Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

The Left’s Totalitarianism vs. Liberty

With all the Obama Administration’s power grabs and the media’s manipulations, one can now get a clear picture of the left’s true totalitarianism, while in some ways, the conservatives have become the new liberals. Through the Tea Parties and other renewed activism, the conservatives protest the increasing government intrusions into our daily lives as the leftists build their totalitarian centralized State in Washington.

While the left are true authoritarians in their political agenda of total State power, it is really many conservatives who are “liberal” in the conservatives’ and Tea Party movement’s advocating less State power and authority over our lives and fewer State intrusions into our privacy and businesses. It is the conservatives who want to liberate us from the serfdom of the left’s medical, financial and otherwise State intrusions.

If only the conservatives and Tea Partiers could step back and see that there isn’t really much difference between the growth of the centralized security bureaucracy-military socialism and the growth of the left’s domestic social bureaucracy and usurpation of control over every aspect of our daily lives. If only the Tea Partiers could let go of their worship of the Leviathan State security bureaucracy that has made America less safe.

But here I want to address the deceit and totalitarian intentions of the left. The recent JournoList emails disclosure by the Daily Caller is but one small demonstration of the left’s true intentions. Journalism used to be a profession in which the truth was to be uncovered and told. We are now seeing how the left’s suppression of the truth comes from their mystical worship of the State.

As the Daily Caller has exposed, the JournoLists schemed to manipulate their news coverage in 2008 to deliberately suppress stories about then-candidate Barack Obama, such as his relationship with the hate-emitting Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as part of those reporters’ way to manipulate voters’ opinion of Obama and affect the election, which the reporters did accomplish.

The left can be harshly yet accurately characterized primarily as immature adolescent punks. More specific Freudian analysis could cause people to ponder whether the reason the news and entertainment media trashed Sarah Palin so much in 2008 and afterwards was that those leftists hate their mothers. But we’ll leave that for the psychoanalysts out there to consider.

Also in recent years the left’s being anti-authority has been a misdiagnosis. Like the conservatives, in the left’s love of their god, the State, the left love the authority of the State, they revere the State, and they merge their identities with State power, à la George Orwell’s novel 1984.

They just loathe traditional authority in the context of the family, the church and in communities, or, what economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe has described as “natural” authorities. And frankly, I think that deep down, the conservatives’ rhetoric of favoring family and church authority above the State has been just rhetoric (to get votes). The conservatives, too, revere the State as a god.

The left’s agenda is not one of “love and compassion,” as their rhetoric tends to proclaim. If they were compassionate toward others and loved their neighbors, the left would not support policies of government theft and trespass against their neighbors, policies of intrusions into the private property, homes, businesses and private lives of others. Were the left friends of the poor and disadvantaged, they would not advocate one government mandate, tax and regulation after another that restricts those at the bottom from entering various fields of endeavor.

The left just isn’t a friend of equal opportunity, freedom of association, voluntary exchange, and the sovereignty of the individual. The left consists of collectivists who love the democratic way of majority rule as a means of empowering groups and gangs against the individual. Their philosophy is totally contrary to that of the American Founders.

And the use of deceit exemplified by the JournoList emails is pervasive among the left, not just within the journalism guild but in a whole range of activities in which a leftist agenda is prevalent, including academia, pop culture and government. Only months ago we witnessed how Congress rushed through a massive health care bill without much debate. The mainstream press did not inform the public of what exactly the conniving politicians were up to – the role of informing the masses was taken up by conservative and libertarian talk radio and blogs, and members of the Tea Party movement. The destructive financial regulatory bill was also rushed through Congress deceitfully, and all these acts of legislative shakedowns and swindling are inherent in the left’s agenda.

A few months ago, Hot Air published a lengthy article by former ACORN employee turned whistleblower Anita Moncrief detailing ACORN’s true agenda of “stealth socialism,” and the true tactics of ACORN following the Saul Alinsky method of how the Have-Nots can take power (i.e. wealth and property) away from the Haves. America has already been a socialist society especially since the New Deal.

Communism is State ownership and control of industry, wealth and property. We have seen before our very eyes that once-stealth and now direct and blatant agenda in Obama’s taking over whole industries including much of the auto industry, the medical industry and the banking and financial industries.

And after all the federal takeovers, usurpations and power grabs by the Bush Administration in the name of “national security,” I put them in the same category of implementing State ownership of not just security related industries, but our what had been an otherwise inherent right of self defense. And I am not one to put the Bush bunch on the right, either.

It just seems that so many on the left hate individual liberty, individual responsibility and independence. We have seen the inherent dishonesty and immorality of communism, combined with the deceit and shenanigans used to promote and implement such a wretched scheme. In contrast, those of us who advocate restoring the sanctity of private property rights and freedom of association call for not “stealth” and indirect, but direct and aboveboard the outright dismantling of all the intrusive laws, regulations and extortionist policies the Big Government leftists have put into place this past century. And this especially includes ending all confiscatory taxation, because it is nothing but theft.

It comes down to this: either the individual has a right to the reward and compensation for one’s labor, as agreed to with mutually consenting traders (employer, contractor, client, buyer, etc.) or one does not. Either the individual has an inalienable right to one’s life, one’s person, one’s labor (initially) or one does not have that right and is therefore obligated to be a servant for others by compulsion, for the collective, the community, the State.

And it really is either/or. There’s no in between, no compromise. You either have Liberty or you have serfdom. Liberty is the right to be free from the aggression of others. Serfdom is a state in which others may use aggression against you to take what they want, particularly the rewards and compensation for your labor.

There is a problem when you allow any institution — in this case the State — and its agents to have the power of compulsion over others. It is immoral to allow someone to have the power of compulsion over someone else. That is what we have had for many decades in America. Because when one does that, one is contradicting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and one is saying that all men are NOT equal, that some are above the law, and that all individuals do NOT have inalienable rights to life and liberty, and that it is permissible for some people to commit acts of aggression, theft and trespass against others.

When you allow some people to have that power of compulsion over others, the power to commit aggression, theft and trespass against others as we have in America for many decades, then those who are given positions of power will abuse it. And that’s simply because of human nature. Whether they be national security power grabbers or domestic social welfare power grabbers, the power will be abused, and it has and will continue to be abused. That is why the American Founding Fathers were skeptical of the State, and their words of experience and wisdom had stopped being taken seriously (except by only a handful of people per generation) since their time.

People just believe their lying leaders and promisers of better times ahead, because they want to believe them.

Don’t believe them.

Liberty Is the American Way

Well, the gay marriage issue is in the news again, and, the morality ignoramuses are at it again, using solely emotional arguments and not reason. I can’t believe we are still having these discussions in the 21st Century. Some people are stuck in the 11th Century, and believe that the armed power of the State should be used to enforce a particular moral view on others.

First, let me get this out of the way. I personally believe that opposite-sex marriage should be encouraged in society. I happen to be in the category of cultural conservatism, and also believe that parents should discourage their teenage kids from becoming sexually active at too young an age, that schools should not be involved in condoms distribution nor any sex education at all — that’s for families. I actually believe in monogamy and that extra-marital sex is not healthy, and if you want sex outside of your marriage, get a divorce.

I can’t believe some of the things I heard Michael Savage saying on his show last night, given how intelligent, educated and sophisticated he is in his views (when he’s not yelling and screaming, of course). Savage stated that homosexual marriage “mocks real marriage.” He was referring to opposite-sex marriage as a “time-honored” “sacred institution,” which he said the State was “obligated to protect.”

No, the State is not obligated to protect “sacred institutions,” because sacred institutions are subjective. The State is obligated to protect Liberty. That was the intent behind the American Founders’ creating government. (Well intended, but their creation was flawed.) Savage’s views are largely collectivist in nature, as he apparently believes that a community has a right to use the power of the State to force a majority’s views onto the individual. Savage was speaking in praise of the ballot box. The Founders had the opposite view: the State is intended to be there to protect the individual from the majority (which is illogical, and doesn’t work).

The issue here is a matter of contracts. The marital contract is a contract in which certain parties agree on terms and sign the contract. It is the business of those parties involved — it is no one else’s business. It is none of the neighbors’ business, none of the State’s business. The terms of the contract between mutually consenting and agreeable parties are none of anyone else’s business. In America, people have a right to go about their lives and be left alone. That’s the American way.

So, what are you going to do if some homosexuals write up a contract and sign their names to it, committing themselves to a life-long marriage, even though the State has come up with a law that forbids them to do that? Throw them in jail? THAT’s immoral! Talk about morality! Savage was also bringing up the Bible as part of his solely emotional arguments. I believe that God agrees with the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Individuals have a right to live their lives and be free of intrusions by others especially the armed State, as long as individuals themselves are not intrusive on others.

Unfortunately, some people believe that, while homosexuals being married and living their lives peacefully and while not being intrusive on any other actual people, their private relationship is intrusive on the “institution of marriage,” as Savage suggests. The Declaration doesn’t mention that social institutions such as marriage have a right to be free from “intrusions,” only human beings have those rights. These arguments that treat social concepts as actual living beings and with rights are just irrational arguments, based solely on emotion.

Incidentally, a similar emotional argument is being made in opposition to the so-called mosque proposed for New York City. Many people opposed are saying that such a center would “offend” survivors and family members of 9/11 victims, and “hurt their feelings.” I feel for the victims and families who would be upset about something like the proposed mosque, but there have been plenty of times in America in which the armed power of the State was used to stop certain projects from being built on private property because neighbors were offended. But the neighbors don’t own the property — that’s the bottom line. People who want to prevent something from going up in a certain area would really have to put their funds together and buy the property. That’s the American way.

That Reckless Protection Racket of Military Socialism and Fascism

August 3, 2010

© 2010 (Link to article)

In previous articles, I have referred to military socialism while others have referred to the military industrial complex, and some of these descriptions need to be clarified for a better understanding of the dysfunctional nature of the U.S. government’s national security monopoly, and an alternative must be presented.

The Washington Post recently published a series of articles with the title, Top Secret America, regarding how out of control our federal government’s national security Leviathan has become, and how much the centralized bureaucratic Leviathan depends on private contractors. The series by investigative reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin was in three parts (Part 1, Part 2, and Part3). In the same week, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks released a massive number of documents revealing much of what has already been known about the U.S. government’s failing war in Afghanistan. According to Priest and Arkin of the Post:

  • Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States…
  • In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001…Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

As the Washington Post series notes, “Private firms have become so thoroughly entwined with the government’s most sensitive activities that without them important military and intelligence missions would have to cease or would be jeopardized.” The Post provides a list of the private contractors.

In response to the Post series, economist Robert Higgs noted:

The whole business is akin to sending a blind person to find a needle inside a maze buried somewhere in a hillside. That the massive effort is utterly uncoordinated and scarcely able to communicate one part’s “findings” to another only strengthens the conclusion that the goal is not stopping terrorism, but getting the taxpayers’ money and putting it into privileged pockets….

It’s a rip-off, plain and simple…

Now, socialism can be described as public ownership of property and wealth, and redistribution of wealth, administered by the State. And fascism is State control of private property and industry, and also includes an enmeshment between private businesses and the State. Under either socialism or fascism, the tasks of territorial protection have been monopolized by the State, whereas in an actual capitalist system, which America has never actually experienced, the tasks of territorial protection would be performed by competing agencies and would not be restricted or interfered with by the State.

Prof. Higgs had written an article in 2007 on military-economic fascism, which he claims is worse than military-economic socialism.

In the latter, the people are oppressed, because they are taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the “dark side.”

With military-economic fascism, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it: advisory committees, such as the Defense Science Board and the Defense Policy Board and university administrators meet regularly with Pentagon officials… and the revolving door spins furiously – according to a September 2002 report, “[t]hirty-two major Bush appointees are former executives, consultants, or major shareholders of top weapons contractors”…and a much greater number cross the line at lower levels.

Moreover, military-economic fascism, by empowering and enriching wealthy, intelligent, and influential members of the public, removes them from the ranks of potential opponents and resisters of the state and thereby helps to perpetuate the state’s existence and its intrinsic class exploitation of people outside the state. Thus, military-economic fascism simultaneously strengthens the state and weakens civil society, even as it creates the illusion of a vibrant private sector patriotically engaged in supplying goods and services to the heroic military establishment (the Boeing Company’s slickly produced television ads, among others, splendidly illustrate this propagandistically encouraged illusion).

Whether it is military socialism or military fascism, or whether these private contractors are pathologically enmeshed with the U.S. government, it is made possible by forced redistribution of wealth, pure and simple, and it is not a productive service of security.

Another aspect of the State’s monopoly of territorial protection is “military Keynesianism,” as Prof. Higgs has also discussed. Keynesian economists and policy makers believe in deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. Keynesians love war and Big Military Socialism/Fascism. George W. Bush’s starting two wars sure stimulated the economies of many private defense contractors and government employees. Barack Obama’s policies are Keynesianism on steroids.

Those kinds of policies are named after John Maynard Keynes, whose economic ideas of short-sightedness (“In the long run, we’re all dead…”) and irresponsibility, and selfish disregard for the welfare of future generations, is what got all the world’s economies in the mess we’re currently in.

Contrary to the American Founders’ blueprint for societal progress and upward mobility through individual liberty, freedom of association and private property, Keynes’s blueprint was for downward mobility and societal deterioration through collective covetous theft of private property and wealth.

The underlying condition that has caused the corruption, ineptness and the State’s ever-expanding collusions with private businesses is the U.S. government’s monopoly in territorial protection, in which the State monopolist has no competitive incentive to actually provide quality of protection services.

Because of being institutionalized monopolists, the bureaucrats in Washington could not recognize or would not acknowledge the terrorists’ actual motivation for their terrorism, as expressed by the terrorists themselves, that motivation being the U.S. government’s intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories for at least six decades.

Those intrusions include the CIA’s overthrowing Iran’s leader and replacing him with a brutal dictatorial regime for 25 years, the U.S. government’s (and private U.S. companies’) involvement in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and the U.S. government’s war and sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, all of which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. For decades, the only actual accomplishments of these intrusions by the U.S. government have been to inflame anti-American hatred throughout the Middle East. And all that was before 9/11/01, and before all the death and destruction the U.S. government has caused in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11.

But typical of government bureaucrats and monopolists of the protection racket they control, the answer to the problem of the terrorism that was motivated by U.S. government’s intrusions was to commit more intrusions in the Middle East.

Now, regarding the use of private contractors, the Washington Post article uses the phrase, “privatization of national security,” which really isn’t the privatization of national security, because the State is still in control of it all, and the funding of such private interests is not by voluntary contract, but by compulsory taxation.

Only a monopolist of territorial protection would do the stupid things that the socialist/fascist U.S. government officials have been doing for these past many decades. The alternative to such counter-productive policies and redistribution parasitism is to outlaw the State’s protection racket and legalize competitive protection agencies. It is not as far-fetched as it may sound. In their book, The Market for Liberty, ch.13, authors Morris and Linda Tannehill note,

Those who doubt that “the private sector” of the economy could sustain the expense of a free enterprise defense system would do well to consider two facts. First, “the public sector” gets its money from the same source as does “the private sector” – the wealth produced by individuals. The difference is that “the public sector” takes this wealth by force (which is legal robbery) – but it does not thereby have access to a larger pool of resources. On the contrary, by draining the economy by taxation and hobbling it with restrictions, the government actually diminishes the total supply of available resources.

Second, government, because of what it is, makes defense far more expensive than it ought to be. The gross inefficiency and waste common to a coercive monopoly, which gathers its revenues by force and fears no competition, skyrocket costs. Furthermore, the insatiable desire of politicians and bureaucrats to exercise power in every remote corner of the world multiplies expensive armies, whose main effect is to commit aggressions and provoke wars. The question is not whether “the private sector” can afford the cost of defending individuals but how much longer individuals can afford the fearsome and dangerous cost of coerced governmental “defense” (which is, in reality, defense of the government, for the government…by the citizens).

In fact, it is inevitable that the protection racket monopolist will provoke hostilities as a means of expanding the monopolist’s own power, made possible by the monopoly’s compulsory nature on the territory’s inhabitants.

However, you won’t find a private security firm starting a war against Iraq in 1990 as then-President George H.W. Bush did, or deliberately getting one’s clients involved in other people’s conflicts, because that would make one’s protection clients more vulnerable to external hostilities. A private security firm would not have deliberately lured the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, and a private security firm would not have put its employees in harm’s way in Vietnam, or used deceit and emotional rhetoric to get his clients to agree to invade Iraq a second time as the younger George Bush did.

After the federal monopolists of protection have been destroying Iraq for 20 years, and Afghanistan for 8½ years, and Pakistan now, as well as impoverishing America and burning our Liberty to the ground, Iran is next, and for no good reason.

We will soon see if Americans really are masochistic gluttons for punishment and whether they will support yet another unnecessary campaign of wanton aggression, this time against Iran and based on the same emotionalistic propaganda that sucked America into Afghanistan and Iraq, and if Americans will support even more U.S. government murder of innocent human beings and destruction of foreign territories. Remember the old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” (Or 3 or 4 times now. Or is it 6 or 7 – I’ve lost count.)

Not only have the Anti-Federalists been proven right about the dangers of a centralized national State, but, given how ineffective and counter-productive a socialist and fascist State monopoly of territorial protection has been, as the Washington Post series and the WikiLeaks disclosures have shown, we now have good reason to decentralize America and cut the chains of serfdom, dependence and government-institutionalized impoverishment.

Glenn Beck Is Right About Obama on This One

Some bloggers, such as Juan Cole, and Media Matters and news media elites have been making fun of or criticizing Glenn Beck for Beck’s implying that Obama might be planning to assassinate Tea Partiers, or others being falsely labeled as “militants,” “extremists,” etc. by the Obama Administration, and described by the DC rulers as  “threat” or as “terrorists.” Well, a lot of people either don’t know their history, just from this past century, the history of any regime anywhere in the world that has been a communist or otherwise all-powerful State regime, or they just don’t care. I have written about why the Tea Partiers should be concerned here. And yes, we do have reason to be concerned.

Here are the facts:

  • Obama has given himself extended executive powers, including the power to apprehend and detain indefinitely and assassinate anyone anywhere in the world, including Americans, that Obama and his CIA and other U.S. agents have determined are “terrorists,” or otherwise a threat, without due process, without trial, and even without any formal actual suspicion of a specific individual. The Bush Administration knowingly swept up masses of innocent individuals randomly and without suspicion and held them including torturing them at Gitmo and other areas. As long as agents of the mighty U.S. State have accused someone of something, that’s good enough.
  • Obama has taken over whole industries, including much of the U.S. automobile industry, the health care industry, and now the financial industry. He’s a socialist, a fascist, and a communist.
  • The Obama Administration consists of like-minded individuals such as Elena Kagan, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holster, all of whom approve of Obama’s extended, strengthened dictatorial executive powers, including silencing talk radio, shutting down the Internet and especially censoring bloggers and other sources who are critical of the little Marxist dictator in the White House.

All you have to do is study the history of just the last century, and how the leaders of the major regimes –democratic or communist (same thing) — such as Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, FDR, etc. treated people in their own countries, and just look at Obama’s past relationships with people such as Bill Ayers and Obama’s following of the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals and you would understand what I’m talking about.

Unless, of course, you agree with Obama, and agree that the centralized State in DC should be as strong and powerful as possible and that the people should be serfs for the State, and people who question the authority of the State and criticize it should be “taken care of.”

Politics or Principle

July 24, 2010

Copyright © 2010 by  Link to this article at

“Politics or Principle” was the theme of Congressman Ron Paul’s farewell speech in 1984 and of his two presidential campaigns. Advocating the principle of Liberty is the theme of those in the libertarian school of thought, including the American Revolutionaries and Founders, who advocated individual freedom, private property rights, and freedom of association and voluntary contract. Throughout history, the State has been Liberty’s most egregious violator.

As sociologist and economist Franz Oppenheimer noted in his book, The State, there are two forms of sustenance: first, through one’s honest productive activity and voluntary exchange with others, or the economic means; and second, through theft and violence, the force and coercion of the State, or the political means. For that is what politics is: the aggression of the State, which is why the State’s actions can never be principled.

The Founders’ Declaration of Independence is probably one of the most succinct documents declaring that the rights to life, liberty and property are inherent among all individuals. The Constitution, however, assigned to a federal government one monopolistic power after another, and gave to centralized bureaucrats in Washington the power of compulsion over their fellow Americans. Such a restrictive monopoly and that power of compulsion contradicted the very rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration declares the principles of Liberty, but the Constitution is the politics and power of the aggressive, parasitic State.

One thing I don’t understand is how the Tea Party movement, which supposedly supports limited government and moral values, nevertheless supports the U.S. government’s Leviathan bureaucratic military socialism, its foreign interventionism, and wars with indiscriminate murder of innocent human beings and destruction of whole societies abroad. Unfortunately, the Tea Party movement includes those military interventionist conservatives who partake in the mysticism of the State as a god, and cannot see that State interventionism into foreign lands is just as immoral as domestic State interventionism.

But any form of theft, trespass and murder, is immoral, period.

The Constitutionally mandated dependence of Americans on the socialist planning of centralized federal bureaucracy with a monopoly of territorial protection has turned the principle of self-defense into a parasitic political phenomenon. Such a monopoly has enabled politicians and bureaucrats to further a career in bureaucracy and power at the expense of Liberty, and has caused deterioration in quality of territorial protection.

But there is something about human nature that causes so many people to abandon principle when given a position of State power. The State is the only institution with the power to be above the Rule of Law. Agents of the State may commit theft and robbery through taxation, and may trespass and there is nothing any individual can do about it. It’s not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for America.

Two examples of how people who may have had potential in advancing Liberty and helping their fellow Americans through voluntary means, but instead have chosen the path of politics and the coercive apparatus of the State, are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

During the earlier part of his pre-political career as a capital investment executive, Romney was extremely frugal with funds and careful not to take big risks “with other people’s money,” to such an extent that his firm Bain Capital hardly made any investments. He would seem to be the ideal candidate for many Americans, particularly conservatives, to help solve the nation’s financial crises. But not unlike most politicians, former business executives and otherwise, Romney seemed to change as shown by his decisions as governor of Massachusetts.

Perhaps Romney’s worst deed was RomneyCare, the health care bureaucracy and mandates he installed in his last year as governor. Given his expertise as an entrepreneur and capital investor, and his knowledge of how markets work, one would think that Romney would instinctively know that more government intrusions are the cause of our medical system’s dysfunction and not the cure.

Or perhaps he did know. Politicians oftentimes compromise principle for the sake of political strategy. At the time of his signing RomneyCare into law, mid-2006, it was widely speculated that then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton would be running for president in 2008, as well as Romney. Clinton’s own 1993 proposals for nationalized health care would be quite useful to compare to a Republican’s own proposals or policies.

For perhaps a better explanation of his record of government expansion and apparent attraction to the power of the State, it needs to be noted that Mitt Romney grew up in a very political family. His mother Lenore Romney had been a candidate for public office, and his father George Romney was a lobbyist in Washington for the aluminum industry and the automobile industry, and, as governor of Michigan for 8 years, George was credited (or blamed) for his instituting the state’s first state income tax, and greatly expanding state government. George Romney bitterly opposed Barry Goldwater for the Republican nomination for president in 1964. Mitt Romney seemed to follow in his father’s footsteps in advocating more government interventions and intrusions, not fewer, into private economic affairs.

During his last 365 days as governor until January 2007, Romney spent over 200 of those days traveling outside of Massachusetts, “testing the waters” for a 2008 presidential bid. During that last year of Romney’s gubernatorial tenure, many of the duties of governor were taken up by Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who was running her own failed campaign for governor. You would think that Romney would resign as governor to run his presidential campaign, but this is politics, after all. The political “public sector” inherently discourages its employees from maintaining a consistent job attendance.

And what does it say about someone such as Romney who spends $40 million of his own wealth on a presidential campaign, only to lose to the competition? It is doubtful that he or anyone would spend so much money to be hired as a CEO of even the most prestigious private firm. But that just shows the extent to which some people will go to achieve political power.

Sarah Palin is one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, but her endorsements in 2010 have not all been for Tea Party conservatives. Palin, who supposedly advocates small, less intrusive government, low taxes and low government spending, and traditional moral values, endorsed for reelection Big Government Republican Senator John McCain, over his opponent, conservative J.D. Hayworth, probably more out of personal loyalty than of loyalty to those conservative principles. Granted, McCain gave Palin a huge advance in her career by choosing her as his 2008 presidential campaign running mate. But McCain is actually one of those inside-the-beltway politicians responsible for the very problems with the federal government that have been the stimulus for rebellion by Sarah Palin’s own Tea Party movement.

Palin also endorsed moderate Republican Terry Branstad over 2 conservatives for governor of Iowa. As conservative pundit Pat Buchanan observed,

The endorsement of Branstad suggests Palin, a politician of principle, has a pragmatic streak. She acts not only out of instinct but cold calculation. How else to explain the Branstad endorsement over a social conservative than a decision to befriend a future GOP governor in the first battleground state of 2012?

And Palin is somewhat similar to Mitt Romney, having grown up in a family with very close ties to the State apparatus.

Palin endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry for reelection over Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and the actual Tea Party candidate, Debra Medina. Some Texas Tea Partiers were surprised, but understood that Medina was not well known. But given Sarah Palin’s anti-Establishment agenda in Alaska politics, one would think that Palin would not endorse a ten-year governor for reelection, and instead would choose a genuine private citizen and businesswoman such as Medina who was also challenging Establishment politicians. Medina’s single-digit polling numbers nevertheless rose following the Palin-Perry endorsement, but Medina’s candidacy was derailed by her interview with Glenn Beck. Some people believe that the interview was a set-up, and that Beck was in cahoots with Gov. Rick Perry.

And that brings me to the role of journalists, intellectuals and the news media who, as a group, developed – or devolved – from the principled tellers of truth and exposers of corruption, such as Tom Paine, Lysander Spooner, H.L. Mencken, Murray Rothbard and Daniel Ellsberg, to the current propagandists and stenographers for the State.’s Glenn Greenwald has been doing a terrific job covering such a decadence of the journalism guild and their enthusiasm as State propagandists here, here, here, and especially here and here. And Judge Andrew Napolitano has excelled in his exposing of the State’s deceit and Orwellian newspeak on his FoxNews TV show Freedom Watch with the Judge, and his recent book, Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History.

Both Greenwald and Napolitano have discussed extensively the principles of civil liberties and due process, especially in the context of the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism, and have thoroughly covered how the left and right propagandists disseminate their evangelism promoting the State and its extended powers.

And Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation is another principled and uncompromising modern day advocate of individual liberty, private property and civil rights.

The Bush Administration enacted policies based on political considerations that were favorable to expanding State power, rather than upholding the principles of Liberty and individual rights our American Founders strongly believed in, and the Obama Administration has been expanding such unconstitutional powers, all being cheered on by the left and right mouthpieces for the State. However, now that the Obama Administration is in charge, Sarah Palin and many other conservative Tea Partiers who have supported the Bush-initiated policies may eventually regret such support.

Unfortunately, the modern movement to restore Liberty by dismantling the Leviathan State has been maligned by not only those on both the left and the right whose parasitic livelihoods are dependent on that destructive State, but also by some libertarians, particularly those “regime libertarians,” some of whom work with the Cato Institute and write for Reason Magazine. Some organizations, while having done much to promote some aspects of Liberty, have tended to advance the libertarian philosophy more as a “lifestyle” issue rather than the moral principle of freedom from State intrusions. Too many people just seem to be attracted to the addictive power of the State, and tend to join in the popular witch hunts against those who advocate a society of actual independence under the Rule of Law. As Murray Rothbard noted,

We have seen clearly why the State needs the intellectuals; but why do the intellectuals need the State? Put simply, it is because intellectuals, whose services are often not very intensively desired by the mass of consumers, can find a more secure “market” for their abilities in the arms of the State. The State can provide them with a power, status, and wealth which they often cannot obtain in voluntary exchange.

In his 2006 Mises Institute article, Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State, Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that the “natural elites” of earlier times achieved status and success through their own natural abilities and talents, were characterized by wisdom, bravery and farsightedness, and acted as “judges and peacemakers” out of a genuine sense of duty to others, and often without financial compensation. But their status changed as democracies evolved:

The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families’ tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten. Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state’s continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but “nouveaux riches.” Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else.

Because of the monopolization of law and justice in modern democracies, Hoppe argues, the role of the “natural elites” was taken over by the State apparatchiks as the expanding power of the State was further encouraged by the intellectuals.

On the other hand, while the natural elites were being destroyed, intellectuals assumed a more prominent and powerful position in society. Indeed, to a large extent they have achieved their goal and have become the ruling class, controlling the state and functioning as monopolistic judge.

This is not to say that democratically elected politicians are all intellectuals (although there are certainly more intellectuals nowadays who become president than there were intellectuals who became king.) After all, it requires somewhat different skills and talents to be an intellectual than it does to have mass-appeal and be a successful fundraiser. But even the non-intellectuals are the products of indoctrination by tax-funded schools, universities, and publicly employed intellectuals, and almost all of their advisors are drawn from this pool.

Prof. Hoppe recently wrote about the first five years of his Property and Freedom Society, which he and others established to promote Austrian School economics Libertarianism, and the sound moral principles of justly acquired private property, freedom of contract and freedom of association:

…The goal of “limited” – or “constitutional” – government, which Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan and other Mont Pelerin Society grandees had tried to promote and that every “free-market” think-tank today proclaims as its goal, is an impossible goal, much as it is an impossible goal to try squaring the circle. You cannot first establish a territorial monopoly of law and order and then expect that this monopolist will not make use of this awesome privilege of legislating in its own favor. Likewise: You cannot establish a territorial monopoly of paper money production and expect the monopolist not to use its power of printing up ever more money.

Limiting the power of the state, once it has been granted a territorial monopoly of legislation, is impossible, a self-contradictory goal. To believe that it is possible to limit government power – other than by subjecting it to competition, i.e., by not allowing monopoly privileges of any kind to arise in the first place – is to assume that the nature of Man changes as the result of the establishment of government (very much like the miraculous transformation of Man that socialists believe to happen with the onset of socialism)….

… …Thus, I concluded that the property and freedom society not only had to exclude all politicians and government agents and propagandists as objects of ridicule and contempt, as emperors without clothes and the butt of all jokes rather than objects of admiration and emulation, but it also had to exclude all economic ignoramuses.

I couldn’t agree more. It is inherent in an institution with the power of compulsion over others and a territorial monopoly of anything to naturally usurp the rights of all the inhabitants within that territory. The Founders’ original intent was for the individual states to retain their independence and sovereignty within the framework of the newly organized union of the states, the United States of America. But the skeptical Anti-Federalists knew instinctively that giving any monopolistic powers to a federal government would spell the end of freedom for the territory’s inhabitants.

The way for Americans to save our freedom is not through politics, but through principle – being uncompromising advocates of the sanctity of private property, freedom of association and individual rights. In practical terms, it may be necessary to practice secession, nullification and, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written, particularly in his book, Democracy: The God That Failed, through mass peaceful “passive non-cooperation.”

Some Things Need To Be Said

The Andrew Breitbart-Shirley Sherrod fiasco aside, this week’s uncovering of the ‘Journolist’ conspiracy to suppress stories that were unfavorable to then-2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama has piqued my interest. The Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong writes:

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage. In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with (Rev. Jeremiah) Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Today’s news journalists are, I’m sorry to say, unfortunate victims of the last half-century of pro-State propaganda, particularly instilled in the nation’s school system. Post-World War II generations have been fed a steady diet of television and other media that have turned Americans in general into zombies.

But why the control-freakishness of the news media, mainstream and otherwise, in their obsession with manipulating news delivery in such a pathologically biased manner, to the point that the Truth about this or that public figure must be suppressed, and the otherwise true Truth-tellers then maligned and smeared as “racists,” or “anti-Semitic?”

To me, the “liberal news media” have shown their true colors by ending their opposition to the Bush-led wars abroad at the point the wars became Obama-led wars. The “journalists” who bashed Bush for eight years have told me in no uncertain terms that the reason they were bashing Bush and his war policies was not based on principle — of opposing “imperialism” and unnecessary military violence — but was solely because they hated George W. Bush.

Were the “journalists,” particularly news reporters, editors and producers, the objective “truth-tellers” they are supposed to be, they would continue reporting on what the U.S. government is doing abroad. But we don’t hear — at least not from mainstream news sources — about how Obomber has strengthened his executive powers as president and can order the apprehension and indefinite detention of any individual, American or foreigner, without actual suspicion of having committed actual specific acts of terrorism or otherwise harm to others, as well as order the assassination of any individual, American or foreigner, at home or abroad, at any time and anywhere the president deems necessary.

Nor do we hear from any of these “news journalists” about the CIA’s remote-controlled drones that are killing mostly innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Iranians are next.)

Nor have we heard from the news media about how the Justice Department dropped an open-and-shut case against black members of the New Black Panthers Party accused of voter intimidation and threats against white voters in 2008, because top lawyers in the DOJ refuse to work on cases in which black people are accused of civil rights violations against whites. This erases the idea that “Justice is Blind” and it goes right with the news journalists who have thrown Objectivity in the trash.

For the last 30 or 40 years or so, it seems to me that the journalism schools have no longer been teaching the importance of getting all the facts out there, the what, who, when, where, why, how, etc. As Larry Glick used to say, get “the story behind the story.” Instead, it is important to use one’s role as a news journalist to be an activist and a do-gooder.

But by and large, they have gone beyond that, to the point of actively promoting a pro-State agenda, in which such promotion includes the suppressing of important news stories, and the smearing of those who attempt to bring those topics into the discussion. This pro-State propagandizing is not just of the left, who love expanded State social welfare programs and the Big Government bureaucracies that push them, but of the right, who love their Big Government military socialism and their politicized Leviathan police-state security apparatus.

The journalists of today don’t like the ideas of freedom, because it gets in the way of their worship of their god: the State. The rights of the individual and anyone who advocates those rights are to be silenced in favor of promoting the power of the collective over the individual.

In the pursuit of an agenda by left and right media mouthpieces and their flunkies, the one thing the two sides have in common is their looking down their noses at anyone who promotes Liberty, private property rights, freedom of association and contract, individual responsibility and the moral values of people behaving peacefully and voluntarily in a society of non-aggression.

And in their worship of the State as God, the nudniks (and in some cases, retards) on the left side of the biased journalists had found their idol, their God of our time, Barack Obama. They felt it was vital to their idiocy to ignore and suppress all the information that was out there that showed what an incompetent ignoramus Obama was and what an inexperienced nincompoop he was. The Obama Cultists ignored Obama’s anti-white racism and belligerence and his pro-Islamic Third World anti-Progress bias from “his” books that he (supposedly) wrote, his 20-year intimate relationships with the anti-white, anti-American, anti-Jewish Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the ‘small-c communist’ Bill Ayers, and they ignored Obama’s non-accessible academic record.

Most importantly, the left-biased journalists actively suppressed information and actively worked to get Obama elected for one reason and only one reason: because of his race. I don’t know if it’s because of white guilt or what the reason might be. But when you support someone or oppose someone on the basis of race, that is exactly what racism is. This obsession with race and other superficial qualities of people has become such a social pathology and a sickness. In total defiance and opposition to what Rev. Martin Luther King stood for, judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, the left-biased journalists actively got a totalitarian madman elected president.

Thanks, guys.

If It Feels Good, Do It

Last night, Michael Savage was ranting and raving about the recent court decision that struck down the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional. The case was about someone who falsely claimed to have been injured in Iraq and received a Purple Heart, even though the military has no record of his service. The government has to prove that someone was actually harmed by the individual’s false statements, and no one was. It really is a matter of free speech. However, one cannot falsely claim something as a means of acquiring a particular good or service from someone else — that’s fraud. But Savage is like many other people who have a blind love for the military and the State, and don’t like someone “dissing” the State.

But Savage also mentioned some other topics, particularly the idea of “sexual repression” being a good thing, and that’s why I’m taking this time out of my Saturday to write this. I actually agree with Savage on that. He was referring to the “liberal” philosophy of “If it feels good, do it,” and a destructive belief that not going with your urges is otherwise “repressive.” A few months back, I wrote, among other things:

Just look at the Left’s continued advocacy of drug use and promiscuous sex. In fact, I would argue that promoting drugs, a behavior of self-destruction, especially among today’s youth, is regressive and goes against evolving. And irresponsible, promiscuous sex is in the category of short-term, immediate gratification, as well as possibly dangerous, and reinforces one’s more immature and regressive impulses. One could argue, contrary to the Left’s assertion that “going with your urges” is a defeat of “repression,” etc., that such behaviors that go against self-control actually work towards repressing emotions and intellectually evolutionary activity. It is the self-control that exemplifies a more evolved human being.

America has been an impulsive, immediate gratification society for well over a century. Because of democracy and our State territorial monopoly and the State’s power of compulsion over others, those politicians and bureaucrats who are drawn to the State and its compulsory power use the State’s power of force to keep themselves in power, and further expand the power of the State, as a means to satisfy their own immediate gratification desires.

For example, President Woodrow Wilson was drooling to get the U.S. into World War I, which he knew would expand the power of the U.S. government. Wilson’s self-identity and purpose in life was merged into and enmeshed with the State.

FDR campaigned for president on a platform of reducing governmental intrusions into economic matters, and campaigned against Herbert Hoover’s interventions. After FDR was elected, however, he used the powers of the State to expand itself in every way imaginable into the lives of the American people, and greatly expanded the size and power of the federal government. FDR‘s self-identity was also merged into and enmeshed with the State. That’s how statist politicians are.

FDR deliberately lured the Japanese government into bombing Pearl Harbor, because he wanted to get the U.S. into World War II, which he knew would further expand the size and power of the U.S. government, especially all over Europe. And even though Harry Truman knew that the Japanese were already going to surrender, Truman nevertheless dropped those bombs on Japan anyway.

The excuse for wars in Korea and Vietnam for Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon was to prevent “the spread of communism,” but the real purpose for their wars in Korea and Vietnam was for further expansion of the U.S. government, at home and abroad, especially to spread its own powers across the lands of Asia, in addition to the spreading of U.S. governmental agencies and forces across Europe as FDR and Truman had done. In their spreading of their own governments across foreign lands, these immediate gratification oriented politicians became the communists they supposedly wanted to prevent from spreading communism. But their needs for immediate gratification of the ecstasy of State power was satisfied.

No need to go over more recent history of the two Bush presidents, Clinton and Obama. It’s self explanatory.

But for those who don’t see how that more recent history is self-explanatory, I will add this. Rather than see what the terrorists themselves were saying as far as their motivations for their terrorism — the many decades of U.S. government interferences, interventions and intrusions into Middle-Eastern territories and Middle-Eastern affairs — the statist, immediate gratification-oriented officials of the U.S. government instead directed even more interferences, interventions and intrusions in the Middle East, thus even further motivating the terrorists to commit even more terrorism against the U.S. and other Western nations.

And so it goes (as Linda Ellerbee would say).

ObamaCare and Israel’s Intolerance

Hitlerian-Stalinist ObamaCare

William Grigg has this article today at, Obamacare Begins — In Idaho. Grigg describes how a group of doctors exercise their First Amendment rights of “redress of grievances,” as they attempt to organize opposition to the new fascist ObamaCare regulations that they fear will put them out of business.

The Federal jihad against Idaho’s rebel orthopedic surgeons is a field test for the coming regulatory and legal assault on physicians under Obamacare. One eminently predictable – and most likely intentional – result of that onslaught will be health care rationing as the pool of health care providers is depleted.

The next logical step would be to criminalize a doctor’s decision to leave his profession because of price controls. After all, if a doctor can’t withdraw from a government-mandated health coverage program, why should the government permit him to withhold his services by choosing another profession?

Grigg also linked to another article written in 1999, Overdose of Socialism, by Dr. Miguel Faria of the Associaltion of American Physicians and Surgeons.

It just shows how zealous the agents of the State and their little helpers are to control private relationships and transactions among Americans, including those between patients and doctors, and among doctors or among other professionals. These private activities and relationships are none of the State’s business, period! And now the State is punishing people for protesting the State’s intrusions!

Another factor in the Obommunists’ intrusions into the lives of professionals is the Obommunists’ resentment towards those who possess great skills combined with their genuine concern and care for their fellow human beings, which the Obommunists do not have. The Obommunists are also driven by their resentment of those who achieve something in life and are rewarded for it, financially, in a way that is honest, and through the wholesomeness of voluntary associations and voluntary contracts and not through force and aggression. The State is aggression.

Israel’s Hitlerian ‘Jewish’ Pledge of Allegiance for Arabs

Put this in the “I’m not making this up” category: Israel is going to vote on whether to impose on Palestinians a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish State. According to’s Jason Ditz,

…The measure would require Palestinians who are married to Israelis to swear loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish state” before being granted an identity card to live with their families. Other requirements already in place include providing “financial guarantees’ to the Israeli government.

The requirement is particularly onerous as Israel’s population is only about 75% Jewish, and it would require large numbers of non-Jews to swear their fealty to keeping the government treating them and their children as second-class residents. Officials say the move is necessary to “stop terrorism.”…

…Israel’s Parliament has already approved measures criminalizing the “denial” of Israel’s status as an eternal Jewish state, and threatening to jail any Arabs caught commemorating Nakba, a day of mourning for the expulsion of large numbers of Arabs on Israel’s independence day.

So much for democracy, pluralism and tolerance for diversity in Israel.

David Cameroon Wants Obama On Top, and Sean Hannity Still Fixated On Ronald Reagan

British Prime Minister David Cameroon has stated that the U.K. is in a ‘special relationship‘ with the U.S., and that Britain is the ‘junior partner.’ Do you think that David Cameroon and Barack Obama might trade places when they meet together next week? No, I’m just kidding. They’re meeting in the Oval Office, not the Lincoln Bedroom.

But what is this ‘special relationship,’ ‘partner’ business? I thought that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al. settled all that.

And every time I tune into Sean Hannity, it’s “Ronald Reagan” this and “Ronald Reagan” that. He is fixated on Reagan. Hannity seems to think that Reagan was a great president, and that “America needs another Ronald Reagan.” Well, Ronald Reagan had ‘greatness,’ and a lot of potential, at least according to his anti-government, pro-freedom rhetoric in 1980, but he was not that great a president. As Murray Rothbard noted in 1987,

In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986… the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures….

…Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion…

…the famous “tax cut” of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It’s true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was “bracket creep,” a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall…

…Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president’s rhetorical sensibilities, they weren’t called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of “fees,” “plugging loopholes” (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), “tightening IRS enforcement,” and even revenue enhancements.” I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being “enhanced,” the president had held the line against tax increases.

We don’t need another Ronald Reagan. Reagan added three new cabinet-level bureaucracies, rather than removing the two (Education and Energy) that he had promised to remove. Reagan signed each and every budget that Congress submitted, including the U.S. government’s very first trillion dollar budget. Were he a true, principled conservative, Reagan would have thrown each budget back at Congress and ordered them to eliminate the unnecessary, pork-filled programs that should be handled by the private sector. That’s what Robert Taft (1889-1953) and Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) would’ve done. We need another Robert Taft, and Sean Hannity needs to throw out his Ronald Reagan doll.

Obama the Socialist Fascist Communist

July 15, 2010

Copyright © 2010 by Link to this article at

A recent poll showed that 55% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a “socialist,” and many Americans believe that the nation is on the “road to socialism.”

The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades, especially since FDR’s New Deal. Socialism primarily is public ownership of wealth, property and the means of production. So, of course Obama is a socialist. He has expressed that.

For some reason, many people mistakenly believe that Social Security, an important outcome of the New Deal, is a program in which some of Americans’ earnings are taken and put into some kind of “savings account,” to be available to them when they retire. In actuality, Social Security is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme administered by the State, in which income is taken from producers and redistributed to non-producers, mainly retired persons and the elderly. LBJ’s Medicare program is an extension of this.

Further examples to show that Obama is a socialist include his vote as a U.S. Senator in favor of the Wall Street Bailout, often mistakenly seen as an example of “capitalism,” but which was actually an example of socialism: redistribution of wealth from the middle-class workers and producers to the already rich Wall Street bankers and financial executives.

Obama also clearly supports the ongoing military socialism through the wars he has been continuing and strengthening abroad: redistribution of wealth from American workers and producers to defense contractors, consultants and lobbyists, oil executives and Wall Street bankers, which really has been a main objective for American wars throughout the last century. As the late USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler would say, “War is a Racket.”

And as the late economist Murray Rothbard put it, regarding World War I:

Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war may have been the single most fateful action of the 20th century, causing untold and unending misery and destruction. But Morgan profits were expanded and assured.

Things have not changed in 100 years.

Obama’s stated intention has been for redistribution of wealth as a means to help the poor, the underprivileged and so on. But his unstated intention is the same as all politicians of his ilk: to reach into as much private wealth as possible as a means towards expanding State power and control.

Many people also mistakenly believe that Obama’s medical takeover is “socialized medicine,” but we already have socialized medicine in Medicare as mentioned, and other similar programs. ObamaCare is actually a fascist program.

Fascism is another major aspect of FDR’s New Deal, which gave us an untold number of regulations, mandates and enmeshments between business and government. Fascism primarily is State control over privately owned property, wealth and industry. All government mandates and regulation of private economies are examples of fascism. ObamaCare consists of one mandate and regulation after another of private doctor-patient relationships, patient/doctor-insurance company relationships, and a laundry list of medical related industries.

In addition to ObamaCare fascism and Obama’s strengthening of his own executive dictatorial powers as president, some other examples of Obama’s fascism include his new financial regulations, and the environmental regulations that he used as a means of interfering with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s duty to protect the people of Louisiana from the oil spill that threatens their livelihoods.

While allowing doctors’ practices, HMOs, and insurance companies to continue to be privately owned, the federal government will nevertheless dictate to them how their contracts and associations will be run. However, given a variety of factors, this dictatorial control over the medical industry will most likely lead these still privately owned interests into bankruptcy, much like what the federal government has done to the financial and mortgage lending industries, and the federal government will most probably take upon ownership, as well as control, of much of these industries.

That is where Obama’s communism comes in. The “road to socialism”? No, already there. Fascism? Already there. But are we on the road to communism? You betchya!

Communism is, by and large, complete State ownership and control of all industry, wealth and property, and the means of production. So far, we have seen this from Obama in his leading the charge of confiscation of much of the automobile industry, as well as the federal government’s ownership of much of the mortgage and finance industries. And eventually, most likely, the entire medical industry.

Whether Obama is intentionally implementing a communist America by way of long-planned “stealth,” as some people have suggested he is doing, or whether he has a communist agenda by way of his long-time partnership with admitted terrorist bomber and “small-c communist” Bill Ayers, or whether Obama follows the teachings of “radical community organizer” (or “communizer”) Saul Alinsky, is actually not as important as Obama’s actual actions as president.

So far, we have noted that Barack Obama is:

  • A Socialist. He supports public ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth from some segments of society to others.
  • A Fascist. He supports State control over private industries and the means of production, and just about every aspect of citizens’ daily lives.
  • A Communist. He supports State ownership as well as control of industry and the means of production.

But what isn’t Obama?

  • A Capitalist.

Barack Obama is not a capitalist because he opposes voluntary exchange, private property rights, voluntary contracts, associations and markets free of State intrusions, and under the Rule of Law. The true capitalist, voluntary exchange-private property system that coexists with individual liberty is exactly what the American Founders believed in, for which they fought a Revolution to have and preserve for their posterity. This capitalist system is the only system that exists under the Rule of Law that protects all individuals in such a society from the theft and trespass of others including agents of the State.

In contrast, socialism, fascism and communism all institutionalize the violation of the Rule of Law as they institutionalize the violation of all individuals’ inherent rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property.

In those totalitarian systems, the individual is a sacrificial animal for the collective, and a serf for the State.

Alas, America has not actually experienced true capitalism, at least not since the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and especially not since the presidency of hardcore banking and monetary fascist and warmonger-business protectionist Abraham Lincoln.

The choice for America is whether to continue on the road to communism, or to turn back, dismantle all of it, and restore our freedom and prosperity.

‘Scott Brown 41′ Becomes ‘Scott Brown 60′

Sen. Scott Brown has just announced that he will vote for the Chris Dodd-Barney Frank financial reform bill that will further ruin America’s banking and finance industries and give the government further intrusions into Americans’ private financial matters. In addition to RINO Susan Collins, Brown will give the Democrats the votes needed for passage of the bill.

This makes it official: Turning Brown from being a “Brown 41″ into being a “Brown 60.” Well, I wrote about Brown in January, before Brown’s special election, but I will not say, “I told you so.”

Just one look at Brown’s record in the Massachusetts state legislature, from his support for RomneyCare to his support for the Northeastern states cap-n-trade regulations, and his opposition to state tax cuts and support for Massachusetts teachers unions, told us that he could be nothing but a Bob Dole-John McCain-Nelson Rockefeller Big Government Republican.

It was not pleasant hearing the talk radio hosts here and conservatives claim how “conservative” Brown was, and describing him as the “Tea Party” candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brown is exactly like his mentor, Willard Romney — mealy-mouthed, opportunistic ignoramuses.