who's your nanny?

FAA Knew Air Force One Photo-Op Would Cause Panic

According to CBS reporter Marcia Kramer, the Federal Aviation Administration knew that two fighters and a backup Air Force One jet that it sent buzzing around Lower Manhattan on Monday could instill fears of another 9/11 amongst New Yorkers, but it nevertheless ordered the imperial photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

Laughably, the White House maintains that it was unaware of the flyover (someone needs to take a class on how to lie without stuttering) while Barack Obama is reportedly furious about it. 

Uh-huh.

As Brutus explained yesterday, the federal goverment intentionally stokes fear in the masses and then uses the resulting hysteria to sell us its line about how we need the state to protect us. Folks, it's well past time to wake the hell up. And if the video below doesn't convince you of that, nothing will.

Our Father, Which Art in Washington...

I am not the only one who believes that Americans worship the State.

Stupid or Evil?

I've noticed that some conservatives have been describing the recent flyover photo-op in NYC as "stupid." Michael Barone entitled his editorial on this matter "The NYC plane scare was sheer stupidity from the White House Military Office." Rick Moran at the American Thinker also described the flyover as stupid. A post at Wizbang called the photo-op the "Really Dumb Idea of the Day..." Little Green Footballs called the flyover "ridiculously stupid." Andy McCarthy agrees with former White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend's assessment as "felony stupid." My guess is that this is how most conservatives viewed this incident.

As I wrote a while back, the reason conservatives assess such incidents as stupid or foolish or incompetent rather than evil or malicious or calculating is because they are statists who deeply believe in the myth of the rule of law. They genuinely believe that the State exists to protect them. Since they believe such, they cannot see the truth which is staring them in the face.

A very clear example of this can be inferred from reading Rick Moran's post at the American Thinker. Mr. Moran links to an article by Marcia Kramer which reported:

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public. 

Mr. Moran has found incriminating evidence that the government knew that this display would frighten people and yet Mr. Moran's reaction is that this was "stupid." There is nothing in his post to suggest that he even entertained the notion that flyover had ulterior motives,although his citation suggests otherwise.

If one genuinely believes that our government would never intentionally harm American citizens, "stupid" is a logical commentary on government misfeasance, but "evil" is not. If the conservative were to admit the truth that our government would intentionally frightened its citizens to serve its own interests, his entire worldview would be threatened. While the conservative gives lip service to freedom and virtue, in reality he can tolerate neither. Freedom can only be what the conservative deems it to be, which is why he loves the State as enforcer of the freedoms he wants people to have. Virtue is only what he wants it to be and when he wants it to be which is why he rationalizes torture. The conservative is a humanitarian with a guillotine who believes that what he is doing is for the greater good and believes that the State is the tool designed to accomplish this greater good. The idea or even suggestion that the agents of the Federal government would intentionally harm Americans is unfathomable in his mind.

I'll Take My Totalitarianism in Green, Please

Don't look now, but Barack Obama's horrific "green agenda" is beginning to hit its stride, and the table has been set with the nationalization of the American auto industry. After installing a task force to micromanage the daily operations at General Motors and forcing out Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, the U.S. government is now poised to assume majority ownership of GM.

As LewRockwell.com columnist Karen De Coster remarked yesterday, "controlling this company will allow the feds to ram their socialist-totalitarian, green agenda down all of our throats," and she is absolutely right. After all, if your goal is to regulate the behavior of virtually everyone in the country in one fell swoop, there's no better way to do so than to exert authoritarian control over something we all do every day: drive.

In his quest to alienate global trading partners from South America and the Middle East, Obama will start small by increasing fuel economy standards. If you think your little plastic cars are ugly and unsafe now, just give Our Holy Savior some time. As he states in black and white in his energy and environment agenda, the president will offer tax credits to encourage Americans to purchase the one million "plug-in hybrid cars" he wants to get on the road by 2015. (Personally, I think this number is incredibly low. Once the totalitarian state assumes outright control over the production of who knows how many American-made automobiles, gas tanks might be as hard to find as steel bumpers in another five years.)

Incidentally, I noticed just last night one of the less conspicuous ways the state is exerting its bias against "gas-guzzlers." I was up in Arlington, Virginia at the Hard Times Cafe for a DC101 Chili Cookoff meeting and was told to park in a free lot under the Department of Human Services building. The parking spaces were definitely big enough to accommodate anyone driving a Barbiemobile, but things got a little dicey as I tried to wedge my Toyota Tundra between a support beam and the car next to me. The joy (and by joy I mean evil) of public property is that the government can literally crowd out anyone who doesn't conform to its demands.

But automobile mandates may not be the worst of Obama's plans. He also wants to implement a putrid cap-and-trade program that would ostensibly reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a move that the Environmental Protection Agency has forecast would cost the economy $2.9 trillion and ultimately reduce GDP by 6.9 percent -- a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930. But heck, maybe that's not such a bad price to pay for directives that are predicted to reduce the average global temperature by a whopping 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius.

Worse still is Obama's promise to "create millions of new green jobs." As if it isn't bad enough to rob taxpayers blind in order to implement even more make-work programs so the government can hire millions more employees who can't be fired, we don't even know what these job might entail. However, given that the president has already begun pushing his "national civilian security force," which he promises will be as strong as the U.S. army, does it require an overactive imagination to believe that these new "green jobs" will be accompanied by a "Green Stasi" comprising individuals whose sole purpose will be to regulate our every move and enforce tyrannical environmental mandates?

There's a name for Obama's plans for state-controlled capitalism. It's called fascism. And it's all beginning with the government's assumption of control over what has been one of the world's largest and most influential manufacturers.

Only you and I can control how it ends.

Obama Administration Terrorizes New York City with Imperial Photo Op

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently is furious that no one in the Obama administration bothered to inform him about an idiotic, classified White House photo op that sent New Yorkers fleeing office buildings in fear of another terrorist attack as a fighter appeared to be chasing a 747 only a thousand feet off the ground.

"We all ran to the window, and I thought, that's it, we're all dead," said Chris Biancamano, 36, who works at a brokerage in Jersey City. "It brought back all the memories of 9/11. I said, 'I have to get out of here now!' "

Notwithstanding the wasteful extravagance of these types of taxpayer-funded exercises in political vanity -- Air Force One apparently costs $40,000 an hour to operate -- this stunt illustrates the complete disregard criminal politicians have for the rest of us. We simply exist for their amusement, as tools to finance their immature exploits and then as pawns to be used for their political experimentation.

As someone who lives and works within close proximity to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Southern Maryland, I'm used to hearing and seeing fighters and helicopters flying overhead. My one-year-old son immediately points to the sky and says "pane" whenever he spots one, something I obviously don't discourage as he builds his vocabulary.

But I can recall at least twice in the past month his grandmother grabbing his little hands and telling him "that's the sound of freedom" as they fly overhead (something even I ignorantly believed not too long ago). I immediately respond by calling these billion-dollar contraptions "Pentagon death machines," signaling to anyone within earshot that they can attempt to indoctrinate my kid with this propagandistic rhetoric if they like, but they're not going to get very far.

But back to New York. I suppose we should be grateful that this gratuitous misuse of taxpayer property at least took place while we enjoy a bustling economy. Imagine how absurd it would be to conduct such a profligate exercise during a depression!

Blame Global Warming Hysteria for the Housing Bubble

It's not as far-fetched as you might think, writes Steve Greenhut.

More Knowledge from a Fellow K.O.O.K.

For those who really, really, really don't trust the State, Disenter posts a theory that the swine flu panic is a bioterrorism attack: "It was a hybrid strain created from human, swine, and bird flu from North America, Europe, and Asia. It was created in a laboratory. This doesn’t happen in nature."

I would like a little more hard evidence before I commit to this conspiracy theory, but I hasten to say that I do find the theory quite plausible. This is because I believe the State is a gang of criminals writ large which will not hesitate to kill people if doing so will advance its interests. The swine flu frightens the masses which then leads to increased demands from the public for the State to do something. This allows the State to increase its power at the expense of the people all in the name of safety. Hans Hermann Hoppe once said, "States are actually institutions which cause conflict and then present themselves as solutions to problems they created in the first place." This crisis works quite well to lubricate the gears of the State.

More Adventures with the TSSA

I was away on vacation last weekend and was treated to witness even more production of fear by the TSSA. Before we left for the airport, I had planned to bring two books along: The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises and Send in the Waco Killers by Vin Suprynowicz. My girlfriend, who is not as radical as I am, told me that I should not bring Waco Killers. This would be the one day my bag is searched by hand, she said. A TSSA agent would find the book and then I would be detained and questioned. I do my best to be aware of what provokes the State, but even I did not think up this scenario. So I left Waco Killers home. I told her that she was beginning to think like a radical. She thinks that she won't become as radicial as I am. I told her that this may change after some experiences with our protectors.

So we arrive at the airport, check our bags, and then proceed to the submission security checkpoint. Wea pproach the agent and my girlfriend hands her ID and boarding pass to him. I then step up and hand him my ID and boarding pass. He asks, "Are you together?" My girlfriend replies, "Yes." He replies, "Then you should have stepped up together. It would make things easier on me and on you." My girlfriend walks away, visibly irked. "Why did he say that?", she asked. "Why would it matter if we came up together? He still had to check the IDs separately." Since I've taken the red pill, I smiled and said, "His remark had nothing to do with what he said. The point was to condition us to obey our rulers. That's what the entire process of the TSA security checkpoint is." She then said, "Well, next time we might both come up together and then the agent will say 'You should come up separately.'" I said, "Yes, again that's the point. Obedience is what this process is supposed to produce. Perhaps you will become a radical sooner than you think." I can imagine that such arbitrary commands would provoke someone fed up with getting different rules at different airports to becom upset and complain. Such resistance would be crushed immediately and allow the State to flex its muscles, thus scaring more passengers and compeling them to obey.

The TSSA gives the sheep the illusion of safety and as H.L. Mencken pointed out in Notes on Democracy, the masses want safety and will give up anything to get it. The reason why the State took over airline security after 9-11, although 9-11 was clearly a failure of the State, was that it would be a very easy way to condition the masses to obey. Many people will choose flying because it is the fastest method of transportation available. Since they only want to get to their destinations, the people are a lot less likely to resist. Karen DeCoster expounds this point in her latest article:

So why airports? Since airplanes have become flying Greyhound buses, and airports have become ground zerofor the dumbed-down lumpen proletariat, the listenership at airports is ripe for inane propaganda. In a place where people are herded like cattle and searched like criminals, it’s not hard to break down their already unenlightened state and further melt their mindset toward a helpless condition. Similar to the military recipe for breaking down individuality, Homeland Security’s TSA aims to break down any resistance they may face from any individual. Because you have to be somewhere and have little or no alternative to flying on a quasi-governmental Greyhound bus, and because you must pass Go before you collect your $200, you have no choice but to enter through the TSA’s turnstiles of terror. At this point, people are intimidated and uncertain, which leads them to look for something that provides comfort. So the TSA goons ensure you they are working to help you, protect you, and keep you safe. They scare you, make small talk with you, and then pretend to secure you. So suddenly, people feel better and the feelings move from being intimidated to granting approval and thanks. The psychology of the process is quite simple and rather perverted, but it works on the majority of the herd.

After placing her bag in the x-ray machine, she was patted down by the TSSA agent who waves the people through the metal detector because she had wide-leg jeans. She was really heated then. "Why did she do that?" Again, I just smiled.

How the Swine Flu Can Become a Pandemic

If you want the swine flu to go from an irrelevant nuisance to a full-blown pandemic, just put the gubmint in charge of containing it.

The U.S. has some of most academically inept children in the world despite record "education" spending; it brings peace and democracy to foreign lands by literally demolishing them; it "fixes" economic problems by engaging in the very same behaviors that created them in the first place; and after more than a trillion dollars and thousands of lives lost either to prison cells or the graveyard, the "war on drugs" has resulted in no meaningful decrease in drug use among adults.

So why all of a sudden would we expect the state to be able to prevent a disease from infecting us? If anything, it will merely exacerbate the problem, to the extent one even exists at all.

This hysteria is nothing more than an attempt by the government to commandeer even more authority over our private lives. And if you even doubt this in the least, Janet Napolitano is already "warning" Americans to prepare for a new flu outbreak even if the swine flu proves to be a dud.

What buffoons.

Get It Straight, America!

What?? Obama's No Miracle Worker?!

Sorry, Ms. Hughes, but despite the empty promises of windbag politicians, there is no free lunch.

'I Was So Numb I Couldn't Even Cry'

These were the words of 55-year-old Rosalind Figg when police and social workers in the UK broke into her home to kidnap her 86-year-old mother after Figg removed her from a state-run facility in order to care for her at home.

Said Figg:

I still can't believe it's happened. I was made to feel like an enemy of the state rather than a daughter who just wants to do the best for her mother.

I can't believe these Gestapo tactics can be allowed in our society.

Believe it.

Cell Phone Nannies on the Move in New York

The Buffalon News reports that support is growing around Western New York for state-issued bans on text messaging while driving.

Brandie J. Conklin, 22, died April 12, when her car collided with an oncoming milk truck on Route 75. Eden police determined that Conklin had been exchanging text messages with a boyfriend traveling some distance behind her in another vehicle.

“We checked her text messages,” Chief Michael Felschow said Friday. “She was basically texting up to the time of the accident.”

[...]

“It’s worse than cell [phones],” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s becoming more prevalent.”

Ah, yes, it makes sense that the police would lecture us about the dangers of texting or engaging in other potential distractions while driving. These are the same people who drive around in their cruisers behind their laptops as they run our license plates looking for reasons to pull us over.

Then there's Stephen Acquario, executive director of the New York State Association of Counties, who says, "Many have expected the state to act and are puzzled why the state has not acted.”

Someone might want to remind Mr. Acquario that counties retain the authority to enact their own legislation without being bossed around by the state. And honestly, you'd think a bureaucrat would realize that states don't respond to the concerns of individual taxpayers; they respond to lobbyists. Get the big insurance lobbies to start kvetching about the "need" for "safer" roads, and I'm sure the pols will whip right into shape. Silly man.

Roads will never be safe until travelers demand that the government get out of the business of managing roadways in the first place. Surely if roads were privatized there would be those that allowed cell phone use while driving and those that didn't. Consumers would not only have greater choice and freedom in travel, but the market response to a variety of travel options would also result in safer and more efficient driving conditions for everyone -- roadway owners wouldn't stay in business very long if their services resulted in customer deaths.

The state can meddle in our driving habits all it likes, but if the penalty of death isn't enough to convince people to hold off on text messaging until they park the car, I highly doubt a nominal fine will be, either.

Police-State Power Lust

Liberals who thought Obama would be friendlier to civil liberties than George Bush was are now getting their just deserts. The evil of the presidency (and those who seek it) primarily resides in the fact that it represents the cumulative expansion of tyranny.

Winning the presidency requires a power lust unmatched around the globe, and save for men like Ron Paul who come around perhaps once a century, the office is sought by individuals who may claim to oppose the policies of their predecessor, but who are likewise eager to assume his omnipotence and authority.

Hence this new move by Barack Obama, who wants to allow police to question suspects without the presence of a lawyer.

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Aside from this gross violation of liberty in and of itself, the fact that Obama seeks to use federal authority to manipulate the behavior of the states apparently gets lost in the shuffle, as only federal police should fall under the purview of the president in the first place.

Are Americans really so ignorant as to not realize that we are merely pawns in these foreign and domestic war games that are maintained for the amusement of the state?

(Via Lew Rockwell)

Asphalt Fascism at Its Finest

I know there's usually not much of substance in the news these days, but I swear I actually preferred doing real work at the office to reading the same old garbage today.

I mean, I realize that printing and spending truckloads of worthless Monopoly money is the key to prosperity, and that O-O-O-Oba-Ob-bama (thanks, Teleprompter) is, like, sooooooo the best president ev-verrr (which, by the way, is like picking history's most notorious serial killer or bank robber), but I just can't take the idiocy and ignorance anymore.

So I'll just stick to a local gripe. Like when I was driving home from dinner with the family tonight. My community consists mostly of a taxpayer-subsidized asphalt roadway that ends in a cul de sac, where you proceed onto a privately-owned gravel roadway that county commissioners will not let us pave for bogus environmental reasons.

So I get to pay for the maintenance -- including snowplowing in the winter -- of a road I don't live on (and can barely use when it snows because it's not very easy to shovel snow and ice off gravel), but I'm also prevented through government force from efficiently surfacing a road I own free and clear with five other neighbors.

Dear readers, that's about as airtight an example of fascism that you will find. It's merely a variant of state-controlled capitalism, where the state has the ultimate say in what I do with money and land that I (supposedly) own. That, and the fact that I'd get a gun in my face for peacefully paving a road and refusing to tear it up at the directives of the czars.

On the Myth of the Rule of Law

This is an excellent article by Prof. John Hasnas on the myth of the rule of law. It's a long essay but well worth the time. An excerpt:

People who believe they live under "a government of laws and not people" tend to view their nation's legal system as objective and impartial. They tend to see the rules under which they must live not as expressions of human will, but as embodiments of neutral principles of justice, i.e., as natural features of the social world. Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings, they view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power. In this way, the concept of the rule of law functions much like the use of the passive voice by the politician who describes a delict on his or her part with the assertion "mistakes were made." It allows people to hide the agency of power behind a facade of words; to believe that it is the law which compels their compliance, not self-aggrandizing politicians, or highly capitalized special interests, or wealthy white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, or _______________ (fill in your favorite culprit).

But the myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state's accomplices in the exercise of its power. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law....

The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.

******************************************************

*Thanks to Dr. Stephan Kinsella for the link.

Nothing Wrong with Pedophilia as Long as You Work for the State

Yesterday I linked to a story about FBI employees spying on teenage girls in West Virginia. I wondered why the FBI was so quiet on what these employees did and how they were caught given that the FBI loves to boast about catching pedophiles and child molesters. Perhaps their reticence on the matter is related to a case before the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of a school's decision to strip-search a 13-year-old girl. Savana Reading was accused of giving a prescription pill to a classmate and the school decided to  strip search her without calling her parents. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate comments on the oral arguments of the case. You can read the oral arguments here.

What I find to be a glaring omission in these oral arguments is that not one of the justices seems to be repulsed by the act of strip-searching children. Adam Wolf, the ACLU lawyer representing Redding, pointed out that there was "a certain ick factor" at play, to which Chief Justice Roberts replied

Well, you've made that point several times. In fact the issue here covers the brassier as well, which doesn't seem as outlandish as the underpants, right?

Is the Chief Justice really insinuating that there is a difference between brassieres and underwear which mitigates the constitutionality, not to mention the morality, of strip-searching children? As I continued reading, I only saw utilitarian arguments about protecting children from drugs. What about protecting children from the harmful effects of being stripped naked and ogled by adults? This quote from Justice Breyer is indicative of the gracelessness with which the justices approached this matter:

But aren't there things here that are a little extreme? I mean, if she's to be believed, then she was really naked, and the two administrators deny that, but you have to take her side of the facts. So taking her side of the facts, why couldn't the school administrators just do what they said they did? That is, you leave her in her underwear, tell her: Go shake her underwear. No reason to do any more than that. Or if she is really embarrassed about that, say: Go put on a swimming suit, you know. Shake the swimming suit, no problem. People see you at the beach all the time. Or call your mother. I mean, you know, we can think of another --a number of things that seem a lot less restrictive than her version of what went on here.

"Go shake her underwear"? "Go put on a swimming suit"? Are you (&#(&$ kidding me???!!!! How about, "Why don't you perverts simply call the child's parents rather than subject a 13-year-old girl to such humiliation?" How about that for some common sense and decency which seems to be uncommon among our justices?

The State Creates Crime

Unfortunately, I was flying home from Mexico last Friday so I had to miss the Great Southern Maryland Police State Orgy, formerly known to most locals as "Tiki Bar Opening" -- the day on which casual partiers flock to Solomons Island to celebrate the symbolic beginning of summer.

As I documented last spring, in recent years the island has become more representative of history's most notorious state-run military regimes on the third weekend in April than the quaint waterfront tourist town that it actually is.

The police will tell you they're on hand -- with fully militarized assault vehicles in tow -- "just in case" things get out of control. In other words, should criminal activity break out, our noble law enforcement officers will be there to protect us!

But what if it's the police themselves who are responsible for the bulk of the criminality at such events? According to The Enterprise, if the cops couldn't locate "criminals" during the Tiki Bar opening, they simply created them through entrapment.

Maryland State Police on covert duty at the Tiki Bar's opening weekend in Solomons report that they arranged a drug deal Saturday with a St. Mary's man and gave him a ride to a home, where he was arrested.

Dustin Richard Cushman, 22, of California was released the next day on $10,000 bond to await a court hearing on charges including the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute the drug at the residence.

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing inherently immoral about engaging in nonviolent, voluntary transactions with consenting adults, you know you live in a fairly safe area when police officers have to lure people into committing a "crime." (Well, "safe" except for when one must deal with the criminal elite known as the police.)

Like anything else subsidized by taxpayers, government policing is merely another make-work program. Most people believe the police exist to defend us against criminality, so police departments are incentivized to ensure there is plenty of it to keep their officers occupied. After all, if there were no "criminals," there would be no need for government police, right? Think about that the next time your trusty politicos pass their next law.

Karen DeCoster on the Social Costs of Inflation

From Ms. DeCoster's personal blog:

The Federal Reserve, with its money-pumping machine distorting credit markets and interest rates, along with creating piles of debt among the citizenry, is a totalitarian and destructive force. The Fed destroys time preferences because it turns people into consumption-oriented, gotta-have-it-now debt addicts. The Fed has wrecked the housing market and turned homes into leveraged bets. The Fed has sucked people into revolving debt, student loan debt, and miscellaneous personal debt, all with the promise that the boom was never going to end. The Fed perverted the stock market, baiting pension funds, 401k funds, and personal investments, and thus has wiped out much of the wealth of American retirees and the middle class. The Fed has turned the latest generation of children into a consumption-only class who do not know of the production side of the market, nor do they care. The Fed has established a financial dependency on government that has destroyed the self-sufficiency of an entire generation. Today's bread and circuses is tomorrow's lack of saving, invention, and production. The Federal Reserve is a criminal organization and the destroyer of lives.

The latest victim of this system that takes Americans captive is the man who shot his wife and three children to death before committing suicide in Middletown, Maryland. He was $460k in debt on a mortgage and credit cards on a salary of less than $100k per year. The debt, dependency, and financial disintegration drove him insane. Here is Guido Hulsmann from one of my all-time favorite articles, "The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation."

The net effect of the recent surge in household debt is therefore to throw entire populations into financial dependency. The moral implications are clear. Towering debts are incompatible with financial self-reliance and thus they tend to weaken self-reliance also in all other spheres. The debt-ridden individual eventually adopts the habit of turning to others for help, rather than maturing into an economic and moral anchor of his family, and of his wider community. Wishful thinking and submissiveness replace soberness and independent judgement. And what about the many cases in which families can no longer shoulder the debt load? Then the result is either despair or, on the contrary, scorn for all standards of financial sanity.

Will Grigg on Secession

The ever erudite Will Grigg comments on Paul Begala's hymn to his god, the State. Some excerpts:

Begala, like so many others of his despicable sort, insists that the terms "government" and "country" are synonymous; thus when he writes that "patriotism means putting your country before himself," what he is really saying is that the trait he mis-labels "patriotism" consists of "enduring with lobotomized tranquility whatever indignity or oppression the Holy State sees fit to inflict upon you, and displaying pathetic, servile gratitude that the State permits you to keep any of what you're honestly earned...."

Much of that commentary was broadcast via Democrat-friendly talk radio (which remains a niche market at present), and it tended to dwell on what we were to consider a significant contrast between the anti-tax discontent of the 1770s, and the supposedly adolescent "tantrums" that took place last week: You see, the patriots of the founding generation protested taxation without representation, while last week's events were carried out by people who lost a democratic election. They have representation, but the other side has the power. So there! Just shut up and submit!

That analysis, ironically enough, is based on a correct understanding of the purpose of the voting franchise in a mass democracy: It is the process through which one faction, working in collaboration with the state, obtains the "legitimate authority" to decide how to dispose of the lives and property of others. When refined to its purest and most malignant form, democracy not only allows for the subjugation of an out-of-power minority, it makes the liquidation of that minority a realistic possibility....

This is why every conversation about the prospect of secession always leads such people to insist that the matter was "settled" by the so-called Civil War -- which is to say that logic was compelled to surrender before the ultima ratio regis. And this amounts to yet another key tacit admission: The United State(s), like any other leviathan polity, is held together by the implicit terror of the central government....

Unfortunately, if there is one thing that both Red State national socialists and Blue State socialist nationalists enjoy more than hating and baiting each other, it's nurturing the prospect of ruling the other side -- and this simply can't be done if the "other side" if permitted the option of exercising the right to peaceful secession....

*******************************************************************

This is one of Mr. Grigg's best essays I've read. I recommend reading the entire post a couple of times.

Glenn Greenwald on Conservative Hypocrisy

Glenn Greenwald takes unprincipled conservatives to the woodshed in his latest article. Many of the same conservatives today who complain about the DHS report and fear a liberal police state had no problems with the conservative police state under President Bush. The motto of the conservatives during the Bush administration was, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Now that the liberals are in power, they are whining about being enemies of the State.

Modern-day conservatives have never been enemies of the State, only enemies of the liberal State. Conservatives have no problem with any violations of liberty or civil rights as long as it's a conservative government which engages in such violations. Their hypocrisy over the police state parallels their hypocrisy over taxes. Most conservatives are not upset with taxation; they are only upset that the Democrats are spending money on their sycophants rather than the conservatives' sycophants.

I have said this many times: Neither liberals nor conservatives give a damn about freedom, natural rights, natural law, or any of the principles of the American Revolution of 1776. They are both incurable statists who covet power and will do or say anything to get it. They only complain about actions of the State when the State is controlled by the opposition party. As long as they control the State, they cheer on its robbery and oppression.

Blatantly unprincipled, intellectually bankrupt, economically ignorant, warmongering idolaters. That is the conservative movement today.

Gary North on the Gold Wars

If you take Trevor's advice and buy gold, know that you are a target of the State.

Karen DeCoster on Libertarian Orthodoxy

Writes Karen DeCoster:

"There’s no rational reason we should allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons." That "assault" follows "semiautomatic" is not by accident. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) is looking for a ban on "assault" weapons. (See Michael Gaddy on this issue.) These people look for any opening to take away more and more of our rights. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (or rather, the campaign to prevent self-defense), Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel have become "muted" on this issue. Of course, they have not abandoned the issue at all. Both of those fascist criminals have spoken loudly against the right to bear arms, however, there just isn't enough support for this in Congress ... yet.

On a similar note, Murray Rothbard, who made a case for radical idealism, spoke of "deviations" on the part of supposed libertarians. There were minor deviations and there were major, insupportable deviations. War, of course, is a deviation that makes or breaks one's libertarianism. No one can be pro-war and be libertarian. The libertarian notion aside, there exists major, unacceptable deviations among those who claim to be "pro-liberty" or libertarian sympathetic, but in fact make an entirely unacceptable deviation on the issue of gun rights.

First, there are libertarians (I learned this on libertarian bulletin boards, or forums) who "don't like" guns or are "intimidated" by guns. They don't agitate against gun rights, and in fact they support gun ownership and full rights though their interest in the issue tends to be minor. I've never understood their strange fears - especially from men - or their lack of interest in something so pivotal to human freedom, but it is what it is. On the other hand, there are people who claim to support civil liberties and they claim to want independence from the state (they want to be left alone), but they insist that civilians (non-military or non-police personnel) need not be armed and should not be armed. They actually support the notion of an unarmed populace and they actually believe such a thing leads to peace and lack of crime (they haven't read any history or done any homework, let alone understand natural law). I cannot think of anything more harmful to all of human liberty than such thoughts and such people. These people think we should be defenseless against both the criminal class and the state. (Do I repeat myself?) These people are the enemies of liberty, friends of The Oppressors, traitors of the American tradition, and the enemy of all of us who strive for independence from the oppressive, criminal, tyrannical state that runs roughshod over free people everywhere.

Of Course FBI Employees Wouldn't Spy on Teenage Girls. They Are Our Protectors.

Writes Karen DeCoster:

Sick. Grown men watching *teenage* girls trying on prom gowns for a charity event at a mall. Little girls bothering no one. Question - what are FBI agents doing in a satellite control room in a mall in Morgantown, WV? Here's the stupid comment of the day.

Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

"I can't even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure," she said. "Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We're in shock."

Thank to Mark Anderson for the link.

******************************************************

Every time I read or hear that someone is "shocked" to find criminality in the State I am reminded of a quote from Albert J. Nock:

I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

According to the article, "The workers were described in a complaint as 'police officers,' but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did." Moreover, "The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the FBI generally boasts about how it catches child predators and reveals every detail of the suspects' lives before a trial even commences. There are even "20/20" and "Dateline" specials on how the FBI entraps child predators. So why the secrecy?

Another Warning Against Doing Business with the State

A while back I wrote a post warning against doing business with the State. S.M. Olivia at the Mises blog posts an even more egregious example of a corporation being prosecuted for selling goods to the Federal Government. Apparently if the government agrees on a price and signs a contract with you, you might still be hauled into court on anti-trust charges if the government feels you ripped them off.

Invest in Gold

Writes a friend:

Lost my wedding ring heading over to Tiki Bar Friday. Went to Rick's Jewelers where we bought it, for an identical replacement. My $300 ring bought in 2005 is now $800.

There's Nothing Voluntary About Obama's National Service Bill

B.O.'s scheduled to sign another stinker of a bill today, a $5.7 billion welfare program masquerading as a national service bill that will supplement already-existing subsidies for government housing and education programs.

Bolstering voluntary public service programs has been a priority of Obama, who credits his work as a community organizer in his early 20s for giving him direction in life.

The White House said Monday that the president "will call on people across the country to serve their communities and work together to tackle the nation's tough challenges."

Sorry, Barry, but by definition it's impossible to engage in volunteerism when doing so means using funds confiscated involuntarily from taxpayers.

And I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that if Barack Obama and his national socialism is what you get by putting the state in charge of providing "direction" to youngsters, perhaps we could do without it.

Ron Paul on Secession

David Kramer observes:

When Ron Paul points out towards the end of this video that the Pledge of Allegiance was created by Socialist Francis Bellamy, he isn't just being provocative. I had forgotten that the original Bellamy salute to the United States flag when reciting the Pledge was the EXACT SAME ONE that the National Socialists (Nazis) used to salute Hitler (and the Italians used for Fascist Mussolini, for that matter). The salute was changed to placing one's hand over one's heart only after we entered World War II.

The Onion Lampoons Obamadolatry

Writes Ryan W. McMaken:

There is no such thing as a "liberal bias" in the mainstream national media. The bias that exists (most prominently in the major national news organizations) is a relentless pro-government bias.

This has been well documented, and only the most oblivious Conservative thinks that the media's treatment of Bush's wars has been "anti-war" or that media coverage in any serious way challenged the invasion or the ongoing occupation.

But the coverage of Obama has been downright worshipful, and I was impressed by the sheer brilliance of a recent piece in the Onion:

Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in.

"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post senior reporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show. "It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."

*******************************************************

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. McMaken. This piece is an excellent parody of the fawning attitude of the media toward this president.

Conservatives Are Hopeless

Writes Lawrence Vance

While on an errand a short time ago, I turned on the radio in my gas-eating SUV and listened to about 1 minute of Rush Limbaugh (that was all I could take). He was whining about Obama gutting the military. Conservatives have a military fetish from which I fear they will never depart. But not only is Obama not gutting the military (Is there any doubt that the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe will still be there at the end of Obama's first term?), it would be a great thing if he did. Conservatives are hopeless--hopelessly in love with war, empire, and the military.

I thought of this while reading the latest apology of the American State from the Examiner editorial. It begins

President Barack Obama’s willingness to criticize his own country, and unwillingness to defend it against vitriolic attacks from abroad, is starting to be more than a little worrisome. Americans have a right to have their president put our best face forward to the world. Instead, he has already traveled all over the world sending a message – an utterly false message – that we are to blame for many of the world’s ills. For that message to emanate from an American president is, frankly, outrageous.

I am giving up on trying to figure out why conservatives cannot separate "country" and "government." Perhaps they lack the intellectual and emotional IQ requisite to do so or perhaps they simply idolize the State. They are enamored with power and its application around the world as if threats of violence are necessary to gain cooperation among the peoples of the world. They act as if the US government is the hand of God and that anything it does (as long as a Republican is in office) is divine right. To criticize it is blasphemy.

The truth is that our government is to blame for many of the ills of the world, especially the ills under which all Americans live.  In the name of "protection" this dishonest, insane, and intolerable government expropriates some 40 percent of the incomes of private producers. It uses the money to provoke and bully foreign nations and also wage war on its own citizens, e.g., the war on drugs and the Patriot Act. This is the same government which believes that if its subjects move to another country and renouce their American citizenship, they still should pay taxes to the US government. And this abomination was passed under a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004. How can anyone who claims to love liberty excuse such tyranny?

As much as I dislike liberals, I have lately found myself truly loathing the conservative movement right now.

The Real Fear of the State

The Holy One has realized that there is a real threat to the State. During his first Cabinet meeting of his administration, he said

"We also have a deficit — a confidence gap — when it comes to the American people," [President Obama] told reporters. "And we've got to earn their trust." (Emphasis added).

To earn this trust the Holy One ordered his Cabinet to find ways to trim spending by $100 million. This is like saying we're going to drain a pool using a teaspoon and bucket. However, the Holy One, being one of the best manipulators of human emotion I have seen as president, immediately stated

"None of these things alone are going to make a difference. But cumulatively, they make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone ... $100 million there, $100 million here — pretty soon, even here in Washington, it adds up to real money."

The Holy One starts small and lowers the expectations of the people and then gives them false hope so that they will easily submit to their own destruction. If I had no moral scruples, I would applaud such wiliness. 

But the my point is that the Holy One has exposed the Achilles' Heel of the State for all to see. ThisCabinet meeting came shortly after the "Tea Party" demonstrations across the country. As Trevor and other commenters have pointed out, the Tea Parties were really ruses for big government conservatives to kvetch about losing power. Nevertheless, the weight of heavy taxation can compel many citizens uncommitted in their political ideology to seek relief and such seekers may find LewRockwell.com or Mises.org or Karen DeCoster or this blog among other radical and libertarian blogs. They may read Our Enemy, the State or The Criminality of the State or On the Impossibility of Limited Government or The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction or The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil or The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. They may become convinced through such writings that taxation is robbery; that the government(s) they live under are dishonest, insane, and intolerable; and they may begin to sow seeds of discontent within the populace which could lead to an intellectual revolution in which a majority withdraws its consent. No violence is necessary. If suddenly the majority no longer obeys the dictates of the State, our rulers will become noisy gongs whose boisterous cacophonies will quickly fade into a serene hush.

Global Warming...Er, Cooling...Er, Whatever!

I know there must be at least a couple other people on Earth who roll their eyes or choke back a little vomit every time they hear those inane commercials imploring us to "save the planet," or whatever else it is that the knee-jerk doom-and-gloomers believe we should do in order to prevent the certain death that awaits us all if we fail to genuflect reflexively to their tree gods.

But get a load of this. I know this report comes from Faux News and all, but still...

Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

I'm no mathematician, but if ice is melting on the western coast but expanding everywhere else, even if it's only on the eastern coast, doesn't that mean we've pretty much got what you call a wash?

Of course, such arcane concepts as logic and reason hardly apply to the self-righteous, ignorant, naive, or otherwise hysterically misguided who believe everything the state wants them to.

The only thing worse than being an unwitting dupe is being a witting one.

The 'Tea Party' Ruse

Ryan McMaken sums up my thoughts perfectly in this column about how the Tea Party movement is nothing more than a ploy by conservatives to appear to oppose big government and criticize a liberal president until one of their own can regain power.

The Tea Party movement is clearly a "Conservative" movement in its membership and core philosophy, and therefore it is not surprising that many of the very same people who now loudly claim to oppose government spending and taxation, were the very same people who, for the last eight years, had been cheerleaders for one of the most profligate administrations in American history.

I don't doubt that some of the protesters oppose oppressive taxation, but I'd bet that the vast majority oppose paying taxes to support the federal programs they simply don't favor. In other words, using tax revenues to build more roads and schools is wasteful, but using them to build an empire to kill foreigners overseas or at the border is A-OK.

I wanted to attend the Tea Party in Solomons, Maryland last month so I could see this with my own eyes but I was out of town. However, judging from the speakers in the lineup it appeared to be little more than a Republican rally. And, honestly, I knew when I read the notice for the event that I wouldn't need to witness it firsthand to realize I wouldn't support the protesters -- it mentioned that the boxes of "tea" that were to be symbolically tossed into the Patuxent River would be retrieved so as to comply with environmental regulations. I'm no litterbug, but that alone is proof the tea partiers don't actually have an opposition to the government -- if they did, they'd have exercised a little civil disobedience and absorbed the fine they would have been slapped with for tossing biodegradable material into the water.

I hate taxes, but these silly protests are doomed to failure so long as they are sponsored by folks who don't actually hate the state itself.

I don't want "low taxes"; I want NO taxes. I want there to be no violent central state to force me to fund its tyranny in the first place. Conservatives will undoubtedly criticize me for failing to join an effort that seems worthy on the surface, but my opposition to coercion doesn't stop at some arbitrary point at which I would believe taxation to be palatable. Taxation itself is evil, but unless you eschew every single activity they're used to support, you're just as evil as the people you purport to oppose.

Grow Up, America

So says Gerald Celente in an interview regarding the American fascist State:

We are telling people, just as the doctor would tell a patient, “Look, there are ways out of it but first we have to recognize what the disease is. And then we are going to have to be very inventive about trying to attack it in a number of different ways. We could go through complementary medicine, we could go through traditional… we could even go through a combination of things.” But you respect what the doctor is saying, and you don’t call him a gloom-and-doomer. It is a childish response that people have that want to believe that they have a new leader, and that the new leader would lead them down the yellow brick road of happiness. Rather than understanding that there is nobody behind the curtain. It’s the Wizard of Oz. They’d better grow up; nobody is going to save them.

If Only Politicians Were So Forthright

Actor Jackie Chan has recently made some comments about his own people which have drawn criticism. Speaking at a business forum in the southern province of Hainan, Chan remarked

I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not...I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want.

Chan also said that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made these societies "chaotic." His comments drew applause from Chinese businessmen. Lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong were quite displeased, however.

I only wish politicians in this country would be so honest about their intentions. All statists think this way; they just don't admit it publicly any more. Progressives of the 1920s were quite open about their hostility toward freedom. Herbert Croly, founder of The New Republic, believed that "the remedy for the 'chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization' was a 'regeneration' led by a hero-saint..."¹ In an 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Woodrow Wilson wrote "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."² Politicians and court historians in the US today simply are not that candid.

Just about everyone who runs for office or who appeals to the State to pass some law believes that people regardless of race or nationality need to be controlled with threats of violence. That is why they want to become elected or influence legislation in the first place.

¹ Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pg 89.

² Liberal Fascism, pg 99.

Too Many 'Non-Lethal' Weapon Sequels

Two weeks, two more murders-by-Taser courtesy of government police here in the land of the freefall.

Parents of 24-year-old mentally impaired Texas man Michael Jacobs are probably regretting their decision to call police to help them control their son after he was tased to death on their front lawn.

Charlotte Jacobs, Michael’s mother, says that her son was writhing on the ground and foaming at the mouth while he was being stunned and that she begged the officers to stop. Charlotte Jacobs also told police that her son was taking medications for his mental illness, relatives said.

"They have been to the house many times before, and they know Charlotte," said Helena Wigfall, 37, a cousin of Michael Jacobs. "That’s why we don’t understand why today was so different."

And a 15-year-old Michigan boy was killed a little over a week ago after he ran from police after a routine traffic stop. By the officers' own admission, it only took one jolt to kill him.

Aside from the deaths themselves and the fact that Tasers are inaccurately marketed by the government as non-lethal weapons, the most frustrating aspect of these incidents is the argument made after the fact by defenders of state-sanctioned electrocution, who insist it isn't the voltage that kills, but rather some other pre-existing condition on the part of the victim that proves fatal when combined with a Taser jolt.

Oftentimes Taser victims are found with drugs in their system, which may explain why they choose to fight police or become belligerent in the first place. It also may explain why some people are so quick to side with police in these situations. But that's beside the point. The fact is, if a pre-existing condition -- whether heart disease, asthma, or the presence of drugs -- can compound the lethality of electric shock, then it follows that the electric shock can just as easily compound the lethality of a pre-existing condition.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether the people who succumb to Taser shocks would have died at the very moment they did absent their electrocution. To argue in the affirmative has to be the height of absurdity.

I'm Back: Mexico's Aftershocks

After more than a half-day's worth of glorious airline travel and nearly missing my connection in Miami last night, I've finally returned from vacation in Mexico. And thanks to American Airlines, I'm one suitcase lighter.

Speaking of which, American sucks. Oh sure, we didn't crash or anything, and I can even handle "losing" luggage due to simple human error as long as it doesn't happen very often. And, of course, considering you have to hand your luggage off to TSA agents at customs, I suppose it's a small miracle you ever get from points A to B with everything you've checked. But it's not the government's fault when AA reps tell you they can't locate your bag -- makes you wonder what all those fancy tracking numbers are for -- because "it's probably still sitting on the cart waiting for the next flight from Miami to Dulles." If you're wondering why that precludes a baggage handler in Miami from running to the fricking cart and looking for my bag, you're not alone.

Anyway, most regular readers know by this point that I can't stand flying in the first place, but I won't ever be doing it with American Airlines again. I can actually handle the luggage issue and crappy customer "service" -- in this rent-seeking nation we've become, I don't usually expect much from companies who employ more than 50 people -- but, seriously, is it too much to ask for an airline to hand out a pack of pretzels during a two and a half hour flight? And if the intent really is just to get people to drop 20 bucks for a couple sandwiches, which is advertised at the outset of the flight, is it too much to ask for those sandwiches to actually be available?

Whatever. I'm done bitching about American. It's Southwest or, better yet, nothing from now on.

Before going any further, many thanks to Brutus, who in no uncertain terms kept this blog afloat while I was away. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder why I even bother writing anymore after reading his posts from the past week. Well done.

With that, a few random comments and observations from my trip:

- For starters, week-long excursions to remote arid climates are no longer called "vacations" when they involve one-and-a-half-year-olds. They are work, plain and simple.

- After almost two decades in the sauce, I've finally discovered the cure for the common hangover: going to bed at 8:30 p.m.

- If the duty-free section of Cancun International was any indication, one needn't a prescription for drugs like Viagra and amoxicillin in Mexico. Admittedly, I was there for only a week. But from what I could tell, there are many, many Mexicans living there, which leads me to believe that their failure to overregulate drugs (you know, like Sudafed (!)) is not resulting in wanton deaths.

- The weather in the Mayan Riviera in April is freaking awesome.

- In general, everyday Mexicans speak much better English than everyday Americans speak Spanish.

- Why do so many Americans freak out when private companies like Lowes and Wal-mart post signs in English and Spanish? Even in downtown Playa del Carmen and Cancun, almost everything you read is written bilingually. Could it be that businesses are just trying to cater to and capitalize on their most frequent customers? Nah!

- This should come as little surprise, but Mexican beer is good. Compared to the home-brewed garbage you usually find in the Caribbean islands, this is reason alone to visit Mexico before many other tropical locales. Even though most of the Dos Equis I consumed was from a tap at a pool bar, it was head and shoulders above Aruba's Balashi and the Dominican's Presidente.

- If you're looking for a great resort in Mexico, you can't go wrong with the Iberostar Paraiso Maya. The resort is spotless, the maids mop your floor every day, almost everyone can get you where you need to go in English, and for an all-inclusive, the food generally was above average.

- However, how ironic is it that the worst dinner I had in Mexico was at the Mexican restaurant?

- That said, the Mexican fare at the lunch buffets was pretty good. Good combination of authentic Mexican cuisine for the adults with American-style fries and burgers for the kids.

- Calling Barry Obama: Somehow in all your spending glory you have failed to create all the gummint jobs our country can handle. There is a job opening at Miami International at Gate 4 of the customs terminal -- the one (of several) you must report to with your immigration card after you've frantically grabbed your luggage and try to head to the one (of several) where you drop it off for yet further screening. Gates 1-3 were staffed with some of America's finest parasitic protectors, but I can only imagine the Gate 4 inspector's failure to report for duty was in large part responsible for the massive bottleneck I encountered in my near-futile attempt to make my connection.

- I would be remiss if I didn't give a shout out to my girl at the Starbucks counter at the E 20-25 terminal at Miami International, who donated a bottle of cold milk to my little boy after she had closed down for the night as I was literally running with about two minutes to spare to catch my flight. I offered to pay and then a tip and she declined both. It was most likely a karmic response to my decision to scarf down a venti caramel frappuccino earlier in the day, but it was mucho appreciated. My decision to grab another at 1:00 a.m. this morning out of some perverse food-and-sleep-deprived sense of emotional solidarity when we finally arrived at Dulles -- which almost instantaneously sent me into sugar shock during the ride home -- was probably not my best decision of the past week.

Well, kids, that's it for now. I'm trying to help the wife clean up after the fallout upon returning home and still make it to Tiki Bar on Solmons Island in time to enjoy a couple hours of the afternoon sun here in Maryland, which is finally beginning to see some of those balmy spring temps that attracted me to this police state in the first place. Oh, and if you don't get that final reference, this should help.

Finally, if you're reading this, you've decided to stick with me upon my return from a week-long absence, and that means a lot.

The "Waco Gene"

I know that I have been writing a lot about this DHS report on right-wing extremism, but I wish to impress upon you the gravity of our situation. Our government is boldly naming those who simply oppose anything it does as enemies and traitors worthy of whatever punishment it wishes to mete out. The DHS contains a specialized section named the Extremism and Radicalism Branch (ERB). William Grigg describes the purpose of this branch thusly:

This means that for the first time in American history, the federal government has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this development as a milestone in our nation's apostasy from its founding as a constitutional republic.

The Obama administration's recent decision to not prosecute the CIA for torture is a signal to the country that the president wishes to retain the ability to torture "terrorists" as he sees fit. Given that the elastic definition of terrorists now includes anyone who does not like the government, pretty much everyone not an Obama idolater is now an enemy of the State.

Moreover, the police departments of even peaceful counties are becoming militarized and working closely with the ERB. As Mr. Grigg notes

This is significant chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage, of the Homeland Security State.

As partners with the Department of Homeland Security, your thoughtful and friendly "local" police and state police will be expected to gather intelligence on "extremists" within their jurisdictions and provide it to the Feds. And in the event that they're required to do so by their "partners" in Washington, those same state and "local" police will be expected to question, arrest, or detain those designated to be severe risks to "homeland security."

Mr. Grigg traces this right wing extremism to two episodes under the Clinton administration forever branded in the memory of the American right.

In the institutional memory of the American Right, the early Clinton years were characterized by two entirely unnecessary atrocities involving culturally isolated "extremists": The attack on the Randy Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho -- which led to the murder of Sammy and Vicki Weaver -- and the 51-day standoff at Mt. Carmel, Texas, which culminated in the holocaust of April 19, 1993.

The unbearable memory of those episodes, exacerbated by the "assault weapons" ban, did much to catalyze resistance to the Clinton administration. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a widespread, and growing, appreciation for the lethal potential of what we could call the federal government's "Waco gene" -- its latent tendency to isolate, dehumanize, criminalize, and even annihilate those considered to be incorrigible internal enemies.

A Fellow K.O.O.K. Speaks

Gary D. Barnett, fellow K.O.O.K., comments on the recent DHS report. He connects the dots of the actions of our government and does not like the completed picture. He writes in part

All the federal government’s offensive and defensive mechanisms are being put in place while the lowly sheep await the slaughter. More economic tensions with more unemployment along with over-zealous police thugs bent on revenue creation; what will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back? What will it take before civil unrest is not just discussed on talk shows, but is evident in the streets of America? How much unrest will be tolerated by the now fully armed military-type police before they become physical?

I honestly don't think most Americans will believe that their own government will kill them until they have been shot by one of their protectors. For most Americans, the State is their god and they simply can't imagine that their god who claims to be their protector will harm them. They have been deceived on a massive scale in part because the democratic process blurs the line between rulers and ruled. Clearly there are rulers and ruled, but because the people meet their potential masters who tell them sweet lies to get their votes, they then think that these cretins have the public welfare in mind. They can't imagine that the people running for office might be murderous psychopaths. 

USAToday recently carried a story about the real story behind the Columbine massacre. The piece includes a chilling comment by Dave Cullen who recently wrote a new book on Columbine:

[Eric] Harris, who conceived the attacks, was more than just troubled. He was, psychologists now say, a cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," Cullen writes.

If these psychologists' assessment of Eric Harris is true, then an 18 year-old high school student fooled all of the adults who were concerned with his well-being including his own parents. Do you really think that our democratic process can winnow out such people? Our democracy is a competition among liars, demagogues and potential murderers to crown the best liar, demagogue and potential murderer. The advantage goes to smart, evil people, e.g., psychopaths.

I don't want people to think that I wish for a violent end to this empire. I wish for no such thing and pray that such does not happen. As I have written many times in this space, the empire can end peacefully if a majority of people view the State as illegitimate and withdraw their consent. And indeed I could very well be wrong about the majority of the people. Ideology can change instantaneously and the majority could suddenly say, "Our government is evil." Michael Gaddy wrote to Lew Rockwell with an encouraging sign in this direction:

I am receiving an increasing number of responses from military personnel who tell me many in the military are beginning to awaken to the coming chaos, and are voicing their support for the citizens as opposed to the state. Perhaps having Obama rather than the previous office holder - who had a direct line to God - is indeed beginning to awaken some folks out there.

So there are pockets of hope. But I think the best advice is to hope for the best and prepare for the worse.

Secession Is Anti-American

So say the Democrats. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries would have thought about the idea of secession. Hmmmmm....

I Loved this Comment

This is a comment by Ray Magnum responding to a Robert Higgs post on the Independent Blog. Here is the quote in its entirety:

Professor Higgs, you are a sane voice in a mad world filled with petulant and irritable baboons. I know this sounds horribly elitist, but I think H.L. Mencken had the pulse of the masses vis a vis liberty right long ago when he wrote “The Beloved Turnkey” in 1923 (before the New Deal even!):

The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice, and, truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage, and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty- and is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. . . .

The media tells the public that “deregulation” and “greed” are the source of all their ills and anxieties, so they fly into a fit of screeching rage whenever someone appears to be arguing for those things. Easier to get out the pitchforks than to reason and reflect.

Even so, unlike our political and media elites, I think it beneath any conception of human dignity to regulate the lives of the masses simply because they will gladly submit to it. They should have freedom anyway: then they can turn over all their life decisions to some authority of their own accord, and on their own dime.

*****************************************************

I completely agree, especially with his last paragraph. I would have no problem with people who want to live under a tyrannical government which dictates every facet of their lives if it weren't for the fact that I am forced to live with them. If I could choose my own government, this blog might not exist. Granted I would probably still make fun of them for submitting to be ruled by others, but they could tell me ,"Go to Hell! We are happy as we are." And that would be the end of it.

Where Were You Eight Years Ago?

There has been much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth by the mainstream media over the anti-tax Tea Party protests which took place in various cities yesterday. The Left has been critical, which is no surprise. A Democrat is president and Democrats love to tax anything and everything. In fact, paying taxes is patriotic according to this paid Democratic liar.

Briggs Armstrong participated in one of the Tea Parties, but says he felt unclean afterward because the protest at Auburn University where he is a student was sponsored by the College Republicans. He writes 

The problem was that for the majority of the time when Republicans were speaking, I couldn't help but think "where were you for the last eight years?" My overall feeling of uncleanliness derived largely from the hypocrisy emanating from the Republicans. What right do Republicans have to criticize anyone about spending or the size of government? What right do Republicans have to lecture the current administration about bailouts? What right do Republicans have to complain about the size of the national debt?

My fear is that by joining the Republicans, we lost the moral high ground to a form of guilt by association. If I was disturbed by the level of hypocrisy displayed by the Republicans even though I genuinely believe in many of the principles to which they were paying lip service, how must people feel who disagree? It seems to me that anyone who supports the big spending big government would have had an even more visceral reaction than did I. Not necessarily because of the message but particularly due to the messenger. I cannot help but wonder how many people that may have otherwise been persuadable, dismissed the cause out of hand because of the Republican's pharisaicalness.

I agree with Mr. Armstrong completely. The only reason the Republicans are protesting is because the president is a Democrat, congress is controlled by the Democrats and thus the money will not be spent as the Republicans wish. In fact, some of the folks complaining about high taxes are the same ones who think that the Obama administration is not doing enough to protect America. Leo Laporte made this observation: "It surprises me that the same people who say 'support our troops'resist paying taxes. Where do you think the taxes go?" Ever since Obama became president, conservatives and Republicans have sounded a lot like radical libertarians. But that is only because John McCain did not win. If President McCain were to "stimulate the economy" with increased spending on the wars Iraq and Afghanistan you would hear cheers and read poems of approbation about President McCain keeping America safe. The bailouts would continue but they would be considered necessary to save the free market as they were when Bush passed his bailout bill.

Hans Hermann Hoppe has warned radical libertarians about their ideological commitments and nothing short of a complete renunciation of the State and its works will ever lead to freedom. It is this consistent, relentless criticism of the State that gives us the moral high ground which frankly neither Republicans nor Democrats want. They want power and will do and say anything to get it.

That said, I do believe that some of the people attracted to the Tea Party demonstrations are not firm in their ideological commitments. They feel the weight of taxation and are sick and tired of this yoke. This is fertile ground for planting the seeds of radical libertarianism. As Dr. Hoppe has suggested, we can start with a specific failing of the State and proceed to explain how this failing is indeed a symptom of the deadly disease known as the State. I don't expect to convert all. I have read a report that at least one Tea Party served as a platform for neo-con propaganda. Lawrence Vance has received reports that the FairTaxers are using the Tea Parties to promote the fair tax. But the attraction of these statists to this movement against taxes demonstrates why libertarians cannot be luke-warm. By sticking to our consistent belief that the State is a criminal gang writ large we will attract true lovers of liberty and create a clear distinction between our ideology and that of the statists.

For the Record...

In case anyone should think I hold any brief for conservatives after reading the Stephan Kinsella post on the Left I linked to, for the record I wish my readers to know that I think the Right is evil, too.

Gerald Celente on The Next Revolution

Gerald Celente, director of The Trends Reseach Institute, is arguing  that nothing short of revolution will free us from the tyranny of the State:

Nothing short of total repudiation of our entrenched systems can rescue America...We are under the control of a two-headed, one party political system.   Wall Street controls our financial lives; the media manipulates our minds.  These systems cannot be changed from within. There is no alternative.  Without a revolution, these institutions will bankrupt the country, keep fighting failed wars, start new ones, and hold us in perpetual intellectual subjugation."

Mr. Celente is not calling for a violent overthrow of the government, however. He is calling for an "intellectual revolution." He says

I ask American citizens to free their minds from the tyranny of 'Dumb Think.'  This is a revolution about thinking - not manning the barricades.  It's about brain power - not brute force.

Mr. Celente and I are in full agreement. Using violence to overthrow the State is exactly what the State wants. It is a criminal gang and loves violence. Those who would attack State agents in an effort to remove them from power produce the fear the State needs to survive. If the people are afraid, they will demand that the State take action against the rebels and the power of the State will be even more cemented. In order for freedom to flourish, a majority of the people must want to be free.

All State power is derived from consent. The employees of the State are a tiny minority compared to the rest of the population. The majority cooperates because they believe that the power of the State is legitimate. They believe this because they have been indoctrinated since entering government-approved schools to believe that the State is the source of their freedoms. They are taught that all businessmen are greedy and evil, but the agents of the State are selfless and maganimous. Those who seek to be civilian servants always have the public welfare in mind; they would never seek improve their own wellbeing at the expense of the masses. Democracy is the best form of government ever and we should thank God we live under a democratic republic such as ours. The Constitution was the greatest document man has created and is the foundation for this great nation.

Such nonsense has been repeated so regularly that it is part of the DNA of most Americans. To question the Constitution, democracy, or the legitimacy of the Federal Government is considered traitorous. The people who hold this view should leave the country because they are ungrateful for the blessings the US government bestows upon them.

This idolatrous mindset must be changed in order for peace and freedom to have any chance. People must want to be free from tyranny. They must be deeply in touch with their natural rights in order to recognize when they are being violated. They must realize that the State does not exist to protect natural rights. On the contrary the State exists to provide a peaceful mechanism of robbery and slavery. No criminal gang could have ever done what Bush and Obama did when they robbed the US people of $1.4 trillion (and counting) and the only resistance was some phone calls and emails. A criminal gang does not have the resources to pull off such a heist. It could only hope to do so through deception, but when the people discovered that they were being robbed, there would be hell to pay for the robbers.

On the other hand, the US government's massive theft will continue unabated. This is due to the ideology of the masses. Many know that they have been robbed; nevertheless, they believe this robbery is simply one of the cons of living in a democratic republic. Thus, they fulfill Frederick Douglass' statement,

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

The reason Trevor and I write as we do is that we hope to remove the scales of some of our fellow citizens so that they can see the State for what it is. We do not compromise our radicalism because we realize that the problem is not that we need to put better people into office or enforce the Constitution or write a better Constitution. The problem is the State itself. The State was not designed to protect rights or enact justice. It originates in either violence or deception. Its primary purpose is robbery and its secondary purpose is social control. The leaves, the branches, the roots, the soil, even the water which nourishes the State is fetid.

But the greatest strength of the State is also its Achilles' Heel. The ideology which supports it can change instantly if we only heed the advice of Etienne de la Boetie who wrote

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedastal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

Racism and the State

Regarding the Department of Homeland Security report which I commented on yesterday, Karen DeCoster writes:

I've said time and time again that the government (think Eric Holder's hate speech) is trying to fan the flames of a race war in this country. And they are trying to set it up so that they can blame peoples' rebellion on the fact that Obama is (half) black and not the fact that the government, under Bush and now Obama, has stepped up its totalitarian, Communist, Fascist, Socialist agenda faster than ever. And now that the economic boom period - which provided enough false prosperity to paint over the underlying gloom - has been shattered, people are waking up out of their (mostly jobless) slumber, and they are looking to fight back. People are going to fight against more and more taxes, spiraling unemployment, looming inflation, the nationalization of life, the quasi-governmental ownership of business, an ever-increasing corporatist state, an escalating war scene, a step-up in the Security State and Drug War, more creeping gun control, and the consistent chatter about a draft and/or a national service plan that is akin to outright slavery. This is a grass roots movement - libertarians, constitutionalists, traditional conservatives, civil libertarian leftists, etc. - that is dedicated to the ideals of the founding fathers and the explicit meanings of the Constitution, and they are sick and tired of the government eroding their private lives one decree at a time. Under Obama, it has become ten decrees at a time, thus the stepping up of the anger and the stirring of rebellion. These people who are fighting back don't give a crap about black, Jewish, white, brown, yellow, immigrant, or otherwise. Socialism is socialism, fascism is fascism, etc., etc. - and there is no race that will thrust a "kinder, gentler" totalitarianism upon us. Race is irrelevant because the us vs. them is the freedom fighters (who want to live their lives unencumbered by the jack boots of tyrants) vs the totalitarians in power. "Us," therefore, is anyone who is not in power and whose liberties are being eliminated at breakneck speed.

Yet the only words the government can come up with are "racist," "anti-semite," and "immigration," so that they can make this look like a heroic battle on the part of government to save the populace from a bunch of supposedly crazy people who do nothing but "hate" for a hobby. Don't allow the people around you to buy into this garbage.

In fact, right now I am reading the manuscript of Judge Napolitano's excellent Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America (which I will review), and he writes very well about how racism has long been a policy tool of government. Its policies serve to spread hate, distrust, and inspire race wars where and when it serves the government's agenda.

The Left Is Still Evil

Writes Stephan Kinsella:

Just when you start thinking the left might be a bit better than the right, that there is some glimmer of human decency in them--they are anti-war, somewhat, aren't they?--they remind you of why they are hated and why the right occasionally gains a toehold among libertarians. Witness this scin-crawling, disgusting, evil piece by one Robert L. "Borosage," Co-Director of the "Campaign for America’s Future [sic]": "Taxing Matters," writing on the increasingly execrable Huffington Post. He writes:

Tax Day. Fox News is flogging Astroturf "tea parties" underwritten by corporate lobbyists, while its pundits warn that raising the top income tax rate to the level it was under Bill Clinton constitutes "socialism." The Wall Street Journal editorializes about the evils of the estate tax. Ari Fleischer is trotted out to complain that "redistribution of income" through the tax code "is getting out of hand." Really? Here's the grim reality: Since 1980, when the conservative era began, inequality has reached Gilded Age extremes - while top end tax rates have been cut. The wealthiest few captured ever more of the nation's income while successfully lowering their tax rates.

Note the dishonesty dripping from this passage. E.g.: "Fox News is flogging Astroturf "tea parties" underwritten by corporate lobbyists" -- as if no mere individual citizen could sincerely be against being raped and robbed. It's only because he's a pawn of "corporations." Or: "The wealthiest few captured ever more of the nation's income while successfully lowering their tax rates." Captured--captured! The placement of this word is too intentionally clever and evil to be the mistake of an economic illiterate bubblehead (the typical leftist writer for HuffPo). No, he subtly casts "income" as something unowned, out there, up for "capturing"--by those "pirate-like" ... entrepreneurs! Better to let God Obama capture it for you!

Let this be a lesson for those flirting with the noxious idea that we can find allies among the left. We cannot. They are evil to the core (as is the right, in its own unique way). We are neither left nor right.

*******************************************************************

Also read David Kramer's follow-up comment.

Happy Tribute Day

April 15. The day of the year in which we pay our "protectors" to not put us in jail or beat us or kill us. Here's my gift to you on this glorious day.

Homo Homini Lupus Est

USAToday reports that the Department of Homeland Security has released a report which "warns that the recession and the election of President Obama are 'fueling resurgence' of right-wing extremist groups..." What type of individuals composes these right-wing extremists groups? According to DHS right-wing extremism

"can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." (emphasis added).

This report sounds much like the report issued and then rescinded by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. But such anti-anti-government propaganda by the State is to be expected. All States produce bads and one of the bads the State produces is fear. And since people fear that life without the State would be chaos, those of us who despise the State will be painted as traitors who wish to lead the country into chaos. Of course, the federal government and its vassal States are already doing an excellent job of destroying the economy and society along with it.

All State power rests on opinion and as Robert Higgs has so competently demonstrated, this opinion rests on fear. Most people believe that without a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making, there would be chaos. People would roam the streets stealing whatever they want. No one would be safe. Homo homini lupus est. Thus, we agree to give up some of our freedoms to contract with the State to protect us.

The problem with such reasoning is that is man is another man's wolf, then the State will also be composed of wolves. But our situation would be even worse because there would exist no one to protect us from these heavily armed wolves. This is our situation today. The wolves who run the State have become institutionalized thieves. They rob us, abuse us, and kill us as they please. And they use our own confiscated wealth to do this to us.

I honestly don't believe that in a world without States, there would be nearly as much theft, murder, and fraud as there is now. However, even if the abolition of the State led to mob rule, I would at least be able to arm myself and protect myself. In our current situation we still have mob rule; but we have been brainwashed to believe that the mob ruling us is actually protecting us.

Ron Paul Rips the President's Spending Plan

Apparently Overkill Is the Default Setting...

for all police departments. Writes William Grigg:

Just a couple of weeks ago, Forbes rated Portland, Maine America's "most livable" city.

Though the weather can be a challenge, and the recession has taken its toll on the seaside community, Portland is seen as a haven from crime and other turbulence. Indeed, Maine ranks third in a recent survey of "safest states" to live in.

According to the Portland (Maine) Police Department, the most pressing crime problems afflicting their relatively tranquil community include stolen pocketbooks, fraud, and the occasional robbery.

So, naturally, the PPD recently received a pair of M113 armored personnel carriers -- better known as "tanks" -- from the Pentagon. Oh, sure, people complain that they are a bit "too much," acknowledges PPD Capt. Ted Ross. But he insists that the vehicles will "reduce the exposure to danger for officers who approach ... hostile or armed confrontations."

They might also come in handy if the PPD ever has to deal with a handful of wound-up college students at a campus dance, as their colleagues did over the weekend at Colby College in Waterville.

Early Easter Sunday morning, police from several Maine communities responded to a call from Colby campus security. When the first pair of officers arrived, security personnel were restraining two students, one of whom supposedly interfered with attempts to provide medical care to another student who had apparently fallen ill.

Each student had been swarmed and forced face-down on the floor by campus security. One of them, Ozzy Ramirez, was bleeding into the floor. A video taken at the time (and available at the website of The Exception magazine) shows a bloody Ramirez pinned and pleading to be let up while other students angrily -- but non-violently -- criticize the use of excessive force by security personnel.

Ramirez and another student, Jacob Roundtree, were arrested and charged with assault and criminal trespass; a third, Michael Talarico, was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct.

At a campus forum held yesterday student witnesses disputed the official account, insisting (as summarized by the Kennebec Journal's Morning Sentinel) that "campus security guards ... harassed and assaulted students without provocation and that police sprayed one student with Mace three times, also without provocation."

However the incident began, the involvement of local police exacerbated it. Confronting a small crowd of angry, upset college students, the police -- rather than trying to defuse and de-escalate the situation -- went the "shock and awe" route.

Officers on the scene sent out a 10-74, an urgent call for "all available officers" to come to the assistance of an officer in "real trouble."

This emergency summons brought officers from Oakland, Winslow, Fairfield, Waterville, the Kennebec County Sheriff's Department, and the State Police -- to deal with a total of three allegedly misbehaving college students and a small but orderly crowd of their classmates.

Yes, Maine is a perfectly safe place to live, as long as you can avoid the police.