who's your nanny?

Same Crap, Different Year

The national soap opera known as electoral politics was on center stage again last night. Washington is abuzz that the results spell trouble for the Obama administration, as two candidates for whom the thief-in-chief campaigned personally lost to Republican candidates.

Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008.

Apparently some voters really, really weren't ready for the third Bush term.

I'm consumed by the hilarity of it all, actually. Well, you know, to the extent that rampant, institutionalized theft and murder are hiliarious. The GOP sucks, let's elect the Democrats! The Dems suck, let's elect Republicans. Rinse, repeat. I seriously believe humanity is doomed.

Clearly there can be no other way.

How the State Defuses Discontent

The D.C. Government is upset at its citizens' poor response rates in the national Census. The reason the D.C. Government wants to increase the response rate is money (I'm sure that you didn't see that coming). Many of the city's residents are "considered 'hard to count' such as immigrants, college students, homeless people, singles, renters and the poor." According to Mayor Adrian Fenty, every individual not counted costs the city $3,500. The article reports that about $430 billion are distributed to State and local governments each year, based in part on Census figures. The District's share is about $2.5 billion.

The Washington Post reports:

The District, like most urban areas, usually has a low response rate of people who mail in their census forms without prompting. In the 2000 Census, only 60 percent responded initially, compared with the national average of 67 percent. The rate in Maryland was 69 percent, and in Virginia 72 percent. When people don't send in the forms of their own accord, the Census Bureau hires temporary workers to knock on their doors and encourage them to be counted.

D.C. Council member Michael A. Brown (I-At Large), who has been named council liaison for the census, blamed the District's low rate partly on "myths" about the consequences of being counted.

"Some people think that if they do fill out the form, the government will come after them about parking tickets," Brown said.

How does the District plan to overcome this distrust of government? By partnering "with 'trusted voices,' such as grass-roots organizations, to help promote the census and its importance. D.C. residents are being sought out in every ward to get out the message and help with the count." The Post quotes D.C. Planning Director Harriet Tregoning saying

Our most important strategy is to deploy people who know their neighbors and who are known by them...We want to make people aware that they can trust the census. It's safe. It's important. It matters to them. It matters to their neighbors. It matters to their family, and it matters to the city.

There are times when the State is so open with its plans I find myself shocked. The D.C. Planning Director is saying quite explicitly and openly that her plan is to recruit members of society that the public trusts to aid the government in spreading its propaganda about the Census. Some people do not trust the government, but if their neighbors spread the message, these people might be disabused of their mistrust and participate. What an effective strategy.

You might be thinking, "Clearly this is doomed to fail. This plan is out in the open for all to see and the masses will not be duped. Such a candid admission of the strategy and the goals of the program should keep most clear-thinking people from falling for this." And you would be wrong. During WWI the US Government instituted a draft. Government officials learned from Lincoln's attempt at a draft that such direct measures will lead to resistance. Thus, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker created local civilian boards which would select men for the draft rather than military personnel. These boards served a fundamental purpose. According to Provost Marshall General Enoch H. Crowder, the boards served as

buffers between the individual citizen and the Federal Government, and thus they attracted and diverted, like local grounding wires in an electric coil, such resentment or discontent as might have proved a serious obstacle to war measures, had it been focused on the central authorities. Its diversion and grounding at 5000 local points dissipated its force, and enabled the central war machine to function smoothly without the disturbance that might have been caused by the total concentrated total of dissatisfaction.¹

Robert Higgs comments on this quotation saying

Such frank public admission of Machiavellianism is rare in American history. Clearly the top governmental officials were unmoved by the "concentrated total of dissatisfaction." Their ruling imperative was to feed the war machine whether or not people objected to being fed into it."²

Clearly the District's use of this technique for the Census is not as destructive as the Federal Government's use for the draft. But the general purpose is the same. In both cases, the people show a clear distrust of the State and are resisting the will of the rulers. And in both cases, the State diffuses public discontent of its policies by recruiting regular citizens as "buffers" between the individual citizen and the government. 

Some writers are already informing the masses that they only have to give their name and address only, and not the other private information which Census Bureau workers will ask for. Government workers who attempt to collect census data will probably be met with resistance and odium. However, if residents of DC are approached by their neighbors who know them and are known by them, they will not concentrate their discontent on the State. They will be more likely to participate and even those who are still upset will probably project their unhappiness onto their neighbors, not the State.

This is a brilliant use of Machiavellianism to diffuse discontent and distrust of the State's machinations. If I were an agent of the State with no moral scruples, I would do the same thing.

¹ Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 133-134.
² Ibid., p. 134

 

Bam-Bam Declares H1N1 National E-Mergency

After months of unsuccessfully shoving swine flu propaganda at the American people and failing to effect a nationwide panic, Obama has declared the H1N1 virus a national emergency. (I don't have a link; I saw a CBS special report during the Alabama/Tenn game.)

That's right.. if the peeps aren't dumb enough to fall for the czars' statist B.S., by gawd we'll just fall for 'em!

Idiots.

Get a Real Job, Warner

Jesus, I've lived in Maryland for over a dozen years now, and it seems like Mark Warner's on TV every year campaigning to be a parasitical drain on tax-surrenderers.

Hang it up, dude. Get a real job and start working for a living.

Fascist F*cks

The federal gubmint wants to impose universal "health care" because it cares about you. It cares so much that it will rob you at the point of a gun -- i.e., it will violently relieve you of your property (your money, and perhaps even your life) -- if you politely refuse its "services."

Yes, folks, the state wants to force health insurance on everyone because it simply wants to help. Not because its cronies in the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies stand to make many more billions because of it. Or because politicians will then have a good excuse to micromanage every single thing you attempt to put into your body. Or because this new plan masquerading as universal "care" is really a plan for universal control over anyone not associated with the power elite.

If Americans insist on being imps instead of living independently, we might as well get used to one of the best movie quotes of all-time:

Now, you will go to sleep! Or I will PUT you to sleep. Check out the name tag. You're in MY world now, Grandma!

-- Hal L., Happy Gilmore

Wouldn't It Be Nice...

...to at least have a president (if we must have one, of course) who could speak his convictions without reading from a t-t-t-ttt-tt-tt-t-t-teleprompter?

He's Here for You

Apologies to Karen De Coster for pilfering this from her post today, but I've been way too busy to even think about blogging the past few days, and this is way too good to pass up.

   

What Change? Part 124

From today's Washington Post

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search -- without suspicion of wrongdoing -- the contents of a traveler's laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

 

"We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

You know what they say about "almost."

Let's get on with it already. But don't count on these Republicans to lead the way.

Ted Kennedy Died?

Shows how much attention I've been paying to things political lately.

Of course, still nothing interesting in the news...

Keep Putting Your Faith in the Whores on the Hill

I was sitting in one of those $20 oil change places this morning waiting for my truck and heard a CNN anchor say that the criminals on Capitol Hill are now pushing some so-called "nuclear option" for health care "reform." "Reform" of course meaning that we're due for even more state regulation of medical services.

I have nothing to report on exactly what the "nuclear option" is because I simply don't wish to clog valuable storage space in my brain with such nonsense. Not to mention, I literally had to get up from my seat and stand on the opposite side of the lobby because I can't even stand listening to the news. But it's just absurd that there are so few people who would even consider the option of reforming current programs by actually cutting government involvement.

We are doomed.

Is Bush the Worst President Ever?

He's a strong contender, says Doug Casey.

From the Mouths of Babes

Every summer my in-laws have their old high school friends over for a weekend of partying. I think it's great that after more than 40 years they all still keep in touch and come from several different states just to hang out together, and over the past 10 years I've gotten to know a few of them well. 

So yesterday we joined them for a few hours and I was talking to Bob from Ohio. He says, "Trevor, you gotta see this" as we go over to his four-year-old grandson who was swimming in the pool.

Bob: "Hey Will, who's the president of the United States?"

Will: "Barack Obama"

Bob: "And what does he do?"

Will: "Takes my daddy's money and gives it to other people."

As they say, teach your children well.

Liberty Isn't Contingent Upon the Mere Right to Protest

As freedom-loving Americans continue to voice their displeasure at the Democrats' plans to completely socialize health care, it's pretty clear that the bums in cheap suits we politely refer to as politicians are just not used to being knocked down a rung or two.

Unfortunately, Arlen Specter is probably right when he says that the people who are protesting these town hall meetings are "not necessarily representative of America" -- there should be many more people furious over the prospect of being robbed of the basic right to procure medical care on one's own terms.

Then there's Claire McCaskill, who arrogantly refers to opponents of totalitarianism as "cynics."

"If they don't let us vent our frustrations out, they will have a revolution," Mary Ann Fieser of Hillsboro, Mo., told McCaskill at her Missouri health care forum. McCaskill admonished the rowdy crowd, saying "I don't understand this rudeness. I honestly don't get it."

[...]

McCaskill said she was "proud of the people that showed up and I don't take that personally."

"It's that they don't trust government right now," she said on NBC's "Today" show.

"It wasn't the majority of the audience, it was a huge chunk of them," she said. "But I get that distrust. There's a lot of cynicism out there and it's important that I get out there and listen to that." 

Would that these windbags would not only prevent us from venting our frustrations, but that more people would realize this current crop of criminals is ramming these new programs down our throats regardless of whether we complain about them or not. Obama and Co. understand that if they flit around the country for a few weeks on these taxpayer-funded smoke-and-mirrors campaigns that most Americans will eventually say, "Oh, they must actually care about us if they're willing to go out and do the legwork."

But it's all bullshit, people. What Mary Ann Fieser and other concerned Americans may not entirely understand is that revolution is no less necessary just because politicians allow you to complain about your subjugation before you're actually subjugated. Even stupid politicians are smart enough to hire staffers who will tell them how far they can push the citizenry before it revolts. The shame is ours for not realizing this.

One of the biggest canards in American life today is that politicians "work for us," but when was the last time you had to steal money from your employer in order to be compensated for your labor? Politicians do not work for us. Just the opposite, we work for them; we bust our asses to feed our families and then surrender half of our property to these thieves at gunpoint so they can in turn boss us around. What freedom!

Liberty isn't contingent upon our right to protest. It's contingent upon our ability to realize that the state is a criminal gang that has no concern for our well-being whatsoever.

They're Heeere

Anti-smoking bandits in New Jersey have finally gotten around to banning smoking outdoors. Oh, sure, they're cloaking the ban in the argument that butts are cluttering the beach, be we know better, don't we?

The Ocean County resort also has cracked down on noise, illegal parking, and trash disposal, officials said.

While the smoking ban took effect immediately, Camera conceded that it was unlikely police would do more than warn violators as the season winds down. So far, Seaside Heights has installed a line of poles and signage to delineate where the smoking area ends. It also has provided large receptacles for collecting spent cigarette and cigar butts.

At least beach bum Stephanie Stevio was more honest:

"It's usually so breezy on the beach that if people around you are smoking, you get smoke blown in your face," Stevio said. "Especially if the beach is really crowded."

Ahhh...gotta love the smell of public property in the morning!

Has the Tipping Point Been Reached?

The White House as turned to town-hall style meetings to convince Americans that more government control of health care will be good for them, but apparently many Americans are angry about it. Karen DeCoster links to a protest in Dearborn, Michigan over the proposed health care bill. In Tampa, FL a protest against health care turned violent. The video shows several protesters screaming "You work for us!" at the local politicians. One man who says he was simply trying to get information on the health care plan was assaulted by police.

This outrage has not gone unnoticed by the White House. MSNBC reports that

[t]op White House officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising....

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss details of the closed-door session that took place hours before lawmakers headed to their home states for a month long vacation. (emphasis added)

Democrats have accused the Republicans of sanctioning mob tactics to defeat the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said

These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having...They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets.

The Republicans countered that these protests reflect genuine resentment of the President's policies:

"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the president's health care plan," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Democrats are ginning up this cynical shell game."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is not worried about the protest:

"What you see, I think, is a display of the democratic process," Pelosi said. "We all respect that."

It is possible that this health care plan will be the tipping point for the American people. In spite of what Pelosi and Reid believe, there is genuine anger and outrage festering among the American populace. I think that much of it is simply conservative outrage at liberal policies and as such I believe that this opposition is not as principled as I would like it to be. Conservatives oppose centralization in certain areas of the economy, but not all. They love the police-state and have a fetish for the US military. They support some regulation of the market because they fear a true free market. They believe that a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate decision-making is necessary and they continue to believe in the myth of the rule of law. They worship the Constitution and still believe in democracy. As such what we are witnessing is a true civil war in which conservatives and liberals fight for control of the State.

I Could Kiss Karen De Coster

You can spend the rest of your afternoon reading all your favorite blogs, but you won't find anything as good as this.

Gubmint Groceries

Tom DiLorenzo speculates as to what we can most likely expect to see just as soon as we allow the federal government to monopolize health care (which, of course, will have to be written "health care" from that point forward).

You know, you can almost forgive people of earlier eras for falling victim to the evils of socialism and fascism. After all, they didn't have access to the internet, which in mere minutes would have allowed them to google any number of historical examples capable of explaining the insufferable ramifications of tyrannical political philosophies.

But what's your excuse?

Socialism Robs Everyone

Despite repeated campaign pledges by Our Holy Savior Barack the Beneficent (peace be upon him) that the so-called middle class wouldn't see their taxes increase "one single dime" under his reign, administration officials nevertheless refuse to rule out significant tax hikes to pay for all of the president's wefare programs, universal health care chief among them.

Though I'm the first to admit I never believe anything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, it looks like Obama was honest on this one. You just had to take him literally. Our taxes won't increase "one single dime"; they'll increase thousands of dimes.

Whether you find yourself in the upper or lower eschelon of income earners, everyone suffers under centralized government control of their lives. The costs of socio-fascist policies are not merely measured in dollars and cents, but in quality of living as well.

It's not going to mean much to poor single mothers that they won't have to write personal checks for their kids' doctor visits (they don't need to even today) when treatable bronchitis turns into deadly pneumonia because wait lists prevented on-demand service.

Strong-Arming the Swiss

Fantastic article today by J.H. Huebert about how the criminal U.S. state is bullying the Swiss in the attempt to obtain private bank records from private citizens who have the audacity to try to protect their private property.

I also wrote about this last month here.

A Menace to Society

Police officers in Cambridge are upset with the President for his remarks about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The President said that the officers "acted stupidly," but then admitted that he did not know all the facts. David Holway, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which represents 15,000 public safety officials around the country, said

What we don't need is public safety officials across the country second-guessing themselves...The president's alienated public safety officers across the country with his comments.

I have no problem with the State being divided against itself; such disagreements among this criminal gang increase our chances for freedom. But the truth is that there is no reason for anyone not a police officer to trust any police report. Those of us who read the blogs of William Grigg and J.D. Tuccille among other libertarian blogs (including WYN!) regularly know that police routinely abuse their power and cover up their crimes. And in many of these cases, senior officers and the courts condone their behavior and exonerate them from any culpability. Why should we give cops the benefit of the doubt when they

• taser people for being polite and asking questions?
• assault an EMT worker and only receive a five day suspension without pay and anger management classes?
• murder a man outside his home because the undercover officer is participating in a drug buy on the victim's property?
• taser individuals and, if they die, argue that the death was a result of "excited delerium"?
• kill motorists while driving recklessly yet be acquitted of manslaughter charges?
• taser a sassy 72-year-old woman because she refused to sign a speeding ticket?
• taser a 14-year-old girl over a disagreement she had with her mother?
• kill a family chihuahua because it bit one of the officers?
• get drunk in a bar, beat up the female bartender who was only protecting her property and receive probation?
• strip search a man in public in front of 30 witnesses and then drive off?
• arrest a mayor and his mother-in-law in a drug sting, kill the family's dogs, realize that the drugs did not belong to the mayor, refuse to apologize, and then say that the shooting was justified?
• trick a young man who was sleeping off his inebriation into a drunk driving charge?
• rear end a car in a police cruiser, flee the scene of the accident, call their fathers who are also police officers to help search for the accident victim, find the victim, assault the victim, arrest the victim, lie about the incident, are revealed as liars when surveillance video appears, are exonerated by the District Attorney who chooses not to prosecute, and now face only disciplinary action from their police department?

This is a very short list of crimes and abuses by police officers in various jurisdictions. Simply listing all the dog-shooting incidents I know of would tax this blog's server; listing all the taser stories would crash it. And in almost every one of these incidents, the police officers involved were exonerated. The police department ruled that the shooting or tasering was justified or the DA did not prosecute or the judge in the case set the officers free or in the most depressing of cases, the jury condoned and approved the violent behavior of police officers by exonerating them.

The people in this country have very sound and legitimate reasons to fear police officers. Anyone who has been stopped by a cop becomes quickly aware of the chasm of power between him and the officer. If the officer interprets any of your behavior as threatening, he can arrest you or taser you or shoot you. And if you or your survivors believe that the action was unjustified, to whom can you turn for justice? To a judge who is paid by the same entity as the State? And what will the judge rule? He will rule that the officer's actions were justified unless there is considerable outcry from the public. But justice will inevitably be perverted in favor of the police because the State is a judge in its own case.

So I as much as I dislike the President and his government (And all governments. Don't get it twisted, conservatives), I have no problem with the President's comments. The police in this country are a menace to society. They are running a bigger deficit in goodwill than the Federal Government in national debt. They are not to be trusted. Unless their testimony is corroborated with non-police testimony or evidence, we should assume they are lying. They are an intolerable evil because our own money pays these thugs to tase us, beat us, and kill us.

Yet Another Brilliant Piece by the Onion

David Theroux at the Beacon Blog linked to this brilliant piece by the Onion: Human Rights Group Campaigns to End the Use of Child Politicians in Africa.
Human Rights Group Campaigns To End Use Of Child Politicians In Africa

HA HA HA HA

And might I add HO HO HO HO. Don't look now but Republicans are calling King Barack's health care plan "socialism."

Of course it is, but so is every other statist program endorsed by the GOP, whether the current heavily-regulated government health insurance system, Bush's prescription drug re-election bribe, federal transportation regulations, liquor laws, prison programs, immigration and citizenship requirements, public schooling mandates, and not even close to least (and precursor to all socialist central planning): taxation at gunpoint.

Democrats and Republicans are equally evil, vile, and corrupt. You don't wait until your guy's out of power to speak up if you're not.

UPDATE: A timely article today from the only congressman willing to speak the truth regardless of which party's holding the hammer.

Considering other countries have already implemented universal health care, examples abound as to its dire costs -- for starters, rationing of medical services, compromised physician attention given to patients, and long wait lines. So in order to favor this massive government encroachment upon freedom, you must either be a complete imbecile or a political opportunist. And we've got just about enough of both.

Power Continues to Corrupt

I didn't think that it was possible for me to despise someone this much. Every time I think Obama has reached the zenith of chutzpah, he ascends to new heights. 

 

This passage hit me the hardest:

 

“Even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity,” he said.

The tasks of cutting federal spending, resuscitating the nation’s banking system, and reviving the moribund auto industry would be daunting, he acknowledged.

“None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don't do what's easy,” he declared.

Yet there was a paradox at the heart of his speech.

These tough-minded Americans, so willing to take responsibility, the people who “don’t do what’s easy” were also the same people he blamed early in the speech for being guilty of utter irresponsibility.

An inventory of irresponsibility
“Short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity… we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election… difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day,” he declared.

Obama carefully used the word “we” not “they” in his indictment of Americans' irresponsibility.

The unanswered question in the speech was: Are such people now capable of exercising the responsibility that the president says is needed?

What the hell does he mean by "we"? "We" did not fail to protect the American public on September 11, 2001. "We" didn't start two wars. "We" did not inflate the money supply in an effort to fight a recession and create a bubble in the housing market.

Also not to be ignored is the writer's unanswered question. The tacit answers is "No, they are no capable and the State must intervene for their own good." Humanitarians with guillotines are truly the worst tyrants.

I don't know how a President whose administration is breaking records for spending money can look the American people in the face and say "we" are the problem.

I know I have said this many times, but I will repeat this until learning takes place. The election of the president is a competition among liars, thieves, and potential murderers to crown the best liar, thief, and potential murderer. Barack Obama proved himself to be a better potential criminal than John McCain and blatantly false statements like this are evidence that he was the "correct" choice.

As Lord Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Every individual who has ascended to the presidency has found himself in a propitious position: he now has all of the powers of the previous administration at his disposal and will use those powers to increase his own and the power of the presidency. This power continues to corrupt each new president and the process began the first day he entered politics. The president and his underlings will continue to lust after and exercise this power until they destroy everyone or until the people collectively withdraw their consent.

A Question for Non-Radicals

Even if you believe the state is a "necessary evil"; even if you believe there is merit to electoral politics; and even if you consider yourself a Democrat ... do you honestly believe douchebags like this, who probably don't even balance their own checkbooks, should really be allowed to influence economic policy?

Not So Beautiful America

Pat Buchanan has a great article today explaining why the socialist American state is headed for collapse under the weight of tyrannical taxation and central planning.

As far as this observer is concerned, it can't come fast enough.

The Irony of Government Health Care

Is that programs ostensibly intended to improve the health of the people actually create human suffering.

Lew Rockwell applies the straightforward law of demand to explain why forcing businesses to provide health insurance will result in more unemployment. This not only means there will be more people who aren't employed to collect employer-subsidized health benefits, but if you don't have a job you can't exactly purchase insurance privately either.

Pay up, Slave

In the name of a health-care overhaul, Commufascisocialityrantking Barack Obama is moving another step closer to guaranteeing he'll be a one-term president by promising to confiscate nearly 60 percent of the wealth generated by society's most productive citizens.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses -- a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

We need an overhaul all right. Maybe with regard to a political philosophy that sees a return to all that "freedom" I always hear so much about. Just a thought.

Marylanders Pledge to Pay More for Food

I suppose it's only appropriate during a government-induced depression that politicians would push programs increasing our costs of living. In particular, the Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission is "challenging" consumers to pass up the standard human practice of seeking out the best values in exchange for the opportunity to pay higher prices. Per a Baynet.com report:

What if you could make one simple change every day for a week that would have a positive impact on your health, your local economy and the health of the planet? Join the thousands across Maryland who will take the Buy Local Challenge by pledging to eat at least one item from a local farm every day during Buy Local Week from July 18 to 24. You’ll enjoy food that’s fresh and nutritious while you support local farmers.

The Buy Local Challenge will celebrate its third anniversary in 2009. It was designed to highlight the environmental, health and economic benefits farms provide. Participants are encouraged to shop at farms, farm stands, farmers’ markets and grocers that offer locally grown food and wine, and dine at restaurants that include local farm food and wine in their menus.

For now we'll set aside the fact that this is an opinion piece masquerading as news, what with the mindless, undocumented implication that buying corn from a roadside stand instead of a chain grocery store could in any way account for a meaningful increase in "the health of the planet." (To hell, apparently, with all us lowly people who would suffer needlessly with the elimination of those evil superstores that provide better selections at lower prices.)

I certainly sympathize with local farmers who find it harder and harder to compete with state- and federally-subsidized plantations owned by politically-connected millionaires. And I'm not implying there's no value to shopping on the side of the road -- I do it all the time. I'm simply pointing out that shopping locally for the sake of shopping locally -- as an end in itself, and at the behest of politicians, of all people, who are the ones running local farms out of business in the first place -- is not the answer. Eliminating farm subsidies so all producers are allowed to compete on a level playing field is.

But, of course, that wouldn't be the American way. These days it seems most of us prefer programs lavishing tax monies upon the favored minority-of-the-month or good ol' boy to actually working for anything.

I probably need to have my head examined for even thinking about opening a restaurant nowadays, not only in this economy but also amid so much local and state heavy-handedness forcing business owners to spend at least as much time complying with regulations as they do generating wealth. But that's actually where I'm at these days, as I'm working on a business plan to peddle chili, hot dogs, and cheesesteaks.

However, I wouldn't expect people to come to my place simply out of concern for some politically-manufactured end; I'd hope they'd show up because that's where they'd find the best meals at the cheapest prices. And if they couldn't, I certainly wouldn't be able to blame them for putting their scarce resources to alternate uses.

Obama Man Can!

Great song from Canadian comedian Greg Morton. Best part is at the 1:47 mark.

Thanks to G.A. Plauche.

More Heller Redux

Thanks to Manuel Lora for alerting us to the abominable Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ and champion of a program encouraging neighborhood snitches to turn in gun owners for $1,000.

To everyone who naively believes the Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, I ask you to explain why every gun-controlling public serpent (thanks, Kent) references it when justifying his or her latest "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership. Specifically, Booker states (.pdf):

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government’s right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.

I conclude by quoting Mr. Lora:

There’s that word again, “reasonable,” coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. “Sure,” they say–there are gun rights, “as long as there are reasonable restrictions.” Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.

Tennessee's New Gun Law Is a Non-Issue for Restaurant Owners

"In Tennessee, we apparently are going to have 225,000 vigilantes shooting in bars."

That's a quote from Randy Rayburn, a restaurateur in Nashville who's complaining about a new state law that will allow gun owners to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.

Rayburn's hyperventilation over this law is absurd at best, considering he's implying that all of Tennessee's handgun permit holders will turn local bars and restaurants into modern day versions of the O.K. Corral just as soon as they're allowed entrance with their sidearms.

But there are at least a few problems with this argument. For starters, gun owners are among the most responsible people around. Thirty-seven other states have similar laws on their books and they haven't yet devolved into the fabled "Wild West" (a myth in its own right). Furthermore, the Tennessee law prevents bar and restaurant patrons from drinking alcohol when in possession of a firearm. And unlike an Oklahoma law that trampled property rights by requiring employers to allow workers to keep firearms in their cars in company parking lots, restaurant owners in Tennessee still have the right to ban weapons from their establishments.

Admittedly, I don't have my finger on the pulse of Tennessee politics, but this new gun law appears to not only increase liberty for gun owners but also preserve the property rights of business owners. The only problem I could foresee is if the law, say, allowed guns in restaurants but not in bars, and the status of an establishment could actually change in the eyes of the state relative to the amount of food it served in proportion to liquor.

For instance, if a restaurant owner could be fined or closed down because his liquor sales outweighed his food sales at any given point -- in essence, he's a "restaurant" one day and a "bar" the next -- this would obviously be an undue burden. In such a case, it would be virtually impossible to monitor a business in a dynamic environment where transactions are occurring minute to minute, and the owner would never really know whether to admit customers with guns or not. However, this doesn't appear to be a potential issue given that the law seems to apply equally to bars and restaurants.

No public servant should have the right to determine policy for any bar or restaurant owner, whether the issue be carrying a firearm, smoking, or eating fatty foods on the premises. All that matters is that consumers are engaging in consensual transactions with the property owners. Bars, like any other business, should be allowed to determine their own policies and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their stand in the marketplace.

Unless I'm mistaken in assessing this new law, people like Randy Rayburn simply have to post a sign reading "No guns allowed" if they don't want patrons carrying firearms -- the same thing they'd do in the absence of state laws in the first place. If this isn't good enough, then the only conclusion one can reliably draw is that Rayburn is a no-good busybody who wishes to use the state in order to impose his will on everyone else.

I Miss NY

Buffalo's Jim Ostrowski makes me feel a bit envious of NY residents today, as he revels in the fact that the state senate has remained deadlocked at 31-31 for three weeks now. This has already resulted in more than a billion dollars in saving for NY residents, as the government has been unable to pass new liberty-trampling taxes and laws.

I actually underestimated the amount of the gridlock tax cut. It’s way over a billion. NYC residents alone will be taxed $700 million more when the dirty deal is made for a 32nd vote.

Of course, given that I now live in Maryland, the least free state in this unholy union, it's really like I never even left the Empire State.

We're Quickly Becoming a Nation of Criminals

Yesterday I used the example of a drunk-driving incident to briefly illustrate how unjust the American legal structure is. From your county commissioners right on up to the federal government, the state constantly seeks to prosecute us for the mere potential to commit crimes, not simply in response to harm done intentionally to someone else or his property.

The problem with this system of governance is that it is extremely tyrannical. From a moral standpoint, you can't have a criminal without a victim, yet the state increasingly criminalizes nonviolent habits or behaviors that do no harm to anyone, save perhaps the individual who chooses to engage them. And even when the state does prosecute someone who's actually violated the property rights of others, the state doesn't merely force the individual to pay for his own crimes; it compels innocent taxpayers to pay for them as well when it robs us at the point of a gun in order to feed, clothe, and incarcerate the miscreant.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans not only condones but actually encourages this so-called system of "justice," even though granting the state such enormous power means there literally is no limit to the abuses that can be wielded on nonviolent citizens. To illustrate this further, I will reprint some comments I received yesterday at the Examiner in response to my post.

Read the entire article.

Just Another Case of the Government Looking out for You

New tobacco taxes have forced a cigar manufacturer to close down a plant in Tampa, resulting in the termination of 495 employees.

Perhaps Our Holy Savior Barack the Beneficent (hallowed be thy name) has some bailouts in mind for these poor souls.

More Cuts, More Freedom

One significant benefit of economic crises is that they usually force bloated states to cut their budgets and subsequently become more efficient (well, efficient for monopolies, anyway).

In California, Guv-nuh Ah-nuld is faced with the prospect of cutting billions from proposed spending plans in order to balance the budget.

Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.

To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.

Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year - on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.

The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

These cuts would only result in more economic and political freedom for California residents. Closing state parks and selling off property is a great way to repudiate debt immediately. Eliminating state programs has the dual benefit of saving taxpayers money in both the short- and long-term -- everyday maintenance costs disappear along with the state workers who would otherwise draw government-funded health and pension benefits. And many of the prisoners likely to qualify for early release would no doubt be those who have committed nonviolent "crimes" and who never should have been locked up in the first place.

Of course, you can never cut state spending without the teachers unions wailing the loudest and hardest. But despite complaints from school officials who argue that less funding will "shortchange" students and result in lower acedemic proficiency, laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting funding for educational fads will force the state to economize, which could allow it to become more productive if it took a few lessons from the private sector.

Generally, schools will weed out teachers beginning with those who don't have tenure, which is a formula for retaining many who are unmotivated and unproductive. However, if the governor instructed the districts to make these decisions based on merit (I know, fat chance), it would allow the state to weed out the worst teachers and keep only the best.

After all, this apparently is indicative of what California schools have been churning out so far:

"I think we won't be able to learn as much [if budgets are cut]," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."

Seriously, folks, I'm pretty sure the only direction the state can go is up.

You Can Stick Your Slavery Apology

So the Senate's backing a resolution that would generate a formal federal government apology for slavery. Unanimously, even. Whee.

Forgive me if I don't get all giddy in anticipation of what would amount to little more than eye candy -- or ear candy, as it were -- should the American superstate "apologize" to today's enslaved masses for past actors who sanctioned chattel slavery.

As Brutus has correctly pointed out on several occasions, the state's putrid physical enslavement of blacks was atrocious and unforgivable, but the difference between political slavery and chattel slavery is merely one of degree and not kind.

From bevies of taxes, fines, and fees to regulations and arbitrary diktats governing virtually every waking minute of our days, the leviathan state we live beneath today is every bit the slavemaster it was in previous centuries when its intentions were simply more apparent.

If our rulers really want to apologize for slavery, they can pass their resolution, clock out one final time, and close the doors on every one of the federal buildings in the federal cesspool known as Washington, D.C. Only then will each and every one of us truly be set free.

Another Example of Conservative Fecklessness

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) released a report critizing the Holy One's stimulus plans. In the beginning of the report, Coburn writes

There was no question that the nation’s economic condition demanded bold action. Nor is there any question that the massive amount of stimulus spending so far has created some new jobs. Yet, as recent statistics have shown, the jobs that may have been created or saved from the stimulus are not offsetting the millions of jobs that our economy is still hemorrhaging. In my estimation, Congress chose the wrong approach to stimulating the economy by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need. Real stimulus includes lowering the tax and regulatory burden on hardworking families and businesses, which creates good jobs for the long term. (emphasis added)

The fact that he says "Real stimulus includes" is his way of saying "some spending is necessary." But if lowering tax and regulatory burdens creates good jobs for the long term (and it does), why does the government need to spend any money at all? Why not make a principled economic argument that spending is not necessary to combat the recession and in fact makes things worse? Spending money during a recession in hopes of stimulating the economy is like, to paraphrase Robert Higgs, taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end with the expectation that the water level will rise.

Coburn continues

For example, what kinds of jobs are being created? Are these permanent jobs or seasonal and temporary jobs that will soon be gone when the project is completed? What are the merits of projects being funded with stimulus dollars? Will these projects make real improvements in the lives of taxpayers and communities or are they simply pet projects of politicians and lobbyists that never got off the ground because they are a low priority? Are some stimulus projects actually making matters worse for ordinary Americans?

All government jobs are temporary in the sense that none become self-sufficient. All government jobs depend on taxation and inflation because they don't produce goods and services which are traded on the free market. This does not mean that there would be no market demand for some of these goods and services. People would still demand roads, schools, and arbitration services. But the State prohibts or hampers competition in these areas. It forces people to use its arbitration and justice services and its roads. It makes private schooling expensive because families have to pay for both the private schooling out-of-pocket and public schooling out of taxes. But since these services are not traded on the free market, the only way to fund them is through the coercive power of the State, i.e., taxation and inflation.

Moreover, some of these goods and services would not even exist because there is no viable market for them. The only way such goods and services can continue to exist is through the coercive power of the State. They could not survive on their own.

Coburn then says in the introduction

By offering 100 examples of questionable stimulus projects, worth $5.5 billion, this report does not attempt to prove that the stimulus is not working. Rather, the intent is to educate taxpayers, policymakers and the media on lessons that can be learned from some of the early missteps and prevent other questionable projects from moving forward. (emphasis in original)

So now we see the real purpose. Coburn is not happy with the projects the Obama adminstration is spending money on. In his mind they are waste. The Obama administration responded to Coburn's critique with a point-by-point rebuttal, but for our purposes, this doesn't matter. By accepting the premise that some government spending is necessary to stimulate the economy, Coburn has already given away the principled high-ground. The debate is now about which projects should get the money which is pure politics which will continue in perpetuity.

If conservatives really want restore prosperity to the US, they must diabuse themselves of their belief that the State should intervene in a free market for any reason. A free market must be free from coercion in order to be free; any intervention by the State will produce unintended results which will lead to more interventions which will lead to more untended results, etc. This will middle-of-the-road policy will lead to socialism. As long as conservatives accept the premise that the State, i.e., a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making, should play any role in the market, they will always traveling on the road to serfdom.

'Are you wanting to shoot a politician over your asphalt-less driveway?'

This is a question sent by Gretchen in response to my cross-post yesterday at the Examiner about Toledo politicians who have passed a law preventing homeowners from parking in their own driveway if it isn't paved.

Here is my response:

Gretchen-

I don't condone the initiation of violence, even if it's directed at criminals who legalize state violence. If nothing else, this would merely empower the state to increase the scope of its own force in retaliation.

Of course, it could easily be argued that it is the politicians who are initiating this violence - indeed they are - and one would merely be acting in self-defense by using force to prevent property theft. However, I believe lethal force should primarily be used to prevent immediate mortal harm. For example, when the state's goons invade private homes with guns drawn looking for marijuana plants, one has every moral right to use lethal force in self-defense. (Of course, this would either get one shot or thrown in jail because the state is unjust.)

However, I have a question for you: Do you believe it was immoral for American revolutionaries to finally say 'enough's enough' and forcibly remove the tyrants of their day from power?

Property Rights Are Obsolete

I honestly wonder how so many politicians avoid getting shot.

Some Toledo, Ohio residents are being ticketed for parking in their own driveway because of a law making it illegal to park on any road surface that isn't paved.

By passing such a law the Toledo government is assuming ownership of people's property, meaning residents essentially rent their land and homes from the state. Pseudo-property owners are forced to pay their own mortgages, but it's up to the government to determine how property is to be used. This is fascism.

Of course, I am just a little jealous of the people of Toledo. The fascists comprising my corps of county commissioners prevent me from parking on asphalt driveways by making it illegal to pave my gravel road without a permit. And, of course, it's six years and counting that they've refused to issue a permit.

(Thanks to Dan)

All Government Laws Are Backed by Violence

"[G]overnment interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." Ludwig von Mises

This is the inference I drew while reading J.D. Tuccille's latest post.

Thankfully the Media's Got Its Priorities Straight

CNBC is pretty impressed with Barack Obama's ability to kill pestering flies during interviews.

No word yet on when it plans to focus its attention on his willingness to kill the economy, innocent foreigners, or casual drug users.

Obama's 'Deeply Troubled' by Iranian Violence

Because security forces open fire on peaceful citizens protesting a corrupt election?

Yes, it is quite appropriate to be bothered by this behavior. But apparently the American president is blissfully unaware of the violence visited upon nonviolent American citizens by our domestic police forces on a daily basis.

UPDATE (6/17): To clarify, I don't use the term "corrupt" to imply that the Iranian elections were somehow rigged or fraudulent -- Paul Craig Roberts argues they almost certainly were not -- but merely evil or depraved. As in, the evil of democracy is that most people mistakenly believe that free elections confer upon the majority the right to coerce the 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.

Confiscation through Regulation

Now wait just a minute...you mean to tell me that when the government passes laws rendering people's property useless, they'll just throw it out?

Americans have been creating up to 50 million tons of e-waste in recent years as they upgrade their technology. Now that tens of millions of old TVs have little or no value, they, too, may get tossed.

Who knew??

Maybe It's Good Some Dems Want Universal Mental Health Insurance

'Cause I'm sure as hell gonna need it after this bill passes.

Apparently the Wealthy Are Unemployed

I love the first paragraph of this Bloomberg story discussing hypersocialist Barack Obama's plan to tax the "wealthy" to overhaul health care in the U.S.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

It truly is remarkable how effortlessly the communists are able to shape their class warfare debates. It's always "the wealthy" against "the workers," as if people who don't wish to rely on the state for their own well-being don't work for a living. And if "the wealthy" aren't workers, how in the world did they become wealthy in the first place?

This is not a profound idea. You'd figure some reporter would think to ask someone like the president to explain exactly what more affluent Americans have done to deserve to be robbed so politicians can continue to perpetrate this myth.

And as far as this whole health care business is concerned, it's only a matter of time before Obama and the Democratic Congress completely socialize health insurance. Less than 20 percent of Americans are uninsured. So since Obama always talks about providing health care for those who don't already have it, be sure to ask yourself why those who already do will nevertheless be forced to partake in federally-managed programs too.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the state seeks to control every waking minute of our lives.

The Great Thief

Uncle Sam, of course. The federal government has invoked eminent domain to confiscate 500 acres of private land in order to install a memorial for United Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Penn., on 9-11.

Among those who will lose property is a man whose father had purchased land there during the great depression and a pastor who owns a cottage there where he planned to retire. Landowner Randall Musser told the Associated Press he served on the committee that helped establish the memorial's boundaries and said that back in 2002 landowners were promised that eminent domain wouldn't be used.

Eminent domain is a criminal statute used by the state to steal property from private citizens under penalty of death. There is no negotiation, discussion, or debate. You either get out of the way of the wrecking ball or you become part of it.

The passengers of Flight 93 believed they were defending their country from foreign invaders. Unfortunately, however, it seems they were merely defending parasitic politicians in the nation's capital who would eventually turn around and exploit their bravery as an excuse to plunder innocent civilians.

Roughly 30 percent of all the land in the U.S. is owned by the federal government, yet instead of erecting a memorial on property it already maintains, the scumbags in D.C. would rather build it in the middle of nowhere as long as it presents another opportunity to add to its own booty at the expense of private property owners.

Instead of celebrating these victims of 9-11 the federal government is tarnishing their memory. You cannot honor the dead by disgracing the living.

Democracy Ain't All It's Cracked up to Be

A new study by U.S.-funded agencies Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia says that a select group of 21st century "authoritarian" states around the world poses a threat to global democracy and the rule of law.

China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela form a clique of authoritarian states that use their wealth and influence to undermine global democracy and rule of law, a study by U.S.-funded agencies said on Thursday.

Well, this certainly is an interesting assertion considering the United States has retained monopoly status as the most authoritarian state in the world for the past hundred years. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, but I suppose we should expect as much given that the federal government commissioned this study by "prominent U.S. democracy-promotion bodies." After all, the empire needs to continue to justify its quest for world domination!

And what of this supposed threat to the "rule of law" anyway, as if there's some universal standard that "free" countries are known to adhere to? The only standard is that there isn't one. While the rule of law may be a necessary condition for democracy, it's hardly a sufficient one. The concept of the rule of law deals not with morality but merely legality, meaning that in a democracy laws are not defined by their adherence to justness or natural law, but whether they can garner a majority vote from a cabal of politicians.

Hence democracy. Though colloquially known as majority rule, democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Democracy is not some political philosophy that exists to combat authoritarianism; democracy is authoritarianism.

This study argues that other authoritarian states threaten the American authoritarian state, which clearly begs the question: so the eff what?

The first rule of any rule of law is that no one is above the law. Therefore, considering democracy is nothing more than a political apparatus by which one set of people benefits at the expense (i.e., through the legal plunder) of another group, it is hardly just, and it has absolutely no place in a free society.

Abolish All Vehicle Licensing (But Start with the Front Plate)

A friend just sent me a link to a petition circulating around Maryland urging the state to revoke the current law requiring display of a front license plate on all passenger vehicles. It reads in part:

We support the current and future licensing fee structure, but ask that the law reflect that a front license plate is no longer required. We believe that there are significant benefits in not requiring front license plates and our reasons for these belief are briefly summarized in the paragraphs below.

The petitioners outline several good reasons for getting rid of this requirement, though interestingly none concerns the requisite uptick in civil liberties abuses inherent to allowing the state one more method of tracking or detaining us.

I can't sign this petition because I oppose the current and future licensing fee structures on the face of it. However, while we should abolish all vehicle licensing requirements, revoking the law requiring the oppressive front tag would be a good place to start.