Tag Archives: Politics

Eric Schmidt Wants To Protect You From Your Neighbor’s Drone. But What About Barack Obama’s?

Here is another C4ss article. They are left leaning but are freedom loving nonetheless. I tend to lean a bit more right but am open and am exploring, reading and praying. Meanwhile this Schmidt dude sounds like a real elitist puppet. Take all rights away from the people because only government can be trusted with new technologies.

People can regulate themselves. They do not need drones (government officials) attempting to decide what is right and wrong for everyone in every situation.

Apart from certain things like theft, murder and the like most issues are not a matter of right or wrong but preference. Since this is true it should be left up to locals as to what works best in their area. As for those things that are definitely wrong, even here each community or locale must decide how best to handle these types of violations.

Of course that will present a problem since if you are traveling and kill someone it may be considered a murder in one place and accidental in another. In which case everything from being let go to a death sentence could occur. But do we truly want freedom or do we want some government that tells everyone what they can and cannot do? It seems worth the risk of freedom to me.  

I say this as a felon who could have been killed if some folks had had their choice, while others even the victim of my crime would have had me have no record whatsoever. (E)

Posted by  on Apr 15, 2013 in Commentary

As reported by the BBC, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt expresses grave misgivings about civilian acquisition of drones during an interview with the Guardian (available only to that paper’s subscribers). Curiously, Schmidt voices little skepticism of government use of drones for surveillance and targeted killing. He has this to say about his fear of drone proliferation:

“ You’re having a dispute with your neighbour … How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?” Schmidt also cited the possibility that terrorists could acquire drone technology as another danger. To make sure that drones don’t fall into the wrong hands, Schmidt said, “It’s got to be regulated … It’s one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they’re doing, but have other people doing it … it’s not going to happen.”

Schmidt’s assumption that drone deployment by governments has “some legitimacy” is debatable given the available evidence. For instance, a report from McClatchy raises serious questions about whom the US Government targets with its drones. The Obama administration claims that drone strikes “are authorized only against ‘specific senior operational leaders of al Qaida and associated forces’ involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks who are plotting ‘imminent’ violent attacks on Americans.” But according to McClatchy reporter Jonathan S. Landay,

Copies of the top-secret U.S. intelligence reports … show that drone strikes in Pakistan over a four-year period didn’t adhere to those standards.

The intelligence reports list killings of alleged Afghan insurgents whose organization wasn’t on the U.S. list of terrorist groups at the time of the 9/11 strikes; of suspected members of a Pakistani extremist group that didn’t exist at the time of 9/11; and of unidentified individuals described as “other militants” and “foreign fighters.”

These revelations led Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald to state bluntly, “The Obama Administration often has no idea who they are killing.” So why would Eric Schmidt be so unconcerned about the drones deployed by the US government?

Maybe it has something to do with Schmidt’s cozy relationship with President Obama. The administration reportedly offered Schmidt a cabinet post after the president’s 2012 re-election. According to  the Telegraph, Schmidt oversaw “Google’s $700,000 donation” to the Obama campaign and has been close to the president since the 2008 presidential campaign.

Or perhaps Schmidt is just a bourgeois liberal who thinks more highly of state and corporate officials than he does of “the rabble.” Schmidt also said, “ I’m not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being.” This statement displays a frustrating, but common, naivete about the nature of governments. If Schmidt was truly aware of the state’s capacity for mass killing and organized violence, he might become less wary of the local yokels. Schmidt’s error is similar to those who demand further restrictions on private firearm ownership even as US government at all levels becomes more militarized.

But what about Schmidt’s neighborhood squabble scenario?

If my neighbor had his drone buzzing over my residence, I suspect that I — probably accompanied by sympathetic and irritated neighbors — would pay Mr. Drone Fetish a visit. I would ask him to behave in a more neighborly fashion if he ever wanted to see his drone again. If he persisted, the best shot in the neighborhood might just blow his precious drone out of the sky. Emerging anti-drone technology and community pressure might also be used to harsh his UAV mellow.

Come to think of it, since domestic law enforcement is now in the drone game, drone shooting may become a hot new sport for freedom-loving US rifle owners. After all, clay pigeons pose no threat to you or your civil liberties. The same cannot be said of government drones, no matter what Eric Schmidt thinks.

C4SS Fellow Dave Hummels is a libertarian socialist writer from Central Illinois. He earned a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice. Dave has over a decade of experience in the healthcare security field and is a licensed emergency medical technician.
 
Advertisements

Shellfish Coated Bananas?

For those of us who do not eat shellfish for religious reasons this is a disaster. We will no longer be able to eat vegetables and fruits not grown locally which in Iowa leaves very few options. Especially in winter and spring months. (E)


The Main Reason Why Americans Need to Stand Against A War With Iran-The People of Iran

The Difference Between You & Me

“The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don’t know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.”

Marjane Satrapi, Author


The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance

“But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” ~Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837


Dr. Paul Grades Professor Obama

He Gives Him An F

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 – by Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Last week President Obama made some rather shocking comments at a press conference regarding the Supreme Court’s deliberation on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. His comments belie a grasp of constitutional concepts so lacking that perhaps the University of Chicago Law School should offer a refund to any students “taught” constitutional law by then-Professor Obama!

He said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” It almost sounds as if he believes the test of constitutionally is whether a majority approves of the bill, as opposed to whether the legislation lies within one of the express powers of the federal government. In fact, the very design of the Constitution, with power split amongst two branches of the legislature which write the laws, an executive who administers the laws and an independent judiciary which resolves disputes regarding meaning of the laws, was designed to thwart popular will and preserve liberty.

President Obama continued in his comments, “For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

President Obama seems to misunderstand that the criticism of an activist judiciary is not that it is overturning unconstitutional federal laws, but instead that it is usurping the authority to intervene in areas, such as abortion, where the Constitution reserves authority to the states. In fact, upholding clearly unconstitutional laws such as Obamacare because the justices bowed to the “will of the people” or believed the individual mandate was good social policy could be considered an example of judicial activism.

The founders never intended the judiciary to have the last word on whether or not a law is constitutional. The judiciary is equal to the Congress and the President, not superior. Representatives, senators, presidents and judges all have an independent duty to determine a law’s constitutionality. The founders would be horrified by the attitude of many lawmakers that they can pass whatever laws they want and federal judges will then determine whether or not the law is constitutional.

Additionally, state governments have the authority to protect their citizens from federal laws that threaten liberty. If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, I hope state legislators will exercise their powers to pass legislation allowing their citizens to opt-out of the national health care plan.

Unfortunately, even many of my colleagues who correctly argue Obamacare’s unconstitutionality support the President when he asserts the power to send troops into battle without a declaration of war, or have citizens indefinitely detained and even assassinated on little more than his own authority. Other of my colleagues not only cheer the unconstitutional monstrosity of Obamacare, but support the President’s actions to defy the Senate’s appointment powers, and legislate by executive order.

Even worse, some members will only challenge a president’s unconstitutional actions if the president is from a different political party. The defeat of Obamacare in the courts would provide a stark reminder that the limits of government are set by the Constitution, not the will of the president, Congress, or even the Supreme Court. However, the victory would be short-lived as long as the legislative branch refuses to do its duty to abide by the constitutional limits and exercises its powers to ensure the other two branches do likewise.

Ron Paul:   View Bio   l  View Site Contributions

US Constitution :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions

Barack Obama:   View Bio   l  View Site Contributions

Original Article: http://www.thedailybell.com/3800/Ron-Paul-Professor-Obama-Gets-an-F


Lincoln Must Have Worked for Money Power

Monday, April 09, 2012 – by Staff Report

Abraham Lincoln

New Tim Burton film features Abraham Lincoln, vampires … “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” to premiere in June 2012 … While sitting in the theater waiting for “The Hunger Games” to start, I witnessed the most fantastically ridiculous trailer I’ve seen in a long time. It began when a slender man of large stature with the token beard, chiseled chin and tall top hat appeared on the screen. It was evident that he was Abraham Lincoln. When the trailer began, it looked like this movie might be some interesting, slightly morbid take on our 16th president’s life. Or at least something that loosely follows documented history. But then the trailer cut to scenes of Honest Abe wielding an axe like he attended some brute weapons combat school. The slow-motion shot of Abe with his axe, though borderline cheesy, looked edgy. – Daily Wildcat

Dominant Social Theme: Abraham Lincoln − so great he even kills vampires.

Free-Market Analysis: The cult of Lincoln continues unabated. Now comes another movie glorifying the Great Emancipator − see excerpt above.

It is a “mash up” in which several genres are combined, fictionally. This mash up was initially fiction that combined the historical Lincoln with the vampire sub-genre.

The author was purposefully clever − or just lucky − to have featured Lincoln at a time when the powers-that-be are increasingly desperate for pro-government propaganda. We figure in this era of the Internet, Lincoln looks like a valuable figure to those who want to reinforce the primacy of government.

The dynastic families that apparently run central banks along with their enablers and associates are continually attempting to bolster statist heroes like Lincoln because these elites maintain control via mercantilism. They need government, the bigger the better, to efficaciously move toward a New World Order.

The power elite that wants to run the world is having a tough time of it these days. What we call the Internet Reformation is daily exposing the dominant social themes it uses to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist institutions.

One of the biggest dominant social themes is the one of the “leader.” We are constantly bombarded, in the West, with the idea that good political leadership will lead to good political results.

In fact, the political process is entirely one of price-fixing. Real leadership is actually practiced within the private sector and is the result of Misesian human action, the only kind that counts.

The Invisible Hand of competition makes society work. The dead hand of legal authoritarianism causes economic problems, recessions, depressions and ultimately war.

The power elite has made Lincoln into a hero and the Civil War into an admirable exercise in freeing slaves. But the slavery economy would have ended anyway with the advent of the industrial revolution. It did in England without a war.

The Civil War − the War Between the States − was a terrible affair and probably hurt black people as well as helped them. The legacy of bitterness and hatred was overwhelming and is only gradually being overcome … if it actually is.

From our perspective, Lincoln is no hero. He set the South ablaze, killed innocents and virtually knocked down whole cities. Atlanta has never recovered.

He was also a statist politician who believed in the primacy of the state and was willing to arrest people without cause and trample the Constitution to pursue his goal of keeping the union together.

In this modern era, Lincoln has been made a hero by the neo-Greenbacker movement blossoming around the Internet, especially in the alternative press − led in part by Ellen Brown, author of the Web of Debt.

We believe more in private money and competitive money systems, including private clearinghouses, fractional reserve and anything else that someone wants to try. We believe within this context, silver and gold would find their place, as historical bimetallism always has.

Greenbackers, on the other hand, believe that government itself − if properly run “for the people” can issue fiat money and spend its way to prosperity.

Greenbackers make the case that Lincoln was a Greenbacker. And aficionados of “directed history” make the point that Lincoln, alone, stood against a power elite – European – plot to divide the US into two distinct countries to lessen its clout.

This perspective has made Lincoln a “hero” of sorts, even within the alternative media that should know better.

Politicians are not heroes nor can they be, given what they have to do and the alliances they have to make. Lincoln set in motion a war that murdered millions. He didn’t likely HAVE to start a war, but he did.

Lincoln was at the center of one of the most powerful countries on Earth. The idea that he was a “killer” of European banking bloodsuckers is an attractive one, but hardly the truth.

The Lincoln portrayed by neo-Greenbackers has been debunked by two Austrian-oriented free-market thinkers, historian Thomas DiLorenzo and economist Gary North.

Interestingly, they come to somewhat different conclusions about Lincoln’s statist affections. DiLorenzo believes that Lincoln was pro-central banking and perhaps supported by the New York banking establishment.

Dr. Gary North believes that Lincoln was supportive of gold and silver and disparaging of fiat generally, including Greenbacks.

Whatever the truth, there is no doubt that Lincoln basically suspended the US Constitution and prosecuted a bloody war that he might have been able to find an alternative to.

Bottom line: From our humble point of view, Lincoln was likely in the hip pocket of Money Power.

European Money Power wanted a US war and Lincoln gave it one. When it was over, the US Republican exception was finished. Imperium had arrived. Things have only grown worse since.

The power elite has NEVER started a war, or not for the past 300 years or so, without controlling BOTH sides of the conflict. That’s what directed history tells us. Hitler, Napoleon, the Kaiser (WWI) − in each case, Money Power seemingly controlled and funded the “enemy.”

Why on Earth are we to believe that Lincoln − above all − was somehow immune to this formula? Most likely he was not.

No, he must have prosecuted a war at the bequest of Money Power and when it was done, they threw him over.

It really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti-Greenbacks. First of all, Greenbackerism doesn’t work in the long run. Governments always print too much money when they have the chance and thus debase the currency.

That’s why fiat schemes eventually wither − just as the dollar reserve system is withering. It doesn’t matter who does the printing. It’s the monopoly that matters.

But secondly and more important, Lincoln was evidently and obviously trapped in the elite dialectic − as all others have been in the modern era. To argue otherwise is surely naïve.

To argue that his death was specifically as a result of the intention to create more Greenbacks is equally naïve. He was part of the Money Power that he was supposedly confronting.

He wasn’t standing alone, heroically, against Money Power. He was a creature of it. He must have been.

Understand this and the Civil War − and his crazed actions − suddenly snap into focus. It was more directed history, and Lincoln was one more puppet. The result of the war, as planned, was the collapse of American exceptionalism and the rise of Leviathan.

Lincoln, with his profound and absurd veneration for a “nation” (see the Gettysburg address) played his role with greater or lesser enthusiasm. Perhaps he knew his fate would be death; perhaps not.

He needed to justify his actions by using the rhetoric of nation-hood, even though a “nation” is an artificial construct. In the deepest sense there are no nations, for nations are constructs of culture. Those who use the term, like Lincoln, are creating an artifical concept to justify a kind of rhetorical cover.

John Kennedy was not assassinated because he signed an executive order for the issuance of Silver Certificates. Alternative historians have written on this folk theory extensively and proved it to be a modern myth. Lincoln was probably not assassinated simply because he somehow stood up against Money Power … elites that, in fact, had likely helped place him where he was.

What we CAN draw from ongoing Greenbacker speculation is that the world is not as simple a place as “Neo-Gs” would like to make out.

In this case, it is most interesting − especially given the upcoming Lincoln movie.

Conclusion: All the world’s a stage / And all the men and women merely players / They have their exits and their entrances / And one man in his time plays many parts … − William Shakespeare

Ed Note: This article was inspired in part by a dialogue over at an Alex Jones website that posted an article of ours, “Elite Meme: Anything Is Better Than Gold.” A friend alerted us to the thread and his comments.

Human Action :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions

Invisible Hand :   View Glossary Description   l  View Site Contributions


The Man Who Should Be President

From: Chuck Baldwin

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here]

 For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

 [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

© Chuck Baldwin


The Rule Of Law

Government:

  • If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.

  •  If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested.

  •  If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed.

  •  If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead.

These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

– Edward  Abbey –


Schwarzenegger’s “Prison Planet”

Original Article: http://www.thedailybell.com/3712/Schwarzenegger-Sells-Out-to-the-Horrible-UN-Backed-Sustainia-Project

Monday, March 19, 2012 – by Staff Report
 

Arnold Schwarzenneger

Schwarzenegger: Time for a New Breed of Action Heroes … The former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announces today that he will serve as Honorary Chair for the Sustainia Award alongside EU Commissioner Connie Hedeggard, IPPC Chairman Dr. Rajenda K. Pachauri and former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. The Award is part of a new initiative to develop the world’s first realistic model of a sustainable world in 2020 – and identify the companies and persons who can make it real. As long as we can’t see or feel what a sustainable society is, we will never succeed in convincing decision makers to make the changes necessary. The sustainable private and public solutions must be recognized and scaled up – and we need a tangible idea of how it will improve quality of life for people and communities around the world. – UN Global Compact

Dominant Social Theme: With the Governator on our side, we can build a sustainable planet.

Free-Market Analysis: Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to rule the world. First, he was the world’s best bodybuilder and then the biggest movie star. After that he was the governator of the Biggest Show on Earth (California) and now he has signed on to be the award presenter for the startlingly ominous Sustainia project.

Schwarzenegger comes across as a caricature, like a cartoon character, a blow-up mannequin with a silly accent. For these reasons, he seems non-threatening. Also, he has been very successful, and people forgive success.

But Schwarzenegger’s deals were apparently cut with the power elite long ago. It wasn’t so well understood at the time, but Schwarzenegger’s 1990s movies presaged much of the growing police state in America and throughout the West. Coincidence?

This move star was featured in a number of films about the near future that contained many of the “security” techniques now coming on line. Just take a look at any of his tremendously successful Terminator movies or movies such as “Total Recall,” made in 1990.

This is one reason that those who run Hollywood are so focused on copyright law. Hollywood movies are distributed around the world. Rich or poor, and no matter the language, people watch the same fare and are conditioned to look at the world the same way.

The power elite uses only the biggest stage for its various dominant social themes – the fear-based promotions that seek to move the world’s populations toward global government.

These promotions feature food, water and energy. By demonizing carbon dioxide, for instance, the power elite is trying to make people suspicious of one of the two fundamental gases necessary for life. They are nothing if not ambitious and bold.

The UN is emerging once more as a main engine as the power elite makes its final push toward world government. This is one reason why we don’t see any schism in the power elite itself, as many maintain. The goals seem harmonious at the topmost level.

Yet when one reads about this horrible project, one might be struck by the pains that UN leaders are taking to distance themselves from it. This is part of the UN’s larger psyops war to convince people that the fascist mentality animating the current UN leadership is shared by NGOs, businesses big and small, political leaders and, of course, “the children.” The UN speaks for all of us, in other words.

It’s part of our lives now, as natural as breathing. We simply accept that the leaders of 100 or 200 nations casually get together in various posh getaways to sign nonsensical agreements supporting things like a “zero-carbon earth.”

Flush from its control of monopoly-fiat central banking around the world, the topmost elite behind these manipulations is seeking to build world government as fast as possible. What’s the rush? Well … we tend to believe that the Internet itself, and what we call the Internet Reformation, has forced the hand of these dynastic families.

As the Internet Reformation itself gathers force and informs people of the Way the World Really Works, the elites are losing their best tool – the memes they are able to establish through control of the world’s media.

As these memes founder and fail, the elites turn to war and Draconian legislation to force people to conform to their vision of a single, worldwide “community.” The UN has re-emerged as the lead instrument for this repression after a period of apparent lassitude.

The UN and its top people are everywhere these days, working in “concert” with various governments, NGOs and “celebrities.” This Sustainia gambit is just one of the same, and has all the patterns of an elite meme.

It’s like the unveiling of a new movie (maybe no coincidence). And it stars the person who was once the world’s biggest Hollywood star and features a cast of characters that include the world’s top corporations and non-profits, and of course, the world’s “leading thinkers.”

A UN press release tells us about this new, bold initiative. (And what a contemptuous name it is, like the very first thing someone scribbled down on a napkin during a brainstorming session on how to further confuse the “sheeple.”) Not surprisingly, the outfit issuing a press release on the new award’s presentation is the “UN Global Compact.”

The United Nations Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.

From the press release, we learn that the former “Governator” believes the era of talk is over and that it is time for action. “The companies, institutions and persons who represent green solutions are the new breed of action heroes whose efforts we should celebrate and encourage,” he is quoted as saying.

Just as it is in the movies, Schwarzenegger has to share credit with others that get equivalent billing in this new production. “He is joined by three of the world’s most prominent sustainability leaders,” we are told.

First is European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); second is Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Former Prime Minister of Norway and Former Director General of WHO; and third is Gro Harlem Brundtland, who founded the global sustainability agenda 20 years ago at the first Rio conference in 1992 on sustainable development.

Schwarzenegger is gracious about being associated with these three. “Being a champion in body building, in movies or in politics, I learned that the key to success is people power – motivating and inspiring everyone to be a part of the solution, not just part of the problem.”

And he adds, “The Sustainia initiative and the awards that recognize innovative people and technologies can help our campaign to make communities healthier, wealthier, and more sustainable for generations to come.”

So what IS Sustainia? The Sustainia web page tells us that “Sustainia is a virtual model of the world we could create if we implemented ready and available solutions to our existing cities, homes, energy systems and transportation. Developers have started the process of building Sustainia. In the coming months, everyone with an Internet access can visit, inhabit and help build the new world on a virtual construction site.”

From the website, we learn that “The vision of Sustainia is presented in the book ‘Guide to Sustainia,’ which was developed by Scandinavian think tank Monday Morning in a collaborative effort with 20 global companies (including Microsoft, GE, DNV, Philips Lighting, DONG Energy, Tetra Pak, Cisco and others) and experts.” Here’s the “problem” as enunciated by Sustainia in this “Guidebook” …

Getting to Sustainia won’t happen overnight … Arriving safely requires many choices and actions. Most importantly: We cannot make it there by ourselves. We have to go together, all of us.

The warming planet and depletion of natural capital are global problems in a globalized world. The response has to be coordinated, collaborative, and carefully planned. Environmental problems are interconnected through a well-balanced and complex global system. If we alter one part, we risk impacting other parts – or tipping the balance altogether.

Furthermore, the effects follow specific time-bound trajectories. Global emissions of CO2 must be reduced by at least 50-85% in 2050. If we don’t initiate the sustainable trajectory today, so that emissions peak in 2020, we will not be able to halt global warming below dangerous levels.

The link to nature was, unfortunately, not generally reflected in the “old” economic model. The price of a product was based on the cost of human resources and materials, not the cost of pollution of our common natural good. In 2020, this has started to change, and that is one of the most important pathways to create a sustainable economy.

The notion that we do not have the tools to confront the environmental crisis changed in the 2000s. Numerous projections and forecasts told us we had most of the needed technologies, policies, and information. While there is no “silver bullet” – a single technology or political agreement that will solve the problem – an array of complementary measures do exist.

We know what to do. Fixing the problem comes down to the human factors.

But what if there is no “problem” to begin with? If there is global warming – and more and more evidence shows us there is NOT – then it is likely a condition beyond human control and one that, in any case, may be positive for the Earth’s flora and fauna in the long term.

One can surely make a case that a hot Earth is more sympathetic to life than a cold one. And the Earth has obviously been warmer in the past than at present.

On the other hand, the powers-that-be have taken to calling this meme-of-memes “climate change.” So maybe they are hedging their bets. Maybe the Earth is starting to COOL.

Weather always changes. By turning changeable weather patterns into a kind of crisis and associating this crisis directly with “every breath” people take, the elites have attempted to create an ongoing state of emergency that can be used to justify even the most Draconian laws and repression. It is a kind of key they hope will unlock the New World Order.

How does Schwarzenegger fit into this?

“The key elements in the collaboration between Sustainia and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s … initiative consist of the following:

1. To Identify, Design, Implement, Measure, Report and Verify the actions undertaken by regions and their positive impacts for a sustainable world.

2. On an annual basis, to identify the most successful sustainable solutions and award the solution with the most potential to be implemented and disseminated.

3. The establishment of a new powerful global forum for ambitious action and commitment to sustainable development that will provide a new innovative and creative annual platform for gathering global leaders.

Sustainia will be presented to world leaders in June this year, at the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil, alongside an inspiration catalogue – “Sustainia100” – containing 100 concrete solutions and technologies that will help make “Sustainia” real.

Naked apes are uniquely susceptible to shame and guilt, and the global warming campaign is cleverly suited to play off both emotions. But there is a larger game afoot.

The idea, in our view, is to build a world government that will control every part of the actions and resource utilization of billions of people. It will literally be, in an apt phrase, a “prison planet.”

Eventually, over time, much of this population will be reduced, violently or otherwise, and the rest shall be susceptible to genetic manipulation. See the so-called Georgia Guidestones for a chilling prophecy in this regard.

Conclusion: This is the future that Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to assist in his need for attention, ego gratification and additional wealth.

United Nations :   View Glossary Description

Internet Reformation :   View Glossary Description


America’s Archons reincarnate Rome — Looting without Borders

DATE: 20 MARCH 2012POSTED BY : BY KEVIN CARSON

More than a year ago, I reported on the mission of Frank “Bagman of Empire” Wisner to Egypt (“Egypt: Let the Looting Begin,” Center for a Stateless Society, February 4, 2011). Wisner, formerly of Enron and AIG, was Obama’s plenipotentiary to Egypt, tasked with managing the post-Mubarak succession in as U.S.-friendly a direction as possible.

Wisner’s father, by the way, was another Bagman of Empire; as a founding spook of the OSS and CIA he managed the overthrow of Arbenz and Mossadegh. Wisner had co-chaired (with another noted bagman, James Baker) a commission that developed a post-Saddam vision for the governance of Iraq. Just reading the “100 Orders” issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the corporate looting pursuant tothem, should give you a good idea of Wisner’s agenda.

Today’s column is about another Bagman of Empire: John Timoney.

Richard Moore wrote twelve years ago, in “Escaping the Matrix” (Whole Earth Catalog, Summer 2000) about the Empire importing technologies of repression from the imperial Periphery to the Core and using them to manage the domestic population.

It’s nothing new. It’s as old as Caesar bringing the legions from Gaul back across the Rubicon. But now it’s being done in reverse. A high-level maestro of political repression from the American domestic police apparatus has found lucrative employment in Bahrain.

Timoney had already established himself as a notable carpetbagger of repression within the United States. As Philadelphia’s Police Commissioner, he supervised the police riot at the August 2000 GOP Convention. His Gestapo tactics there, and later as police chief of Miami during the anti-FTAA protests, were dress rehearsals for the police repression of Occupy protests in hundreds of cities across America: Gassing and breaking the bones of unarmed people, pre-emptively arresting organizers, planting evidence — you name it, Timoney’s been there and done that.

From the outset of the Seattle movement, Timoney was its J. Edgar Hoover — warning shrilly of the “International Anarchist Conspiracy” to disrupt meetings of neo-liberal institutions. He agitated relentlessly to apply the RICO statute to the anti-Globalization movement. Timoney is a close associate of Tom Ridge, going back to the latter’s provision of political cover to Timoney’s police riot, and after the post-9/11 establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security was rumored to have close informal ties to much of the Department’s leadership. Although his prospects for high office in Fatherland Security never materialized, he went on to an extremely lucrative career as lobbyist for the security-industrial complex. And as police chief of Miami, he got a chance to further refine his jackbooted thuggery from the Philly days.

Now Timoney — along with fellow carpetbagger John Yates, assistant commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police — serves the Bahraini royal government. You know, the despotic Bahraini state that’s been engaged in brutal and murderous repression of the Arab Spring uprising there for the past year. Timoney, it seems, is for sale to any petty tyrant with petrodollars burning a hole in his pocket and wants to do a really high-class job (ahem) “using chemical weapons against his own people.”

It’s been said that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Give people a bunch of big hammers, and they’ll start looking for new ways to use them. Likewise, if your Empire has a need for torturers, thugs and detention camp guards, you’ll find all the volunteers you need to keep Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or Philly running. But once you have those guys (and gals, pace Lynndie England), they become an established constituency.

Somebody once quipped that the French Empire was built by retired army officers. Marijuana criminalization began, in part, as patronage for G-men unemployed by the repeal of Prohibition. Sometimes, likewise, MPs who get a taste for inflicting pain and domination on the powerless in squalid holes like Abu Ghraib or Baghram AFB come home and decide to become cops or prison guards (remember Dim in A Clockwork Orange?). And sometimes American cops become advisers to foreign despots’ secret police.

All uniformed thugs are brothers under the skin. And repression is becoming an industry without borders.


About the writer:

C4SS (c4ss.org) Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includesStudies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.


Hush-Hush Congressional Research Report: The Myth of Social Mobility … Not

Original article: http://www.thedailybell.com/3713/Hush-Hush-Congressional-Research-Report-The-Myth-of-Social-Mobility

Monday, March 19, 2012 – by Staff Report
Income inequality in the United States is more pronounced than in other developed countries, a new report from the Congressional Research Service finds, while the possibility of economic mobility is more constrained than commonly believed. “Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most uneven of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of inequality.” – FAS Secrecy News Blog
 

Dominant Social Theme: In America, anyone can get rich.

Free-Market Analysis: Here’s a big myth: US social mobility is fungible and anyone can grow rich. Now a report from the Congressional Research Service has found that income inequality in the US is extreme and growing worse. Also, that where you’re born, socially speaking, is where you stay.Did you read about these findings? Didn’t think so. For one reason or another, Congress doesn’t seem inclined to make a big fuss over this information. Wonder why.Actually not. We think we know why. Congress’s approval ratings are stuck near the SINGLE DIGITS and have stayed there for years. This is because most people in the US likely see Congress as an instrument of repression and the increasingly savage status quo.There is a lot of truth to this assumption. Who at this point would want to work in Congress but a sociopath or psychopath? And there is plenty of evidence that the US Congress includes both.• In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has been using depleted uranium weapons regularly for nearly a decade. The poisoning of these poor people has been so intense that many die of obscure cancers and mothers are routinely told not to have babies. Neither of these wars has been successful, and the depleted uranium poisoning has injured hundreds of thousands of returning US vets as well.• In the US, one third of citizens now have some exposure to the criminal justice system by the time they are in their early 20s. The US system of jurisprudence has resulted in some six million behind bars at any one time, more than half the world’s population of incarcerated individuals. The costs in damaged lives and families in tremendous. Routinely, as well, innocent people are put to death, victims of Draconian US “justice.”• The US population on food stamps has exploded, with some 50 million using food stamps now. And ALL US citizens eventually come to use some form of government assistance, especially if one includes Social Security. Medicare is another ubiquitous and badly run program encouraging citizen dependence on the government.• The Federal Reserve system, authorized and overseen by Congress, is responsible for the degradation of the US dollar by some 95-99 percent. The entire dollar reserve system is now on the verge of unraveling as the “depression” of the 2000s winds on with no real signs of abating.• The income tax system, and taxes generally, remove up to 50 percent or more of a person’s disposable income when one actually peers behind the various charges that are leveled on producers and consumers. Products are taxed all the way through the supply chain, so that the end price may reflect dozens of tax charges.This is but a tiny sampling of the kinds of results that Congress has been partially responsible for. The executive wing, of course, is equally culpable, as is the US Supreme Court. Those born in the US are subject to millions of regulations and thousands of taxes that they had no say in creating. They are saddled, as well, with the US’s “national debt.”The US has likely reached a point of no return when it comes to its regulatory, tax and monetary structure. The regulatory structure especially tends to freeze people into place from an economic and social mobility standpoint.This is, of course, exactly what the larger power elite wants. The apparent handful of dynastic families that control central banking around the world use regulation, taxes and fiat-money inflation as a way of ensuring that the billions beneath them have little hope of advancement.Yes, a tiny group of people seeks to implement world government apparently and uses various methodologies of control to shove the world and its billions in this direction. This is why societies around the world, including Western societies, are increasingly dysfunctional.This is a change from several hundred years ago when the US itself emerged as the hope of the world for social mobility. This is also why the US has been under tremendous attack from the elites for nearly its entire existence.The US “exception” shows us how a somewhat “free” society can actually work. Free banking, an economy based in part on gold and silver and a lack of formal regulation all catapulted the US into the topmost tier of the world’s wealthiest countries.But by the 20th century, the elites unceasing attacks on the libertarian positioning of the US had taken their toll. The proximate cause was the Civil War, which put the New York Banks (the European axis) in charge of the federation. From there it was just a matter of time.In the 20th century, the authoritarians struck. The silver standard, removed in the 19th century, was suddenly buttressed by the graduated income tax and the Federal Reserve. Two world wars effectively militarized the entire US, gave rise to an empire and a shadow world government managed out of the City of London with branches in Washington DC, Tel Aviv and elsewhere.The empire that the US has become is commonly seen by the bought-and-paid-for media as the apogee of sociopolitical and cultural achievement. But as we have pointed out, empire is nothing more than the last exhalation of a dying and corrupt culture.It is the time PRECEDING empire during which cultures achieve greatness, when people have social mobility and control over their own lives, inspirations and inventions. Empire is inevitably a military excrescence that takes each positive enumeration of civil society and weaponizes it.Pre-empire cultures are great places to live. But cultures that celebrate empire are miserable ones, full of hate, fear, paranoia and socio-economic and political control.The US, now in the empire phase, is failing fast. US citizens can only look back to the pre-Civil War period for a glimpse of the freedom that created a great country that spanned the world with its agricultural, cultural and mechanical gifts. The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” became a cliché for a reason.Above all, the US, “free banking” economic system based on gold and silver was the envy of the world. Though the power elite owned both gold and silver, it is evident and obvious that the elites could NOT control the US economy no matter how much gold and silver they owned.In fact, this directly rebuts Greenbackers’ contention that those who own the gold and silver will control the world even within a free-market economy. In the US, they didn’t and could not. This helps bear out the truth of Austrian economiststhat it is impossible to sustain unwanted monopolies in free market societies.They needed to use force, as they always do, to control society. First they fought the Civil War to destroy private banking and private money and to build up Wall Street and the power of the New York banks. After this in rapid succession came the graduated income tax, the Federal Reserve and various world wars.And now social mobility is all-but-frozen in the US. The power elite has been immeasurably aided in their quest to subvert the freedoms in the US by the various myths that still exist in the country regarding the way it used to operate. The article, excerpted above, makes this point as well:“Americans may be less concerned about inequality in the distribution of income at any given point in time partly because of a belief that everyone has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. A review of the literature suggests that Americans’ perceptions about their likelihood of changing position in the income distribution may be exaggerated,” the CRS report said.“It … appears that going from rags to riches is relatively rare; that is, where one starts in the income distribution greatly influences where one ends up.” See The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons, March 7, 2012.We have long been aware of the increasing inequities in US society and the “welfarization” of the economy that has accompanied its authoritarianism militarization and regulatory and penal deconstruction. But eventually, the new realities probably will begin to wake up more people in the US.When they do, we expect there may be considerable social trouble. People currently still anticipate the current “recession” will end. They cannot be blamed, struggling as they are, for not understanding that the power elite has apparently turned a fundamental page.The elites now seek frank world government from what we can tell and are promoting economic disaster, regional and world wars and increased authoritarianism around the world in order to realize their goals. Out of chaos … order.The problem, as we long have pointed out, is that what we call the Internet Reformation is increasingly educating and radicalizing much of the ‘Net intelligentsia. This is a critical breech in the elite’s plans.

Conclusion: The successful conclusion of the elite’s plans is by no means certain, even though they try to make it appear so. They have certainly managed to deconstruct US exceptionalism and make the lives of many a living hell. But even this can be reversed over time and we don’t count out the possibility that it shall be.

 


Anarchy is order, whereas capitalistocratic government is civil war

Anarchy symbol - Basic traditional circumscrib...

Image via Wikipedia

by Darian Worden

The prospect of state collapse brings forth worries about a “power vacuum,” an unrestrained state of nature where chaos rules until the strong take over. But chaotic conflict is produced by efforts to seize power and exert power over other people. It is not the rejection of rulership, but the struggle to achieve rulership, that creates deadly conflict. The negation of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not necessitate the chaotic mess associated with the phrase “power vacuum.”

Anarchy would mean that power is dispersed among individuals who would rather safeguard each others’ freedom than rule over each other. And if power is firmly in the hands of organized people then there is no power vacuum.

In politics, the word power generally signifies the ability of an individual or group of individuals to influence the decisions of others. Authority is an attempt to legitimate the exercise of power to compel obedience or allegiance to the higher ranks. Anarchists reject authority in favor of individual autonomy. Anarchy means that individuals have ultimate decision-making power over their own lives, and the only social arrangements recognized as legitimate are those that are based on consensual cooperation.

When authority amasses and exercises political power against people, it creates conflict. Hence the axiom that “anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war.”

The very concept of having no rulers often encounters fears of a power vacuum — an unsustainable, dangerous situation that can only end in the re-establishment of rulers. But the rejection of authority does not mean that power is up for grabs — it means that power is widely distributed, making it harder for tyrants to usurp.

The practice of anarchism fills society with empowered individuals, diffusing power throughout society so that no authority can take it over. Interactions of free individuals — the everyday pursuit of needs and desires combined with the recognition that mutual respect for freedom is the best way to realize needs and desires — build counter-power. Organizations of social cooperation established for the mutual benefit of participants, not for the power of some at the expense of others, help keep power dispersed in a fashion that safeguards individual liberty. Institutions of authority can be subverted or seized for the purpose of dispersing power.

Certainly, anarchy requires a number of people to accept the idea, but this true of any state of affairs that does not rest on brute force alone. A state can only exist so long as it can muster a significant level of allegiance. Every individual has the decision of whether to obey the decrees of those trying to amass power, or to follow the logic of appeals to disperse power. The creation of dispersed power establishes a basis from which authority can be effectively challenged.

When individuals possess power over their own lives, it means they have no personal power vacuum that tyrants could exploit. Power held by ordinary individuals gives them a greater stake in a functioning society as well as a more effective means of preventing social catastrophe.

The rejection of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not mean that a nightmare scenario associated with the phrase “power vacuum” is likely. It means the power that authority monopolizes will be dispersed among the people.

About the writer:

C4SS News Analyst Darian Worden is an individualist  writer with experience in libertarian activism. His fiction includes Bring a Gun To School Day and the forthcoming Trade War. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com. He also hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty.

Source: http://lecanadian.com/2011/02/13/anarchy-is-order-whereas-capitalistocratic-government-is-civil-war/

`


Stop Complying. Start Defying.

In our dying democracy, those with power and the puppets they parade in election charades every two years are above the law and think nothing of breaking it. And in our raped republic, those with wealth from stealing the Sheeples’ tax money and savings by the billions have no problems paying millions in penalties for doing so. But in this wasteland of unbridled greed and moral decay, those of you with character and courage can still prevail if you simply do this:

STOP COMPLYING AND START DEFYING

That is the last thing the powers that be and their puppets in Washington expect the Sheeple to do. And an army of lions steeled by desperation and necessity from lambs is the last thing their overextended state and local courts, DAs and LEOs are prepared to handle. “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny…” Thomas Jefferson declared, “[and at such times] dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

*

 


If We Quit Voting

by Frank Chodorov

This essay originally appeared in July 1945 in a monthly newsletter Chodorov established called analysis. It later appeared as a chapter in his book Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist (1962).

New York in midsummer is measurably more miserable than any other place in this world – and should be comparable to the world for which all planners are headed. Why New Yorkers, otherwise sane, should choose to parboil their innards in a political campaign during this time of the year is a question that comes under the head of man’s inscrutable propensity for self-punishment. And if a fellow elects to let the whole thing pass him by, some socially conscious energumen is bound to sweat him with a lecture on civic duty, like the citizeness who came at me.

For 25 years my dereliction has been known to my friends, and more than one has undertaken to set me straight; out of these arguments came a solid defense for my nonvoting position, so that the lady in question was well parried with practiced retorts. I pointed out, with many instances, that though we have had candidates and platforms and parties and campaigns in abundance, we have had an equivalent plenitude of poverty and crime and war. The regularity with which the perennial promise of “good times” wound up in depression suggested the incompetence of politics in economic affairs. Maybe the good society we have been voting for lay some other way; why not try another fork in the road, the one pointing to individual self-improvement, particularly in acquiring a knowledge of economics? And so on.

There was one question put to me by my charming annoyer that I deftly sidestepped, for the day was sultry and the answer called for some mental effort. The question: “What would happen if we quit voting?”

If you are curious about the result of noneating you come upon the question of why we eat. So, the query put to me by the lady brings up the reason for voting. The theory of government by elected representatives is that these fellows are hired by the voting citizenry to take care of all matters relating to their common interests. However, it is different from ordinary employment in that the representative is not under specific orders, but is given blanket authority to do what he believes desirable for the public welfare in any and all circumstances, subject to constitutional limitations. In all matters relating to public affairs the will of the individual is transferred to the elected agent, whose responsibility is commensurate with the power thus invested in him.

It is this transference of power from voter to elected agents that is the crux of republicanism. The transference is well-nigh absolute. Even the constitutional limitations are not so in fact, since they can be circumvented by legal devices in the hands of the agents. Except for the tenuous process of impeachment, the mandate is irrevocable. For the abuse or misuse of the mandate the only recourse left to the principals, the people, is to oust the agents at the next election. But when we oust the rascals, do we not, as a matter of course, invite a new crowd? It all adds up to the fact that by voting them out of power, the people put the running of their community life into the hands of a separate group, upon whose wisdom and integrity the fate of the community rests.

All this would change if we quit voting. Such abstinence would be tantamount to this notice to politicians: since we as individuals have decided to look after our affairs, your services are no longer needed. Having assumed social power we must, as individuals, assume social responsibility – provided, of course, the politicians accept their discharge. The job of running the community would fall on each and all of us. We might hire an expert to tell us about the most improved firefighting apparatus, or a manager to look after cleaning the streets, or an engineer to build us a bridge; but the final decision, particularly in the matter of raising funds to defray costs, would rest with the townhall meeting. The hired specialists would have no authority other than that necessary for the performance of their contractual duties; coercive power, which is the essence of political authority, would be exercised, if necessary, only by the committee of the whole.

There is some warrant for the belief that a better social order would ensue when the individual is responsible for it and, therefore, responsive to its needs. He no longer has the law or the lawmakers to cover his sins of omission; need of the neighbors’ good opinion will be sufficient compulsion for jury duty and no loopholes in a draft law, no recourse to “political pull” will be possible when danger to his community calls him to arms. In his private affairs, the now-sovereign individual will have to meet the dictum of the marketplace: produce or you do not eat; no law will help you. In his public behavior he must be decent or suffer the sentence of social ostracism, with no recourse to legal exoneration. From a law-abiding citizen he will be transmuted into a self-respecting man.

Would chaos result? No, there would be order, without law to disturb it.

But, let us define chaos. Is it not disharmony resulting from social friction? When we trace social friction to its source do we not find that it seminates in a feeling of unwarranted hurt, or injustice? Then chaos is a social condition in which injustice obtains. Now, when one man may take, by law, what another man has put his labor into, we have injustice of the keenest kind, for the denial of a man’s right to possess and enjoy what he produces is akin to a denial of life. Yet the power to confiscate property is the first business of politics. We see how this is so in the matter of taxation; but greater by far is the amount of property confiscated by monopolies, all of which are founded in law.

While this economic basis of injustice has been lost in our adjustment to it, the resulting friction is quite evident. Most of us are poor in spite of our constant effort and known ability to produce an abundance; the incongruity is aggravated by a feeling of hopelessness. But the keenest hurt arises from the thought that the wealth we see about us is somehow ours by right of labor, but is not ours by right of law. Resentment, intensified by bewilderment, stirs up a reckless urge to do something about it. We demand justice; we have friction. We have strikes and crimes and bankruptcy and mental unbalances. And we cheat our neighbors, and each seeks for himself a legal privilege to live by another’s labor. And we have war. Is this a condition of harmony or of chaos?

In the frontier days of our country there was little law, but much order, for the affairs of the community were in the hands of the citizenry. Although fiction may give an opposite impression, it is a fact that there was less per capita crime to take care of then than there is now when law pervades every turn and minute of our lives. What gave the West its wild and woolly reputation was the glamorous drama of intense community life. Everybody was keenly interested in the hanging of a cattle rustler; it was not done in the calculated quiet of a prison, with the dispatch of a mechanical system. The railriding of a violator of townhall dicta had to be the business of the town prosecutor, who was everybody.

Though the citizen’s private musket was seldom used for the protection of life and property, its presence promised swift and positive justice, from which no legal chicanery offered escape, and its loud report announced the dignity of decency. Every crime was committed against the public, not the law, and therefore the public made an ado about it. Mistakes were made, to be sure, for human judgment is ever fallible; but, until the politician came, there was no deliberate malfeasance or misfeasance; until laws came, there were no violations, and the code of human decency made for order.

So, if we should quit voting for parties and candidates, we would individually reassume responsibility for our acts and, therefore, responsibility for the common good. There would be no way of dodging the verdict of the marketplace; we would take back only in proportion to our contribution. Any attempt to profit at the expense of a neighbor or the community would be quickly spotted and as quickly squelched, for everybody would recognize a threat to himself in the slightest indulgence of injustice. Since nobody would have the power to enforce monopoly conditions, none would obtain. Order would be maintained by the rules of existence, the natural laws of economics.

That is, if the politicians would permit themselves to be thus ousted from their positions of power and privilege.

I doubt it.

Remember that the proposal to quit voting is basically revolutionary; it amounts to a shifting of power from one group to another, which is the essence of revolution. As soon as the nonvoting movement got up steam, the politicians would most assuredly start a counterrevolution. Measures to enforce voting would be instituted; fines would be imposed for violations, and prison sentences would be meted out to repeaters.

It is a necessity for political power, no matter how gained, to have the moral support of public approval, and suffrage is the most efficient scheme for registering it; notice how Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin insisted on having ballots cast. In any republican government, even ours, only a fraction of the populace votes for the successful candidate, but that fraction is quantitatively impressive; it is this appearance of overwhelming sanction that supports him in the exercise of political power. Without it he would be lost.

Propaganda, too, would bombard this passive resistance to statism; not only that put out by the politicians of all parties – the coalition would be as complete as it would be spontaneous – but also the more effective kind emanating from seemingly disinterested sources. All the monopolists, all the coupon-clipping foundations, all the tax-exempt eleemosynary institutions – in short, all the “respectables” – would join in a howling defense of the status quo.

We would be told most emphatically that unless we keep on voting away our power to responsible persons, it would be grabbed by irresponsible ones; tyranny would result.

That is probably true, seeing how since the beginning of time men have sought to acquire property without laboring for it.

The answer lies, as it always has, in the judicious use of private artillery. On this point a story, apocryphal no doubt, is worth telling. When Napoleon’s conquerors were considering what to do with him, a buck-skinned American allowed that a fellow of such parts might be handy in this new country and ought to be invited to come over. As for the possibility of a Napoleonic regime being started in America, the recent revolutionist dismissed it with the remark that the musket with which he shot rabbits could also kill tyrants. There is no substitute for human dignity.

But the argument is rather specious in the light of the fact that every election is a seizure of power. The balloting system has been defined as a battle between opposing forces, each armed with proposals for the public good, for a grant of power to put these proposals into practice. As far as it goes, this definition is correct; but when the successful contestant acquires the grant of power toward what end does he use it – not theoretically but practically? Does he not, with an eye to the next campaign, and with the citizens’ money, go in for purchasing support from pressure groups? Whether it is by catering to a monopoly interest whose campaign contribution is necessary to his purpose, or to a privilege-seeking labor group, or to a hungry army of unemployed or of veterans, the over-the-barrel method of seizing and maintaining political power is standard practice.

This is not, however, an indictment of our election system. It is rather a description of our adjustment to conquest. Going back to beginnings – although the process is still in vogue, as in Manchuria, or more recently in the Baltic states – when a band of freebooters developed an appetite for other people’s property they went after it with vim and vigor. Repeated visitations of this nature left the victims breathless, if not lifeless, and propertyless to boot. So, as men do when they have no other choice, they made a compromise. They hired one gang of thieves to protect them from other gangs, and in time the price paid for such protection came to be known as taxation. The tax gatherers settled down in the conquered communities, possibly to make collections certain and regular, and as the years rolled on a blend of cultures and of bloods made of the two classes one nation. But the system of taxation remained after it had lost its original significance; lawyers and professors of economics, by deft circumlocution, turned tribute into “fiscal policy” and clothed it with social good.

Nevertheless, the social effect of the system was to keep the citizenry divided into two economic groups: payers and receivers. Those who lived without producing became traditionalized as “servants of the people,” and thus gained ideological support. They further entrenched themselves by acquiring sub-tax-collecting allies; that is, some of their group became landowners, whose collection of rent rested on the law-enforcement powers of the ruling clique, and others were granted subsidies, tariffs, franchises, patent rights, monopoly privileges of one sort or another. This division of spoils between those who wield power and those whose privileges depend on it is succinctly described in the expression, “the state within the state.”

Thus, when we trace our political system to its origin, we come to conquest. Tradition, law, and custom have obscured its true nature, but no metamorphosis has taken place; its claws and fangs are still sharp, its appetite as voracious as ever. In the light of history it is not a figure of speech to define politics as the art of seizing power; and its present purpose, as of old, is economic.

There is no doubt that men of high purpose will always give of their talents for the common welfare, with no thought of recompense other than the goodwill of the community. But so long as our taxation system remains, so long as the political means for acquiring economic goods is available, just so long will the spirit of conquest assert itself; for men always seek to satisfy their desires with the least effort. It is interesting to speculate on the kind of campaigns and the type of candidates we would have if taxation were abolished and if, also, the power to dispense privilege vanished. Who would run for office if there were “nothing in it”?

Why should a self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded in thievery? For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones, see what we can do toward cleaning up the institution so that it can be used for the maintenance of an orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; we have been voting for one “good government” after another, and what have we got? Perhaps the silliest argument, and yet the one invariably advanced when this succession of failures is pointed out, is that “we must choose the lesser of two evils.” Under what compulsion are we to make such a choice? Why not pass up both of them?

To effectuate the suggested revolution all that is necessary is to stay away from the polls. Unlike other revolutions, it calls for no organization, no violence, no war fund, no leader to sell it out. In the quiet of his conscience each citizen pledges himself, to himself, not to give moral support to an unmoral institution, and on election day he remains at home. That’s all. I started my revolution 25 years ago and the country is none the worse for it.

Reprinted from Mises.org.

Frank Chodorov (1887–1966), one of the great libertarians of the Old Right, was the founder of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists and author of such books as The Income Tax: Root of All Evil. Here he is on “Taxation Is Robbery.” And here is Rothbard’s obituary of Chodorov.

The Best of Frank Chodorov

 

Related Articles

Want an Anarcho-Capitalist Revolution? (lewrockwell.com)

LewRockwell.com


Patriotism or Nationalism?

October 24, 2008
by Joe Sobran

This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.

G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a “lack of patriotism.” He explained: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.”

In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be “the greatest country on earth” in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, “a 3rd-rate power,” it would be virtually worthless.

This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being “the greatest family on earth” (whatever that might mean) or for being “better” than other families. You don’t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don’t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it’s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other’s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot’s irreverent humor annoying.

Patriotism is relaxed. Nationalism is rigid. The patriot may loyally defend his country even when he knows it’s wrong; the nationalist has to insist that he defends his country not because it’s his, but because it’s right. As if he would have defended it even if he hadn’t been born to it! The nationalist talks as if he just “happens,” by sheer accident, to have been a native of the greatest country on earth — in contrast to, say, the pitiful Belgian or Brazilian.

Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — “national greatness,” or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even “anti-Americanism.”

When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can’t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.

But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it’s precisely America’s mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly “safe” until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made “safe for democracy” by “a war to end all wars.” We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is “anti-American” — or a “rogue nation.” For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.

In a time of war hysteria, the outraged patriot, feeling his country under attack, may succumb to the seductions of nationalism. This is the danger we face now.

 


%d bloggers like this: