who's your nanny?

The Oppressed Have Become the Oppressor

I was at BWI on Tuesday and while proceeding through security this day, I noticed that every TSA agent and police officer at the security checkpoint this time was black. And I thought to myself that the Civil Rights Movement has failed. My understanding of the Civil Rights movement was that black and white people united to end the oppression of blacks at the hands of racist whites and their government. And I realized on Tuesday that now black people are able to rise throught the ranks of government and abuse everyone regardless of race. Blacks can work for the TSA, DEA, FBI, IRS, ICE, FCC, FTC, DOJ, Capitol Police, Homeland Security Police, State police, and county police. They can become a solider or a general or a Secretary of State or attorney general or even president. And in each of these roles, blacks can oppress their fellow Americans and people in foreign lands just like the US Federal Government did while it was run exclusively by white men.

I seriously doubt that those who suffered and died to advance civil rights thought that one day in the future black men and black women would be empowed to visit the same humiliation upon people of all races that their ancestors experienced during slavery and Jim Crow. I seriously doubt that Medgar Evers thought that one day blacks would be able to become police officers, and through the war on drugs, imprison and kill black men. I seriously doubt that Rosa Parks believed that her suffering would lead to a day where black people could molest and humiliate airline passengers all in the name of "security". I seriously doubt that Malcom X thought that one day, blacks would no longer face discrimination in the military and they could also go to foreign countries and kill brown people and Muslims to defend America. And I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that one day a black man would become president who would continue the war on drugs that imprisons and kills black people; support the TSA that molests and humliates people of all races; and continue wars where brown people and Muslims in six different countries are bombed. This is not success for black people.

In Liberalism, Mises stated that the natives in European colonies have only learned the worst traits of the Europeans themselves. He wrote:

It may be safely taken for granted that up to now the natives have learned only evil ways from the Europeans, and not good ones. This is not the fault of the natives, but rather of their European conquerors, who have taught them nothing but evil. They have brought arms and engines of destruction of all kinds to the colonies; they have sent out their worst and most brutal individuals as officials and officers; at the point of the sword they have set up a colonial rule that in its sanguinary cruelty rivals the despotic system of the Bolsheviks. Europeans must not be surprised if the bad example that they themselves have set in their colonies now bears evil fruit. In any case, they have no right to complain pharisaically about the low state of public morals among the natives. Nor would they be justified in maintaining that the natives are not yet mature enough for freedom and that they still need at least several years of further education under the lash of foreign rulers before they are capable of being, left on their own. For this "education" itself is at least partly responsible for the terrible conditions that exist today in the colonies, even though its consequences will not make themselves fully apparent until after the eventual withdrawal of European troops and officials.

It's clear to me that blacks in this country have learned the evil ways of the Europeans all too well. We have learned how to oppress our own people in this country through the war on drugs and terror, and to oppress brown people in other countries through "wars of libertation". Barack Obama's rise to the presidency demonstrates that at least one black man learned to lie, steal, and kill just as well as the 43 white men who preceded him. In fact, Obama might be better at killing people than the 43 white men who preceded him. Other than Bush II, those presidents did not have drones and Bush II did not have nearly the same affinity to use drones as Obama does. The descendants of African slaves now have equal opportunity to oppress people all races via the State. This was not the type of "equality" that members of the Civil Rights movement suffered and died for.

Tennessee's Asphalt Fascism

Ever since selling my house in Maryland last year I've been telling friends I want to move to Tennessee -- scenic, great music scene, hot chicks in cowboy boots -- but a new program to conduct "random inspection" of motorists across the state is a little bit of a buzzkill.

I'm wondering how many people are bright enough to realize the word random means there's absolutely no limit to the tyranny that police and federal agents can impose on everyday schmucks.

State officials even admit this new initiative isn't even being done in response to any particular threat, so that basically means everyone's fair game.

No worries. I'm sure they're only looking for "real" terrorists.

Say, does anyone know if they randomly inspect golf carts in Costa Rica?

It Is Impossible for All Americans to Pay Taxes

Apparently there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that many middle class American citizens do not pay taxes. For many people there are enough provisions in the tax code for them to take advantage of that their federal tax burden becomes zero. The article cites a study published by the Tax Policy Center stating that 46 percent of American households will not pay any taxes. I haven't read the study, but based on the article I'm willing to wager that this figure should be higher. And that is because studies such as this never point out the obivious-Government workers and government contractors do not pay taxes. They are paid out of taxes. Tax money does not just disappear into a black hole. It goes into the pockets of the parasite class who are doing very well, thank you. I can think of only one way for all Americans to pay taxes and that is if every government employee was from a foreign country. If no American worked for the American government, then all Americans could possibly pay taxes to their foreign rulers.

It still amazes me that this concept is so hard for the American people to grasp. I've tried to explain this to some very intelligent people and they just cannot get their minds around this. But I will continue to hammer this point into the heads of the American people, in hopes that one day it will stick there.

One of the Few Times I Actually Root for the Marine Corp

United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY versus the New York Police Department during an Occupy Wall Street rally.Now we just need to persuade him to stop killing brown people in foreign countries.

 

Have the Republicans Found Their House Negro?

In 2008 Tony Dungy and Love Smith made history as the first African Americans to coach in the Super Bowl. Could we see such history repeat itself with a Herman Cain versus Barack Obama joust for the presidency? Cain is leading in some polls right now and is the flavor of the month. His 9-9-9 plan is being discussed quite often and he's made a few appearances on cable news. I'm personally rooting for this as I would love to see which house negro the American public would choose to continue bankrupting the country. Massa, i.e., the bankers, lawyers, and corporations who really run the show, would be quite happy knowing that the race card could again be used to distract large numbers of the American public from much of the crime that they have planned for the next four years. It's hard to call the American government racist for bombing black and brown people in foreign countries, fighting the war on drugs that destroys black and brown families, and continuing economic policies that hit black and brown people the hardest when a black man is president.

Why Do Parents Continue to Send Their Children to Public Schools?

Chicago high school limits students to three restroom visits during class per a semester.

Not Speeding, You Must Be Up to Something

From the "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" category of State oppression (emphasis added):

Spartanburg County Circuit Court Judge Roger L. Couch ruled that driving just 5 MPH under the speed limit, not in the fast lane, is suspicious enough to justify a traffic stop. South Carolina's second highest court on October 5 examined the case, but sidestepped the speed issue to decide whether a man could be convicted of marijuana possession simply because he was in a car that contained the drug.

The three-judge appellate panel reviewed the September 16, 2008 incident that when Nicholas Carl Davy was driving in the middle lane of traffic on Interstate 85 through Spartanburg County. Andre Jackson was a passenger taking a ride to Greenville. He went to school with and was a friend of Davy's 22-year-old son.

The legal speed limit on the road was 60 MPH, but Davy was driving at 55 MPH. Some automakers, fearing liability concerns, intentionally build speedometers that read seven percent too high, or about 5 MPH. It is quite possible for a motorist driving 55 MPH on a 60 MPH road to have cruise control set precisely at the speed limit.

Officer Jonathan Montjoy did not see it that way. He noted that most traffic was cruising at between 70 and 75 MPH, so anyone driving the speed limit would be guilty of impeding traffic. At trial, the judge found that state law prohibits impeding traffic, no matter what the speed limit might be, so the traffic stop was ruled valid.

Once the car was pulled over, Montjoy smelled marijuana and ordered the car searched. Both Davy and Jackson were arrested for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The appellate court ruled there was no evidence that Jackson had anything to do with the contraband, comparing it to similar cases where a passenger was exonerated after the driver was convicted of carrying drugs.

"Jackson and Davy had only met once previously, at Jackson's grandchild's birthday party," Judge Aphrodite K. Konduros wrote for the panel. "Here, the evidence against Jackson is even less than in either Brown or Blue. The drugs were more out of sight, and the state presented no evidence that Jackson was nervous or made any suspicious movements. Accordingly, the state failed to present sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge to submit the case to the jury. Thus, the trial court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a directed verdict."

Because the finding on the possession charge exonerated Jackson, the appellate panel did not bother deciding whether the initial traffic stop was valid.

So if everyone is speeding and you follow the flow of traffic, you can be cited for speeding. But if you slow down to the legal limit while everyone else is speeding, you can be cited for impeding traffic. And if you drive below the speed limit, you can be stopped and your car searched. Since you are not speeding, you must be breaking some other law. So if you are driving in South Carolina with anything illegal in your car, it's best to speed through the State. Otherwise, you'll look suspicious if you legally drive the speed limit or lower.

Power, Arrogance, and Envy-The Real Obstacles to Job Growth

For those of us who understand economics, there is no mystery as to why there is high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. The State through its taxation and regulation is destroying wealth that currently exists and preventing future wealth from being created. The ultimate solution is to abolish the State. However, if the State were to lower taxes permanently and repeal the thousands of regulations that burden businesses, jobs would appear like magic.

However, if one lacks an understanding of sound economics, one might believe that job creation is arduous work that occurs when the politicians and government economists create the perfect balance of policies. It seems that each month there is another conference being convened by the Obama administration to unlock the mysteries of job creation and "get America back to work". The real solution is easy. Abolishing the IRS, EPA, OSHA, FTC, FCC, DOJ, and Federal Reserve Bank would be a phenomenal start to getting America back to work. Entrepreneurs would still have to deal with the burden of taxes and regulations at the State level; however, the total weight of regulatory burdens and taxes would be much, much lighter. Regime uncertainty would decrease greatly. People who have thought about opening their own businesses but decided not to do so due to the taxes and regulations would reevaluate their business plans. I suspect many of these people would decide to open their businesses.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank would probably lead to much higher interest rates, but that would encourage people to save generously. Entrepreneurs could use these funds to start up their businesses. Moreover, if the interest rates are high, only the entrepreneurs whom investors thought had a good chance of succeeding would receive money. There would be far fewer bubble businesses like expensive ice cream, cupcake, and cereal restaurants. Moreover, a money supplied by the market would be much more stable than paper money. Thus, what is really required for job growth and prosperity is a decrease in the power of the State. But I can think of at least three obstacles preventing such action-power, arrogance, and envy.

Glenn Greenwald on the Iranian Terror Plot

Another must-read from Glenn Greenwald. Some excerpts

The most difficult challenge in writing about the Iranian Terror Plot unveiled yesterday is to take it seriously enough to analyze it. Iranian Muslims in the Quds Force sending marauding bands of Mexican drug cartel assassins onto sacred American soil to commit Terrorism — against Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel — is what Bill Kristol and John Bolton would feverishly dream up while dropping acid and madly cackling at the possibility that they could get someone to believe it....

The ironies here are so self-evident it’s hard to work up the energy to point them out. Outside of Pentagon reporters, Washington Post Editorial Page Editors, and Brookings “scholars,” is there a person on the planet anywhere who can listen with a straight face as drone-addicted U.S. Government officials righteously condemn the evil, illegal act of entering another country to commit an assassination? Does anyone, for instance, have any interest in finding out who is responsible for the spate of serial murders aimed at Iran’s nuclear scientists? Wouldn’t people professing to be so outraged by the idea of entering another country to engage in assassination be eager to get to the bottom of that?

Then there’s the War on Terror irony: our Hated Enemy here (Iran) is a country which had absolutely nothing  to do with the 9/11 attack. Meanwhile, our close ally, the victim on whose behalf we are so outraged (Saudi Arabia), is not only one of the most tyrannical and aggressive regimes on the planet, but produced 15 of the 19 hijackers and had extensive and still-unknown involvement in that attack. If the U.S. is so deeply offended by the involvement of a foreign government in an attack on U.S. soil, it would be looking first to its close friend Saudi Arabia, where “elements of the government” were likely involved in an actual plot rather than a joke of a plot....

What’s most significant is that not even 24 hours have elapsed since these allegations were unveiled. No evidence has been presented of Iran’s involvement. And yet there is no shortage of people — especially in the media — breathlessly talking about all of this as though it’s all clearly true. If the Obama administration decided tomorrow that military action against Iran were warranted in response, is there any doubt that large majorities of Americans — and large majorities of Democrats — would support that? As I said when discussing the Awlaki killing, the truly “scary” aspect of all of this is that the U.S. Government need only point and utter the word “Terrorist” and hordes of citizens will rise up and demand not evidence, but blood.

Please read the entire essay. This is pwnage of the Federal Goverment at its best.

 

Occupy Wall Street Roundup

There are some pretty good libertarian commentaries out there on the Occupy Wall Street protests. Here are a few of my favorites, followed by my $0.02.

Wendy McElroy-Why Not to Scorn Occupy Wall Street

Jeff Tucker-What Radicalism?

Anthony Gregory-Occupy Wall Street: A Story without Heroes

Hammer of Truth-Ralph Nader: still way left, but right

Glenn Greenwald-What's behind the scorn for Wall Street protests?

Sheldon Richman-Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone

Thomas L. Knapp-Pre-Occupied in St. Louis

My $0.02-It's disappointing that such anger seems to never touch the root of the problem. The bankers on Wall Street could never have pulled off such a heist without the power of the State. The Bush and Obama bailouts total about $1.4 trillion and Wall Street bankers will receive a generous portion of that loot. If it were not for the State which taxes its citzens and forces them to use paper money, there are no bailouts. Wall Street bankers would actually have to make their money honestly through fee exchange.

But it's clear that the overall Zeitgiest of the movement is domestic socialism. Many if not most of the protestors simply want the State to give its stolen loot to a different class of people and use its aggressive violence as ane end to their means. As such, our rulers can be secure in the knowledge that the gravy train will not end soon. They may have to slow it down a bit, but they can keep the train moving until it ineviably crashes into reality. I'm convinced that our rulers already have a plan for that day so that they can save their own hides. But since these protests do not strike at the root of the problem, they may proceed with their plans albeit at a slower pace.

But if there is some good that may spring from this, it is that the police brutality against the peaceful protestors might convert some of these leftists to outright anarchists. A police's billyclub might knock some sense into them.

Federal Judge Says Federal Government Owes Nothing for Wrecked Ferrari

FoxNews reports-

DETROIT –  A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wreck of a $750,000 Ferrari driven by an FBI agent.

Judge Avern Cohn said in his recent decision that the crash of the 1995 F50 sports car was "certainly unfortunate," but cited a law making the government immune to lawsuits when property is in custody of law enforcement.

Michigan-based Motors Insurance believes an agent and a federal prosecutor were out for a joyride in Lexington, Ky., in 2009 when the agent lost control of the Ferrari. The government has refused to pay for the car, which had been stolen and was being kept as part of an investigation.

The insurance company's attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.

Examples such as this are legion, but it always helps to remind nonlibertarians that such decisions are to be expected. Since the State is ultimate judge in all cases on conflict including conflicts involving itself, the tendency is to rule in the State's favor. If a plaintiff is lucky, he might get a judge who actually believes in justice. But such judgements are rare. In this case, the judge cites a State law that gives State agents carte blanche to do anything they want with property in their custody. This gives State agents an incentive to pass laws that "permit" them to take our property for "investigations".

I still find myself debating people who are convinced that we need a State to protect the powerless from the powerful. When I read stories such as this, I wonder who are the "powerless" and who are the "powerful" they are referring to.

Just Another College Dropout

Who changed the world.

Steve Jobs, RIP.

Ah, Liberty...

 

HT: Anthony Gregory
 

The Anwar al-Awlaki Assassination-Only a Crime if the Masses Say It Is

When I first heard of the Anwar al-Awlaki assassination, my first thought was just how bad a precedent this assassination sets. The U.S. Government simply declared al-Awlaki a terrorist and a threat to the U.S. and set out to kill him. Perhaps the government had evidence, perhaps it did not. But in this epoch of the War on Terror, evidence and due process do not matter. People who still believe in due process and the rule of law, like Ron Paul, are castigated for failing to understand the nature of the threat. The president can now put out a hit list of "threats" and have them eliminated just as the Godfather.

My second thought was that my contention that Obama's election to the presidency was the nadir of black history was clearly wrong. We have not reached the bottom and there is still time to go. It was bad enough that Bush arrested and imprisoned people without due process. Now that Obama has made it acceptable for presidential hit lists, no enemy of the president is safe. The president need only declare his enemy as a threat or a terrorist to put him on the hit list. And the courts have ruled that the president does not have to produce any evidence in a court of law claiming that doing so would threaten national security. As long as the president can convince the American public that the people on his list are a threat, they will have no qualms about the government murdering them. The al-Awlaki assassination is evidence of this. Thus, if future presidents begin assassinating American citizens as one would have expected in the U.S.S.R. or China under Mao, we can thank a black man for setting this precedent.

My third thought was that this action of the U.S. Government should not surprise us. States will commit as much crime as it can get away with and the only limit to its criminality is the ideology of its citizens. There has been much discussion over the legality of the al-Awlaki assassination, but such questions do not matter. The constitutionality of this assassination is irrelevant because the State is the ultimate decision maker of law. The State will interpret the law to its own benefit. The only limit to the State's criminality is the ideology of its subjects. Albert J. Nock spoke to this point in his essay "The Criminality of the State", writing: