. In contrast in which free lives matter, any resident or business owner has the freedom to use any means necessary to protect one’s family or business and livelihood from looters, arsonists and thugs, and to use deadly force if necessary. Any mayor who would disarm the people or otherwise make them defenseless would be impeached! And it would not matter what anyone’s skin color is.

So with any groups or individuals considering going well beyond just protesting recent government police killings of black civilians, the would-be looters or arsonists would know that store owners and employees probably have firearms and will use them.

In the society in which free lives matter, there would be no “knock-out game,” as the would-be knock-out goon would know that anyone nearby could possess a firearm, and so it wouldn’t be worth the coward’s risk to strike out and punch some anonymous victim.

Also, with no government monopoly over policing and security, that would also mean that without government “law enforcement officers,” all the laws on the books that have nothing to do with preventing aggression, theft and fraud would have to be completely repealed. All laws which pertain to victimless so-called “crimes” would be repealed. Yay, freedom!

And no more drug raids at the wrong house. (No more drug raids at the right house, either.)

No more drug raids, period. No more innocent people being shot and maimed or murdered by government police, no more innocent dogs being shot and maimed or murdered by government police. Can you believe that?

So besides self-defense freedom in which police socialism is ended and there is no government monopoly in community policing and security, there would be no such thing as victimless “crimes,” no drug war.

And in a society in which free lives matter, there would be no bureaucrats’ war on entrepreneurs and workers, no “minimum wage” forcibly imposed by parasites, no other business regulations which turn innocent producers and workers into “criminals” for not obeying bureaucrats’ despotic and tyrannical orders and red tape. Thus many more jobs would spring up all around, and any younger people of any race in the city or suburbs can start a business as well as find jobs of their choosing and opportunities abound. No more hanging around at the mall, no more involvement in drugs, and no more resentment toward society.

In the society in which free lives matter, no more Fergusons, no more Baltimores, and, one would hope, no more civil unrest. But most important, no more police state. Now that’s something to look forward to, in my view.

More News and Commentary

Joe Wolverton writes about a poll which indicates that a majority of Americans are fine with the government’s removal of due process to kill those the government labels “terrorists.” (Remember, the government is Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton. Due process? They never heard of it.)

Andrew Napolitano also writes about dictator Obama’s tyranny of one man’s opinion.

Jeff Jacoby discusses the censorship inquisitions in Baltimore, and with gay activists, and elsewhere.

James Bovard on the “low information experts” such as Jonathan Gruber: ObamaCare racketeering and intellectual knavery.

Sheldon Richman has some personal reflections about avoiding Vietnam without regrets.

Justin Raimondo with some lessons of the Vietnam War.

Jacob Hornberger says that Vietnam was no business of the U.S. government.

And Jim Davies reviews Jacob Hornberger’s book, Regime Change: The JFK Assassination.