who's your nanny?

The Ideological War against Freedom Continues

As I predicted several months ago, the media is continuing its war against freedom by grouping tax protesters and "sovereign citizens" with right-wing militias. I personally have nothing against militias; they are our last defense against this tyrannical government. But given the sheep are frightened of their own shadow, government officials love right wing militia hobgoblin. They can also play the race card and link these militias to white supremacist groups, further frightening the people and cementing their power over us.

This article is like a synopsis of the MIAC report which was released in the winter:

It's reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s—right-wing militias, people ideologically against paying taxes and so-called "sovereign citizens" are popping up in large numbers, according to the report to be released Wednesday. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group that, among other activities, investigates hate groups.

Once again people who believe taxation is robbery and who believe that they should be free from the violence of the State are now part of the hate groups which threaten the American people. One would hope that the American people would see through this propaganda but their education precludes such assessments.

The article traces the rise of these groups to the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff:

The spark for that movement came in 1992 with an FBI standoff with white separatist Randall Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver's wife and son were killed by an FBI sniper. And in 1993, a 52-day standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, resulted in nearly 80 deaths. These events rallied more people who became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.

Of course the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda. It would murder its own citizens to promote a conservative agenda as well. The State comprises robbers and murderers. The criminals who rule us would kill anyone they think threatens their power. And they will get away with it as long as the people think such violence is justified. The people need a reason to condone arrests and mass murder. Patriotism works well, but fear works even better. Without fear, no State could be established. There may well be wars between groups of peoples, but the systematic robbery for which the State came into existence could not endure. People who realize that self-protection is their right and duty will not be ruled by a minority.

Another Example of How Much I Distrust the State

Today is the much hyped transition from analog to digital TV. If you don't have cable or satellite, you have to purchase a DTV converter to continue watching TV. I have yet to read a reason as to why this change is being made. But since I believe the State is a band of criminals writ large, let me offer two reasons which the mainstream would find foolish, unpatriotic, and dangerous.

The first reason is simply money. The FCC "put 4,000 operators on standby for calls from confused viewers, and set up demonstration centers in several cities." That's a good reason to demand more money from taxpayers. Plus, the $40 coupons for the converter boxes also helps the manufacturers of these converter boxes who may not have sold any of these were it not for the artificial demand created by ending analog signals. The government also made a bundle of money ($19.6 billion) selling some of the freed-up frequencies. This is to be expected since robbery is the primary purpose of the State.

But my Spidey sense suggests that there are ulterior motives. One of the first things any State does to stay in business is to monopolize communication. If analog signals are primarily own by the State, it can communicate with its agents and be unconcerned about eavesdropping. This would be of great importance if martial law were declared. Of course, my knowledge of the science of digital communication is rudimentary at best, so I may be incorrect about this point (I do think I am correct about the first point, though). But I don't think that this switch initiated by the State was done for the common good.

This Is a Stretch, But Hear Me Out

Given that I am a member of the K.O.O.K.S., I tend to look at current events from a much different perspective than most people. Thus, rather than analyze the murder of Dr. George Tiller through the left-right prism of politics which most people look through, I will analyze this through my KOOKY lens.

This MSNBC report gives some of the details of the suspected shooter's private life:

Roeder's family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became "very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way," his former wife, Lindsey Roeder, told The Associated Press.

"The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs."

This report is linking anti-government and anti-tax ideology with extreme murderous religious fundamentalism. I daresay that this is not a coincidence. The MIAC report released several months ago also intentionally conflated anti-government groups, white supremacists, and anti-abortion groups. Moreover, the report made no effort to distinguish between peaceful anti-abortion groups (or peaceful anti-government groups) and those that would use violence.

The article continues with this nugget of information:

In 1996, Roeder (pronounced ROW-der) was arrested in Topeka after being stopped by sheriff's deputies because his car lacked a valid license plate. Instead, it bore a tag declaring him a "sovereign" and immune from state law. In the trunk, deputies found materials that could be assembled into a bomb.

The MIAC report also included sovereign individuals, i.e., people who believe that the rule of the State is illegitimate such as yours truly, as potential terrorists.

It is quite likely that this was a lone assassin who believed that he was doing God's work by killing an abortion provider. Even though many anti-abortion groups are distancing themselves from this act, some anti-abortion activists are not:

Some anti-abortion activists said they were familiar with Roeder. Regina Dinwiddie, a protester in the Kansas City area, said she had picketed a Planned Parenthood clinic with Roeder. She said she was "glad" about Tiller's death.

"I wouldn't cry for him no more than I would if somebody dropped a rat and killed it," she said.

Nevertheless, I always wonder if the State plants informants in various groups and tries to provoke crime. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Several writers at the LRC blog have noted that the latest FBI arrests for a terrorist plot look like dimwits who were complicit in a crime completely made up by the FBI. What did the State gain from this circus? It "reminded" the masses that there are evil people in the world who want to kill them, but the State is there to protect them.

What does the State gain from the murder of Dr. Tiller? It can use the fear generated from this murder to advocate more gun control measures. It can inflame the tension between pro-life and pro-choice groups which will serve as a useful distraction from the State's wars and destruction of the economy. The State can use comments such as those from Regina Dinwiddie as gasoline. But the most fruitful reward will come from the media's portrayal of the accused killer. The media will continue to imply that anti-government and anti-tax beliefs are gateway ideologies to extreme fundamentalist Christianity. My guess is that future reports will detail which groups Mr. Reoder joined, if that information can be discovered. The reporters do not have to make explicit connections. They need only mention "suspected abortion doctor killer" with "anti-government" or "anti-tax." The incessant repetition, as Hitler pointed out, will eventually become true in the minds of the masses. The State can then surreptitiously can call on the masses to watch their neighbors and report any anti-government or anti-tax ideologues as potential murders. Think of Minority Report with self-appointed anti-government watchdogs as the precogs.

I remember reading a blog post a while back by Karen DeCoster which suggested that government is trying to incite a race war in this country. Given Obama's very pro-choice views, it would not surprise me if our government was trying to incite a war between anti-abortion and pro-choice groups. I do realize that this argument is a stretch even for a member of the K.O.O.K.S. Not all crimes in this country are provoked or committed by the agents of the State. But we radicals must remember that our government has openly declared war on us. The MIAC report was a declassified report. There is no telling just how detailed and insidious the classified report is. Moreover, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel are all on record saying that a good crisis should not be wasted. Dr. Tiller's murder can be a very propitious event for the State and we should not forget that.

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?

Yet Another Reason Not to Trust Our "Justice" System

A federal judge dismissed the conviction of Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens due to prosecutorial misconduct and ordered an investigation of the prosecutors in this case.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said.

Prosecutors admitted "that they failed to turn over notes of a crucial interview in which a witness contradicted a statement he made later under oath at trial."

Judge Sullivan stated that he as seen a disturbing trend of "prosecutors withholding evidence in cases against people ranging from Guantanamo Bay detainees to public officials such as Stevens."

In his first public comments since Attorney General Eric holder announced that he would drop the case, Mr. Stevens said

"Until recently, my faith in the criminal system, particularly the judicial system, was unwavering...But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith. Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed."

It's too bad that Mr. Steven's faith was only "nearly destroyed," thus implying that he still has a mustard grain's amount left in our injustice system. As long as the State is a monopolist of law and order, there exists no entity or person in a position to bind the State to any rules. The only check on corrupt prosecutors are other agents of the State. As such, we must hope that at least one agent in the State has the moral courage to identify wrongdoing and announce it to the world. In this case a whistle-blower complaint was brought by an FBI agent involved in the investigation.

The agent objected to Justice Department tactics during the trial, including failure to turn over evidence and an "inappropriate relationship" between the lead agent on the case and the prosecution's star witness, Bill Allen.

One must wonder if Mr. Stevens would still be in prison had this FBI agent not spoken up. But is this the type of justice system we want? Do we really want our system to be based purely on faith that the prosecutors will be committed to justice and not tamper with evidence to gain a conviction? Do we really want a justice system in which, if a enough people conspire, innocent people can be regularly sent to jail? Do we really want a justice system in which prosecutorial misconduct will be tried by the same system that permitted these prosecutors to pervert justice in the first place? If prosecutors are willing to withhold evidence in the criminal trial of a standing Senator who might have connections in the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, or other government agency, do we think that we, average Janes and Joes, might benefit from a whistle-blower should prosecutors tamper with evidence in our case?

The Siren Song of the State

One of the essays which converted me into the radical anti-State libertarian you read on a regular basis was Robert Higgs' "The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction." I highly recommend this essay, especially to those conservatives with libertarian leanings who still believe that the State can be limited or restrained. I thought of this essay as I read a summary of reactions on the Bobby Jindal response speech. As I pointed out in my essay "Conservative Collectivism" our country is no longer a land of liberty, but its peoples are subjected to a centralized, aggressive, and despotic federal government and its vassals. The ideology which led to the American revolution only lives in a select few individuals; the majority swoons when they hear the siren song of American collectivism. They jump off the boat and swim with all of their might to their own destruction.

The ostensible conservative David Brooks criticized Jindal saying,

"To come up in this moment in history with a stale, 'Government is the problem, you can't trust the federal government' is just a disaster for the Republican Party...It's not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is."

I interpret Brooks as saying that the future of America is a fascist dictatorship and the Republican Party needs to create their own fascist vision to sell to the people; otherwise they will accept the Democratic version of utopia. The State is the idol of the people and the Republican party will become even more obsolete if they blaspheme the people's god.

Juan Williams focused on Jindal's delivery,

"It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was singsongy," Williams said, adding that the content of the speech was "very simplistic and almost childish."

I heard the entire speech and while his delivery is nowhere near the grandiloquent oratory of his Holiness, the ideas which he presented were not that bad. As I pointed out yesterday, I don't think that the Republican Party believes in liberty, but they talk the talk and this attracts some supporters of freedom. The Democrats have given up even the pretense of belief in individual liberty. It is the ideology of freedom, especially freedom from government, which truly offends the media elite. Even if Jindal were as eloquent a speaker as the Prophet, I doubt the elites would have appreciated his comments because they are innately hostile to the idea of individual liberty.

But the most acute observation was from the Rush Lenin Limbaugh who remarked,

"The people on our side are making a real mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal," Limbaugh said. "We cannot shun politicians who speak for our beliefs just because we don't like the way he says it."

"It's a challenge for anybody to follow Obama. The guy is one of the most gifted speakers of our generation..." (emphasis mine)

The Holy One is a very good public speaker; he could sell ice to an Eskimo. He is one of the best Sirens I have heard speak. The way he can move the masses to tears is both amazing and frightening. We radicals, however, have tied ourselves to the mast. This allows us to pay attention to his ideas, and what we see is totalitarianism, fascism, collectivism, and statism. The Prophet and his disciples are leading a sustained attack on what remains of individual liberty. But the reason he is making progress is because most Americans do not want freedom. They cannot tolerate individual liberty. They want security and will give up anything and everything to live in a pampered jail cell. It is this siren song of collectivism which compels the masses to head toward the rocks and the Prophet is one of the best singers.

Conservative Collectivism

I must admit that it was a stroke of political genius to have Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal give the reply to the Obamababble last night. Jindal does have a record of reducing government in Louisiana, so his presence gives some authenticity to the idea of small-government conservatives. Of course, Republicans always sound libertarinish when they are out of power. They know that the American sheeple will run to kick their football every time.

Yet those of use who have taken the red pill are not fooled; the State has been, currently is, and always will be the problem and cannot be limited. And it is clear from Jindal's speech that he, like all conservatives , is a statist. Although he believes that the State should be smaller, he still believes in the legitimacy of the State. This is like a doctor treating the symptoms of cancer but making no effort to remove or destroy the cancerous cells. Some examples:

"To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure that every child in America gets the best possible education. After Hurricane Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system, opening dozens of new charter schools and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice."

If Jindal really wanted to educate the children, he would have suggested abolishing the Department of Education and advocated a completely free market for parents to educate their children as they wish. However, since he, like all conservatives, is a statist, the idea that parents can and should educate their children on their own is unfathomable. Moreover, without State control of education conservatives cannot indoctrinate school children with their own nationalist myths, like the greatness of the US Constitution or our flawed but superior government or our massive and blessed empire. 

"To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half underwater and the other half under indictment. Nobody says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation. And today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past."

This is another case of misunderstanding the definition of a State. The State is a territorial monopolist of law and order and ultimate decision-making. As such there are no rules which bind the actions of the State because the State can both create those rules and then interpret them. The fact that Louisiana's government now has "some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation" is a red herring. The politicians who created these laws can and will change them if they feel such rules obstruct their goals. The only ones who can enforce these rules are the politicians themselves. Why would any politician (other than say Ron Paul) enforce ethics rules which he may want to violate later down the road?

The Year in Review by Dave Barry

Here's libertarian Dave Barry's year in review. There is a surplus of funny quotes. Here's a sample:

. . . Barack Obama, in a historic triumph, becomes the nation's first black president since the second season of 24, setting off an ecstatically joyful and boisterous all-night celebration that at times threatens to spill out of The New York Times newsroom. Obama, following through on his promise to bring change to Washington, quickly begins assembling an administration consisting of a diverse group of renegade outsiders, ranging all the way from lawyers who attended Ivy League schools and then worked in the Clinton administration to lawyers who attended entirely different Ivy league schools and then worked in the Clinton administration.

But the presidential campaign is soon overshadowed by the troubled economy. The federal government is finally forced to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after they are caught selling crack at a middle school. But that is not enough, as major financial institutions, having lost hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to years of engaging in practices ranging from questionable to moronic, begin failing, which gives the federal government an idea: Why not give these institutions MORE hundreds of billions of dollars, generously provided by taxpayers?

Speaking of vegetables, the big scare in June comes from the Food and Drug Administration, which announces that tomatoes are killing people. A wave of fear grips the nation as supermarket shoppers stampede from the produce section, causing several fatal shopping-cart mishaps. At the height of the panic, with the tomato industry reeling, the FDA declares that, oops, the killer might NOT be tomatoes, but some other vegetable, possibly jalapeño peppers, but nobody knows for sure. Eventually everyone calms down, but not before a bank in Cleveland is held up by a man wielding only a stalk of asparagus.

Suckers

How many people beatifying the despot-elect will be doing so five or ten years from now, after Our Holy Savior has conscripted their children, confiscated their retirement savings, and exacerbated the bankruptcy of the country?

Well, maybe more than you'd think, since a president's melanin count is apparently more important than the solvency of his political philosophies.

"Any time you create buzz and excitement, it doesn't matter what the economy does," claims one fellow in California.

I'm starting to think we really are a nation of imbeciles.

Dr. No on Captain America and the Next Four Years

(Via LRC blog)

Time to Cut Whitey Some Slack?

So this means we can get rid of all that prejudicial, fascist EEO legislation now, right? At long last, we finally have proof that the government, not the majority of Americans, has the real problem with discrimination.

Of course, I did get a kick out of this comment by a reader of a Bob Novak report (emphasis original):

We have now ended Racism in America!!!!!!!!!!!!
A brother sits in the highest office of the World. NO LAW GOES INTO ACTION WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE. He can make laws that support the brothers and sistas who have been put down by whitey too long. He can stop laws that do not enhance the BLACK MAN in America.
WE HAVE NO EXCUSES MY BROTHAS AND SISTAS rise up the world is at our feet. Racism is dead take what is yours however you can as we have the LAW on our side.
It is fitting justice that The party that fought to keep slavery alive in America is now run by a black man.

Interpret that however you will.

Ignorant Quote of the Day

No doubt I'm not the only one who will have to endure on behalf of co-workers this most inane quote on election day: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

Oh, really?

Because I don't vote, I have no right to complain that people who DO VOTE are explicitly authorizing the state to confiscate my property against my will? To violate my rights to live as I choose so long as I harm no one else?

I have no right to complain even though I'm forced to surrender taxes to pay for programs and services I do not want and have not asked for?

Because I don't vote, I have no right to recognize that the state exists for the very purpose of using unilateral force as its means to desired ends? That immoral behavior is not OK just because 51 percent says it is?

I have no right not to be complicit in state-initiated violence against myself and my family?

Do some people even listen to the stupidity they spout?

Is David Limbaugh Delusional, or Just a Useful Idiot?

Conservative columnist David Limbaugh's latest column, "Sorry, but Obama Scares Me," is a perfect example of why Republicans have been thoroughly discredited in the public eye. In their eyes, their America can do no wrong -- when everyone with eyes to see knows that such claims are absurd on their face.

To be fair, Limbaugh offers an accurate critique of Obama's radical leftism, chasitizing him for his class warfare rhetoric, Marxist economic plans, and suspect denials of associations with known militants. In no uncertain terms, Obama scares me, too -- so does McCain -- but Limbaugh's fundamental denial of American government policy makes me wonder if the man's delusional, pitifully credulous, or just opportunistically disingenuous. To wit:

For the past eight years, Democrats have slandered America as an imperialistic country that always prefers force to diplomacy; that attacks nations without provocation to enrich itself and to project its power; that intentionally targets civilian lives; that encourages sadistic torture of enemy prisoners, as opposed to tough interrogation techniques to extract information to save the lives of its people; that eavesdrops on private conversations among its citizens rather than monitoring terrorist communications into its borders; and that abuses rather than goes out of its way to accommodate the savages in Guantanamo's prison. None of it is true.

I realize that being a member of the Republican cult -- much like being a Democrat -- means you have to reflexively disagree with the enemy. But this is a little much.

For starters, America is an imperialistic country -- the most imperialistic country on the face of the earth, actually -- occupying between 700 and 800 military bases worldwide (including the U.S.) with military personnel located in more than 150 countries. In fact, the land occupied by American bases surpasses the acreage comprising North Korea. Moreover, just last year Limbaugh himself lamented the supposed fact that Democrats "always wanted to extend the time for diplomacy and defer the use of force" when dealing with Saddam Hussein (would that this were true). You can argue that the American military should maintain its vast overseas presence if you like, David, but you can't possibly argue that this isn't imperialistic.

As to Limbaugh's ridiculous claim that the U.S. doesn't attack nations without provocation, this is like catching your toddler drawing on the walls with crayon and listening to her simultaneously deny it. We're currently engaged in wars with two countries that did not attack us, and we're threatening to attack even more. David's denial is absurd in the extreme.

As for civilian casualties, even if the U.S. does not "intend" to kill civilians, it nevertheless willingly targets them when sending troops to attack suspected terrorists that are known to hide amongst them. And who can forget Madeleine Albright's infamous admission that U.S. sanctions responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children during the '90s were "worth it?" Even though these figures may have been inflated, it's clear that Albright was indifferent to the slaughter whether the actual figure was 100,000 or 500,000.

When it comes to the torture of enemy prisoners, is David Limbaugh honestly denying the flagrant atrocities of Abu Ghraib (photos - use discretion)? Is he actually defending the American gulag known colloquially as Gitmo, where the U.S. has detained without due process suspected terrorists, about half of whom haven't even been accused of hostile acts? I'd encourage Limbaugh and others in denial to read the incredible story of Murat Kurnaz, or better yet, watch the outstanding documentary Taxi to the Dark Side.

And with his ludicrous assertion that the feds voluntarily confine themselves to eavesdropping merely on "terrorist[s'] communications" -- when Congress specifically legalized domestic spying after the Bush administration was caught breaking the law -- Limbaugh reveals himself to be one of the many dupes -- a "useful idiot," to borrow a phrase popular amongst the neocons -- on whom the State rests its hopes in attempting to hoodwink the American public. For crying out loud, the state of Maryland itself has already been caught spying on innocent citizens; does Limbaugh really believe the federal government, with vastly more resources, isn't doing the exact same thing?

To state the glaringly obvious, Limbaugh would have been much more accurate had he penned his words as a reluctant admission of his government's overwhelming use of criminal force both domestically and abroad, instead of simply insisting that none of these criticisms is true. He can traipse through life with blinders on if he likes, but if you're looking for truth, you might want to ignore the ignorant pap emanating from the simple mind of David Limbaugh.

Be Prepared...

For evil in the unlikeliest of places.