Scott Lazarowitz's Blog

Here are two of my posts from July 2010 that I wanted to repost (with some minor editing for corrections, grammar, sentence construction, and link changes). These are in the “I calls it like I sees it” category. Sorry if anyone is offended by anything.

Racism, Collectivism, and the State

July 9, 2010

The open and shut voter intimidation case — of black members of the New Black Panther Party being accused of threatening white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election — that was dropped by the Justice Department — is still in the news, but you wouldn’t know it. As Glenn Beck and others in the non-Establishment media have been saying, the mainstream news media won’t cover this story, and haven’t really relayed the story of a former DOJ official testifying before the Civil Rights Commission just this past week stating how several higher-ups in the DOJ refuse to work on cases in which blacks are accused of racially motivated incidents against whites. And the news media certainly won’t show you the video of that incident, and of one of the members of the NBPP declaring,

I hate white people — all of them. Every last iota of a cracker — I hate him. Because we’re still in this condition. We didn’t come out here to play today. There’s too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore (expletive) on our arms.

You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies. Let us get our act together.

Well, this post is probably going to bother some people.

Here is what I have to say about this. It isn’t just these anti-white “extremists” who seem to have a lot of anger regarding past discrimination and/or violence by white people against black people and other minorities. In recent years, most of violence going on in which black people are the victims is perpetrated by other black people, and much of the violence has its roots in the unconstitutional, immoral, counter-productive War on Drugs. No, the anger toward white people because of past discrimination and/or violence against black people (which is almost non-existent now) is not only expressed by some black people but also by some white people, and a major element of this anti-white ignorance and racism is part of a larger political ideology, that of collectivism and Marxism. If you aren’t aware that Barack Obama is heavily influenced by that kind of destructive, anti-freedom ideology, then you are getting your information from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times and Newsweek.

I really can’t believe what I have been hearing with all these things that I only thought was a “little bit of anti-white resentment” from old has-beens and nudnik also-rans like Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel. But the attitude of resentment toward white people (and toward successful black people) by some black people seems to be pervasive in America now, and is being encouraged by the Obommunist left who do not like individualism, individual freedom, voluntaryism, and private property rights, and instead support dependence especially on the State (which translates to enslavement of the masses — of all colors, races, ethnicities, etc.), governmental intrusions against the individual, and have an anti-individual, collectivist mindset.

You would think that after not only the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which mistakenly included intrusions into private property rights and freedom of association rights), but after all the Affirmative Action programs, special favors and privileges, and special government programs to help black youths get a head start or get special education help and post-high school advancement programs, you would think that the activists would maybe drop their resentment and expressions of need for “reparations” and so on. But it seems to have gone the other way. The racism that we are seeing is by blacks against whites, and if you don’t believe it, then look at the Justice Department lawyers who refuse to work on civil rights cases in which the alleged victim is white and the alleged offender is black.

So far, some people on the left won’t like what I’ve written here, but some conservatives might. However, the next part of this probably won’t be the favorite of the conservatives.

I definitely see a connection between the anti-white racism and resentment by the Obommunist Marxists and many among the Israeli population, I am sorry to say, in which anti-Arab racism has grown in the last decade especially. The reason I see a connection here is because of the circumstances involving the founding of the current state of Israel. Those circumstances, that especially started in the late 19th Century up to at least the 1948 official founding of Israel, involved the taking of lands away from and displacement of many Arabs.

Those who are blindly pro-Israel and are ignorant of the history of the past century probably strongly disagree with that, but if one feels it is necessary to be blindly pro-Israel more than being pro-America, as the Israel-First-Above-The-U.S. folks happen to be, then that’s the way it is, I suppose. But as the aforementioned Glenn Beck is constantly saying, “Always tell the truth,” and I agree with that, and I believe that the truth is very important, and sweeping history under the rug or looking the other way and ignoring injustice is a bad thing.

The Jews of Israel, primarily of European origin and not Middle Eastern origin, for an entire century had been given a lot of special privileges and help from Western countries in their relocating out of the oppressive Pogroms of Poland and Russia, as well as from the tyranny of Stalin and Hitler. And the reason many could not relocate to the U.S. was because of government-imposed (not private citizen-imposed) restrictions and immigration quotas, that the U.S. government has no business imposing, and has no business restricting the right of oppressed Jews to come to America. There were many private American citizens and organization who wanted to help the Jews, but our stupid and anti-Semitic government bureaucrats wouldn’t let them.

But here is the moral question: Did the tyrannies and pogroms and American government immigration restrictions justify taking justly-owned land from Arabs in Israel (that some people want to refer to as Palestine), and even displacing the Arabs out of their homes where families had been for many generations?

That moral question aside — and I know that some people will find this offensive (and that will be because they won’t really think about my point here) — I do see a connection between the apparent resentment, anger and anti-white racism (and in some cases, outright blind hatred) by some blacks and members of this Marxist “Black Nationalism” movement, and the anti-Arab racism that is institutionalized in Israel. If you don’t know that anti-Arab racism is institutionalized in Israel, that is because you probably rely solely on the mainstream media and/or conservative talk radio for your information.

Regarding the displacement of Arabs in Israel throughout the late 19th and first half of 20th Century, to me it is very closely related to the wretched idea of “eminent domain” (i.e. government theft of private property). Will Grigg has written a piece on eminent domain in Chicago just today. But I didn’t want to get into that here.

Regarding the anti-Arab racism in Israel, I am reminded of the article that Benjamin Netanyahu’s own nephew, Jonathan Ben-Artzi wrote for the Christian Science Monitor a few months ago, that I have already referred to here. Jonathan served 18 months in prison in Israel for being a military conscription conscientious objector, and is now apparently studying at Brown University for a graduate degree in Math. In his article, he writes,

…Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns….

….Some of the acts of segregation that I saw while growing up in Israel include towns for Jews only, immigration laws that allow Jews from around the world to immigrate but deny displaced indigenous Palestinians that same right, and national healthcare and school systems that receive significantly more funding in Jewish towns than in Arab towns.

…Another example is discrimination in water supply: Israel pumps drinking water from occupied territory (in violation of international law). Israelis use as much as four times more water than Palestinians, while Palestinians are not allowed to dig their own wells and must rely on Israeli supply.

Civil freedom is no better: In an effort to break the spirit of Palestinians, Israel conducts sporadic arrests and detentions with no judicial supervision. According to one prisoner support and human rights association, roughly 4 in 10 Palestinian males have spent some time in Israeli prisons.

Now, it is doubtful that this guy, this intelligent Math and Physics grad student, would be intending to embarrass his uncle, particularly when his uncle is the leader of his country. Jonathan Ben-Artzi probably knows what he’s talking about, having grown up in Israel. He is like me — he doesn’t like seeing people being treated as subhumans. Any people, black or white, Jew, Arab, atheist etc.

As I have written in the past, and several times now, the ones who are causing the injustices, whether it be by the U.S. Department of Justice or the Israeli government or Hamas, are usually agents of the State. It is the State and its agents that have been the perpetrators of persecution and violence against others, including the pogroms, the gulag and the Holocaust, as well as many, many instances of violence and intrusions initiated by agents of the U.S. government and local government against Americans. Much of the anti-black racism preceding the ’64 Civil Rights Act was from government-imposed laws and policies that restricted black people from government-run functions and facilities, for example.

It is governments that are doing the things that have been the most counter-productive and end up actually harming the very people such actions are intended to serve. And this is because governments — States — have the power of monopoly that restricts the right of others from participating in whatever it is that’s being monopolized, and have the power of compulsion over others. When you give anyone the power of restrictive monopoly and compulsion over his fellow people, such power will act as a drug. I know, I keep repeating this. Sorry about that.

The problem with the State parasites and monopolists is, such a position of power attracts present-oriented control freaks who do not have a clue when it comes to studying history or seeing things in the long term, despite some of their rhetoric (“strategic planning”) to the contrary.

Only the U.S. government and its CIA would deliberately radicalize Muslims in Afghanistan during the 1980s as a means of helping Afghans fight the invading Russians, despite seeing how the U.S. government and its CIA’s propping up a brutal dictator for 25 years in Iran during the 1960s and ’70s inflamed combined anti-Americanism and Islamic extremism.

And only the Israeli government would deliberately create or play a major role in the creation of Hamas to counter the PLO in the 1980s, only to find out later on that the Israeli government had created their own worst enemy.

Private security firms would not be so stupid.

_________________

More on the “Jewish State” and Warmonger Collectivism

July 11, 2010

Some people seem to have a problem with my previous post, especially my asserting that in the British Mandate of the late 19th through 20th Centuries and the formation of the current state of Israel in 1948, lands which were rightfully owned by Arabs were taken away from them. Some people want to assert that, according to the Bible, the “original inhabitants” of the Land of Israel were the ancestors of modern Jews, and therefore Jews — all Jews, supposedly — have the moral claim on that land as a “Jewish homeland” promised to Jews by God.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the majority of the Jews currently inhabiting Israel are descendants of Europe, particularly Poland, Russia and Germany, and not of the Middle East. Now, if one wants to claim that the Land of Israel is the promised land of all Jews regardless of where their ancestors originated, because God promised that via the Bible, that is up to you. There were Arabs and Arab families who were settled in the Land of Israel up to the late 19th-mid 20th Centuries, and were there for many generations. They were uprooted and displaced, some were murdered and some were exiled. Those are just facts. Some people want to say that those Arabs were “occupying” Jewish lands, and some want to say that Jews via the British Mandate and later the U.N. are doing the “occupying.”

Now, if you want to say that the Arabs had been occupying land that was inhabited originally be the Jewish ancestors, and Jews had a right to oust Arabs like that throughout the 20th Century, then you would have to be consistent and admit that, therefore, because lands in America were originally inhabited by the “natives” of these North American territories and were invaded and taken over by the Europeans who came here, then because the “natives” are the rightful original inhabitants then they have a right to have their land returned to them. (“But the ‘natives’ didn’t have a Bible that stated that God intended that the land they inhabited be not only their land but that of all their future descendants.” Oh well. tough luck for those Injuns, I suppose. Sorry, just kidding.)

I guess for me, it doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because that collection of documents is based on religious beliefs, and the validity of the Bible is based on faith.

But I must suggest that the idea of a “Jewish State” is a collectivist concept. An entire territory to be set aside primarily for people of a particular religion or religious culture? Hmmm. I happen to favor individual rights and property rights.

If you own a parcel of property, it’s yours. Your right is to that property, the right to occupy it, build on it, house a 17-car garage on it, sell it to whomever you want. That’s known as private property rights. However, let’s say that an entire territory is set aside for people of a particular religion or culture — in this case Israel, and Jews. And, for example, one Jewish resident owns a property within Israel. His God-given, inherent right of property includes the right to sell the property to whomever he wants, Jew, Arab, Christian, doesn’t matter. There are some parts of Israel (if not all, I don’t know) in which the Jewish property owner may not sell it to an Arab, because Arabs are not allowed to live in certain areas. Therefore, this means that the individual doesn’t really own that property. The State is the real “owner.” Or, the collective. It’s just like here in the U.S. In other words, if you really believe that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,” and property (Jefferson erred in not writing “property”!), then you would have to acknowledge that anyone has a right to acquire property from a willing, mutually agreeing buyer and settle on the property, anywhere in the world.

Unless you are a collectivist, and have a collectivist mindset. That’s up to you.

There shouldn’t be a Jewish State, a Muslim or Islamic State, a Christian State, a gay State, a Black State, a White State, etc. Those who disagree with me are collectivists. Collectivism has been a damaging mindset throughout modern democracies. In fact, democracy itself is collectivist, therefore we can see what damage it has done, especially to America since the Founding.

It seems inherent in setting up a “Jewish State” to result in Jewish-promoted anti-Arab racism and persecution, and it has. For those who don’t believe this, they have their heads in the sand.

But I wonder if the Christian “Israel First” types, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have guilt feelings about Jews and the wrongs that were done to them, in the same way that white leftists have guilt feelings about black people and the wrongs that have been done to them. Otherwise, just what is it with the Israel First crowd that makes them more pro-Israel than they are pro-America?

The Israel Firsters will be supporting war against Iran based on the same kind of State-issued lies and propaganda with which they supported the war against Iraq, which has destroyed that whole country just as the war against Afghanistan has been wrecking that country as well, and killed thousands of innocents as well as thousands of Americans.

Why don’t the bureaucrats and parasites of the U.S. government do things a little more openly and honestly? If you feel that the U.S. should own and control these Middle Eastern territories, then why don’t you just go conquer and seize all the lands by force in a conquest, and claim them as additional U.S. states? At least that would be more aboveboard, unlike what the U.S. government has been doing especially these last 20 years. And when openly taking over all those territories, why don’t they do the ethnic cleansing more openly and aboveboard as well, like the killing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis they’ve been doing since the first U.S. government invasion in 1990-’91, and Afghans and Pakistanis (and soon the Iranians) etc., rather than doing it in the passive-aggressive, euphemized way they’ve been doing especially since 1990?

That’s what collectivists and statists, and vulturous bureaucrats do.

But I will continue to stand for morality and speak up in favor of moral values and human rights, because that’s the kind of guy I am. It’s immoral to uproot families from their justly acquired homes and it’s immoral to kill innocent human beings.

Including the unborn. I wrote a few months ago that one of the unfortunate rationalizations of the killing of the innocent unborn has been their subordination, their being made to have lesser value as human beings based on their being at a less advanced stage of development, and that the U.S. government’s rationalizing of its various intrusions into less developed societies abroad may implicitly suggest that those societies’ inhabitants have lesser value as human beings, and implies making such subordination and deaths of others acceptable.

But when either the U.S. government or the Israeli government initiates war against Iran — they already have with sanctions — it will backfire and cause even more blowback against Israel and against the U.S. that the retarded bureaucrats and parasites of government have already been causing. It is counter-productive as well as immoral to start wars. But retards don’t learn from their mistakes.

Thank God for the First Amendment (before the Obommunists repeal it, which will be with the help of the ghastly and dreadful Elena ~~Caveman~~ Kagan).

But if the Israel Firsters are more pro-Israel than they are pro-America, why don’t they leave America and just go over to Israel and stay there, and fight their wars for them if they feel so strongly about it, like Rahm Emanuel did. (He should’ve stayed there, too.)

I’m an America-Firster, and proud of it. Good night, and God Bless America.

(I’m verklempt.)

More on the Amerikan Nazi-Wannabes, the Police State, Warmongers and Other News

May 072013

William Grigg: Sheriff Bradshaw and the Palm Beach County Psihuska

Steven Greenhut: Stop Granting Special Privileges to the Police

David Bromwich: America’s Words of Peace and Acts of War

Glenn Greenwald: Israeli Bombing of Syria and Moral Relativism

Sheldon Richman: Time to Nullify the Drug Laws

Gary North: Mises on the Social Security System; and A Publishing Atrocity

Ludwig von Mises: Human Action (1949), Online Edition

Paul Craig Roberts: You Are the Hope

The Truth Blog: America Is Embracing the Secret Police Culture of the Nazis

Cop Block: Are American Cops Out of Control?

Sibel Edmonds: Uber-Neocons: The Main Architects of Post-Assad Syria at Work

Tom Bell: Use Private Arbitration Courts to Police the Police

Justin Raimondo: The Israeli-Jihadist Alliance

John Cochran: The Hoover-Roosevelt Depression Revisited

Jon Rappoport: The Medical Cartel: Too Big to Fail, Too Evil to Expose

Philip Weiss: Syria Wrap: NYT‘s Bill Keller Suits Up for Another Mid-East War

Kurt Nimmo: Mission Creep Police State

Bob McCarty: Truth Remains Elusive 18 Years After Oklahoma City Bombing

Pat Buchanan: War Criminals in Syrian Opposition?

Jane Powers: Regime Change in Syria

Linda Schrock Taylor: Phonics vs. Endless Days

Uri Avnery: No, We Can’t! John Kerry’s Doomed Diplomacy in Israel-Palestine

Jim Davies: How to Convince People to Let Go of the State

Yarlan Zey: Abu Ghraib in the Workplace: What It Means to ‘Hire a Veteran’

Mohammad Sahimi: Obama’s Duplicitous Iran Policy

Kelley Vlahos: Iraq’s Generation Hell

Can Our Lawless Police Bureaucrats Be Tamed?

May 062013

May 6, 2013

This Infowars reporter interviewed several residents in Watertown, Massachusetts who suffered through the criminal police siege of their town, with illegal searches of their persons and their homes, and who were illegally and criminally forced out of their homes.

As I have already mentioned, in their ordering people from their homes while the homes are illegally searched, the police compromised the people’s “right to be secure,” as the Fourth Amendment describes it. For how “secure” are people while strangers go through their homes without those homeowners or residents being there to supervise those cops? Government bureaucrats are NOT trustworthy, and they prove themselves as such day after day. As I have mentioned before, all you have to do is read William Grigg’s articles, Radley Balko or Cop Block and even the Cato Institute to understand this.

As seen in the video posted above, an even further example of these addicted-to-overkill police compromising of the people’s right to be secure is that after police searched homes, they left doors open and unlocked. Absolutely disgusting.

And as far as searching private property goes, the police need to have a specific reason to suspect that there is something or someone of a criminal nature in or on a specific property, they need to have probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge. For a judge to sign the warrant, there needs to be probable cause. In Watertown, the police needed to show that the wanted suspect was likely to be hiding in a specific house to which the specific warrant (that they didn’t have) applied. If a judge signs a search warrant without being shown probable cause, that judge is illegally signing a warrant. Police who use illegally obtained warrants are criminals. You can’t just do wide, sweeping fishing expeditions of entire neighborhoods. (Maybe in Nazi Germany or North Korea perhaps, but not in America in which the government must follow and obey the rule of law.)

As we can see from the video, the people of this Watertown neighborhood were frightened and intimidated by out-of-control, over-zealous cops high on adrenaline. It would take a lot of guts to actually stand up to them, to not open the door, and to demand that these armed government bureaucrats state their specific reason to believe that a specific suspect is hiding in their specific home. And the people need to demand that police have a legally-obtained warrant. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone with some courage had done that.

Such demands by the people should also apply if police are searching for drugs, weapons or other items they believe to be “illegal.”

As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote recently, the criminal British government bureaucrats of the time of the American Revolution wrote their own warrants and lacked suspicion and probable cause, and the criminal government bureaucrats of the post-9/11 hysteria are also illegally writing their own warrants. This is shameful, and thoroughly un-American.

And if these armed government bureaucrats actually broke into such a home in Watertown or elsewhere, would the owner or resident have a moral and legal right to defend oneself and one’s family? This, by the way, is one of the most important reasons why the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights.

These points and criticisms are especially relevant now, given that the police all across America have been knowingly and criminally falsely arresting and detaining, falsely charging and prosecuting totally innocent individuals, including planting evidence and lying. (Here is the latest update on that.)

And we have cops who do those things in order to meet their arrest quotas. It’s absolutely sickening. See this and this by Radley Balko, William Grigg, and the Young Turks on the arrest quotas, and Roger Roots on the prosecution quotas, and more from William Anderson recently on the corruption of the prosecutors.

And there is the immoral and counter-productive drug war. Now that the precedent has been set in Watertown, and given how dishonest police and prosecutors are now, we will have warrantless, suspicionless, random sweeping searches of buildings and neighborhoods, without probable cause, based on baseless “tips” and the “If You See Something Say Something” campaign. And that will be mainly to do with the drug war, in which people consuming, buying or selling, or possessing drugs, are NOT committing any crime, and have a right to their freedom to do such things. I am sure this Nazi-like policy will also spread to other areas of life, in which just about everything, every little innocent and harmless act, has been made into a felony, or at least a misdemeanor. Just read Harvey Silverglate’s book Three Felonies a Day to understand that.

In my opinion, all this Nazi police-state crap is why we must abolish the government’s monopoly in community policing and security, and also give the government’s self-serving monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making the heave-ho.

But as James Bovard, author of Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, wrote,

One of the best ways to reduce police brutality is to greatly reduce the number of laws that police have to enforce. “Order” is something different from keeping people subdued through sheer fear of violent government agents.

Articles for Sunday

May 052013

The Daily Bell: The New Meme of Open Borders

Jacob Hornberger: Locking Out the Immigrant (1991); and Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market (2010)

Activist Post: AZ Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes Gold and Silver Currency Bill

Truth Alliance Network: 10 Tips to Make Sure Your Activist Group Isn’t Set Up by the Feds

William Blum: Boston Marathon, Terrorism, and Blowback

Eric Margolis: The Arab ‘Che Guevara’ Is Dead But His Ideas Live On

Stephen Lendman: Guantanamo Public Defender Andy Hart: Suicide or Murder?

Sheldon Richman: Criminal Government

Daniel McAdams: Israeli Bombs over Syria, Part Two

Alex Knight: Tea Party Anarchists?

Anthony Wile: Nigel Farage and His UKIP Party Win Big in Britain Once More

Glenn Greenwald: The Bad Joke Called ‘The FISA Court’ Shows How a ‘Drone Court’ Would Work; and Are All Telephone Calls Recorded and Accessible to the U.S. Government?

Lew Rockwell Interviews Sibel Edmonds: The Boston Bombing, the CIA, and the U.S. Empire

Amy Goodman: Who Served One’s Country Better: George W. Bush or Kimberly Rivera?

Peter Schiff: The Great Gold Redemption

Philip Giraldi: Drones for “Regime Protection”

Judy Morris: Understand DMS-5 and How the Mental Health Industry Seeks to Classify Millions Upon Millions as Mentally Ill

Jeffrey Singer: How Government Killed the Medical Profession: As Health Care Gets More Bureaucratic, Will Doctors Go Galt?

Art Carden and Steve Horwitz: Is Market Failure a Sufficient Condition for Government Intervention?

Radley Balko: Boston and Militarism: The Fugitive Slave Hearings and The Modern Drug War

Philip Weiss: What You Need to Know About Bradley Manning

Douglas French: Banker Hypocrisy and Zombie Homes

Gary North: Nisbet vs. Plato and Rousseau

Paul Joseph Watson: Rush Limbaugh to Be Sent to Mental Hospital under “Stasi” Snitch Program?

Three Years Since the Gaza Flotilla Attack, Israel Is Still a Police State

May 042013

Here is another post from my archives, from June 9, 2010. It refers to the May, 2010 attack by the Israeli military on a humanitarian aid flotilla in international waters headed to the Gaza Strip.

The Police State of Israel

June 9, 2010

The nearly unanimous backing of the Israeli military’s siege of the Gaza aid flotilla last week by America’s conservatives is continuing this week. As I wrote in this space a few days ago, many people have been persuaded by the Israeli government’s careful manipulating of events since the beginning of the siege, especially from the Israeli-produced video of the events that did not include the actual beginning of the actions (video of the commandos already shooting from their helicopter before landing on the ship). It seems to be more of an emotional tie to Israel, rather than a rational and objective view of both Israel and Gaza, that keeps so many people believing of the Israeli government’s propaganda, and conservative talk host and columnist Dennis Prager is no exception:

…Though Hamas runs a theocratic police state based on torture and terror, though it recognizes no freedom of speech and no freedom for any religious expression outside of radical Islam, though it seeks to annihilate the Jewish state, and though its state-controlled media depict Israelis and Jews as worthy of death, the world sees Israel, not Hamas, as the villain.

Let’s hope the world is right…

…Turning to American newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, in its editorial, posed some deep questions. Here are three:

“Were the boats ferrying novelists and Nobel Peace Prize winners and elderly Holocaust survivors, as news accounts have suggested, or seething Israel haters, as defenders of the raid would have us believe?”

Apparently, the Los Angeles Times believes that novelists, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and elderly Holocaust survivors cannot be “seething Israel-haters.”

A lot of the support for the Israeli government’s actions really was based on the edited video that the Israeli military produced and provided to the news media. Those who try to be objective in all this have asked: if this situation of commandos approaching the ship (albeit already shooting) and then being beaten by ship’s passengers and in turn commandos shooting at the beaters is such a clear-cut case (even though the commandos’ shooting preceded the beating), then why was it necessary for the commandos to confiscate all the passengers’ cameras, cell phones radios and laptops? Investigative journalist Philip Weiss had this update yesterday on that situation:

Today I tuned in on an Institute for Middle East Understanding presser that included Huwaida Arraf, longtime Palestinian-American activist, and filmmaker Iara Lee relating their experiences in Israeli custody following their arrests on the flotilla.

Both women said that their recording equipment had been seized by the Israelis: blackberries, laptops, hard-drives, cameras, phones. And held by them. “We demand that all our equipment get returned to us,” Iara Lee, who is described online as being Korean-Brazilian, said, and then she said that some of the passengers’ recordings were being used, heavily edited, on the Israeli hasbara youtube broadcasts aimed at painting the flotilla as jihadists.

Arraf, who has American and Israeli citizenship, told of being freed at the port and refusing to get into an Israeli truck until her computer and phone were returned to her. She sat down on the floor. Then she was beaten and dragged and forced on to the truck, and dumped outside the port. Later she was treated for her injuries, which she now dismisses, as others suffered more.

What is our government doing about this? When will the passengers get their equipment back? What shape will it be in? Look, here is the Committee to Protect Journalists denouncing Israel’s use of confiscated footage. And how can anyone trust the Israelis to conduct an investigation of this episode if they have already seized and misrepresented evidence so as to manipulate the court of international opinion?

Lee will be having a press briefing showing some uncensored footage of the flotilla tomorrow afternoon at the U.N. in New York.

I really don’t understand the Israel-First-Above-the-U.S. people, who will believe whatever the Israeli government tells them, just like those who will believe whatever the U.S. government tells them. And it seems that, no matter how many cases of Israeli spies against the United States that come up, that’s okay, because Israel is our “friend” in the Middle-East. There has been an ongoing case of a young Israeli named Anat Kamm who is on trial for espionage against her own country, because, during her time as a military clerk, she burned classified information to CD and made copies of material and gave them to a Haaretz newspaper reporter, Uri Blau, whose report of the military’s alleged wrongdoing was published by Haaretz. Ms. Kamm explained,

There were some aspects of the IDF’s operational procedures in the West Bank that I felt should be public knowledge…

…When I was burning the CDs I kept thinking that history tends to forgive people who expose war crimes…

Apparently, Kamm isn’t being accused of spying on behalf of another country, but she is being accused of compromising Israel’s security by releasing those documents. It seems, however, that she genuinely believed that some of the military’s actions were wrong, even criminal, and she believed that it was her duty to make that public. If we citizens here in the U.S. suspect that government or military officials are engaged in some kind of wrongdoing, wouldn’t the moral thing be to expose those corrupt or even dangerous public officials? I wonder what Dennis Prager thinks of this situation, given that he has spent much time on his radio show discussing issues of morality. British journalist Jonathan Cook puts it this way:

During her conscription, Kamm copied possibly hundreds of army documents that revealed systematic law-breaking by the Israeli high command operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, including orders to ignore court rulings. She was working at the time in the office of Brig. Gen. Yair Naveh, who is in charge of operations in the West Bank.

Blau’s crime is that he published a series of scoops based on her leaked information that have highly embarrassed senior Israeli officers by showing their contempt for the rule of law.

Really, Anat Kamm is on trial for embarrassing high officials, as well as exposing possible corruption, incompetence or high crimes. And similarly, the U.S. military is now charging a U.S. soldier for being a “whistleblower.”

Now, given that Israel has spied on the U.S. so many times now, there are times that the United States perhaps ought to exercise greater caution in the choosing of military advisors. For example, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi has raised doubts about a principle advisor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Dr. Lani Kass, who was born and raised in Israel and was a major officer of the Israeli air force and in more recent years has been working in the U.S. Department of Defense, apparently concentrating on cyber-warfare and issues related to possible war with Iran. Giraldi notes about Kass:

…She comes from a country that has a history of large scale and highly aggressive espionage directed against the United States and she appears to continue to have close ties to her birthplace. Dr. Kass has become a naturalized American while apparently retaining her Israeli citizenship and her three children were reportedly born in Israel, not the United States. The information she has access to would be extremely valuable to Israel and potentially damaging to US interests, particularly as she likely knows what the US Air Force response to a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran would be…

So we have in Israel a young lady (Anat Kamm) who thought it was her duty to expose possible incompetence at best and war crimes at worst but who is herself being charged with espionage and is being called a traitor by many among the Israeli population, who apparently love their government more than they love their country and prefer to not question the judgment of military officials, just as many people in America do not want to question the judgment of government officials (including those who knowingly gave false information to get the U.S. to war with Iraq). And we have a very influential U.S. military advisor whose loyalty might be more to Israel than to the United States.

At the same time, we can’t question the judgment of the Israeli military who could very well have disabled the flotilla ship and prevented it from continuing to get through the Gaza blockade but instead chose to begin shooting from the helicopter and attack the ship and murder several passengers, including one American who was shot in the head five times. And many people are satisfied with the Israeli military’s edited video while at the same time could not have seen any other videos from passengers given that all the passengers’ videos and cameras and cell phones were confiscated by the military.

That reminds me of how, here in the U.S., we are not allowed to videotape police officers making arrests (or allegedly harassing citizens or worse), but at the same time, our government can have surveillance cameras and keep us under careful watch, and worse than that given there are government officials who want to force us to carry biometric IDs. As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has noted, and several times, it’s a “bizarro world,” and this stuff with Israel, this Israel-First-Above-the-U.S. is probably the most bizarre I’ve seen yet.

The Israel-First-Above-the-U.S. crowd doesn’t want to deal with the fact that Israel is virtually a police state, just as is America, and more and more each day. The Soviet Union kept their people enslaved and they were made to be serfs of the State, kept in the tightly guarded prison and no one could escape—it is the same situation in which the Israeli government are keeping the Palestinians. And, just as the Soviet Union stifled dissent, so they do also in Israel.

As Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s own nephew, Jonathan Ben-Artzi, after having served 18 months in prison for being a military conscription conscientious objector, and now studying for a Ph.D. in the U.S., wrote,

…. Israel pumps drinking water from occupied territory (in violation of international law). Israelis use as much as four times more water than Palestinians, while Palestinians are not allowed to dig their own wells and must rely on Israeli supply.

Civil freedom is no better: In an effort to break the spirit of Palestinians, Israel conducts sporadic arrests and detentions with no judicial supervision…

…We must remove travel restrictions from West Bank Palestinians. How can we live in peace with a population where most children cannot visit their grandparents living in the neighboring village, without being stopped and harassed at military checkpoints for hours?…

…. If Americans truly are our friends, they should shake us up and take away the keys, because right now we are driving drunk, and without this wake-up call, we will soon find ourselves in the ditch of an undemocratic, doomed state.

It is inherent in totalitarian regimes to suppress speech, stifle dissent and the press, and throw in jail those who attempt to expose the incompetence, corruption and treason of the agents of the State and its hired guns the police and military. These are the reasons why Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and why the writers of the U.S. Constitution were forced (kicking and screaming) to include a Bill of Rights.

Old Glenn Beck Interview of Then-CT Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal

May 032013

I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck, but in my looking through my blog archives, I have found this great interrogation by Beck of then-Connecticut state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. This is regarding the bonuses that AIG execs were given after their tax-funded bailout. One episode referred to later in the interview was when members of unions and ACORN went to bonus-recipients’ houses to harass and intimidate them, and threaten their kids.

At some point after this interview, it was revealed that Blumenthal lied about his Vietnam War record (it didn’t exist), and he was nevertheless elected to the U.S. Senate.

Articles for Friday

May 032013

Michael Boldin: Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification

Justin Raimondo: Liberty in the Age of Terrorism

Jack Douglas: America’s Social Psychosis

Butler Shaffer: Some Encouraging Contrasts

Philip Giraldi: Kristol Clear

Economic Collapse Blog: Percentage of Self-Employed Americans at Record Low

Arthur Silber: The Boston Bombings and Police: The Klown Quotient Increases

Sibel Edmonds: Boston Terror Update 4: The Backdoor Deal and Needed Face-Saving Ingredient for Russia on Syria

Washington’s Blog: Report: U.S. Government and NATO Worked with Bin Laden and His Top Lieutenant 3 Months After 9/11

Brian Wilson: Not ‘Libertarian’ Gun Control

Andrew Napolitano: More Holes in the Fourth Amendment

Paul Joseph Watson: Floridians Encouraged to Report Neighbors Who “Hate Government”

Thomas DiLorenzo: Will Rush Limbaugh Be Sent to a Mental Hospital?

Dave Bohon: Pentagon Confirms That Soldiers Could Be Court-Martialed for Sharing Faith

James Bovard: How “Food for Peace” Hurts Foreign Farmers

Roderick Long: Eudaimonism and Non-Aggression

Laurence Vance: Dress Codes and a Free Society

Hunter Lewis: Two Sides of the Same Debased Coin

So What Else Is Happening in Massachusetts?

May 022013

(Link to article at Strike the Root)

There are other things happening in Massachusetts, besides the Boston Marathon bombings and subsequent illegal martial law in Watertown.

For example, we just had a statewide senatorial primary to nominate candidates for the June 25^th special election to replace John Heinz Kerry, now that Kerry is Secretary of State.

We really need someone to partner with Chief Fullabull Elizabeth Warren in Washington, don’t we?

The Democrat candidates in the primary were U.S. Reps. Steve Lynch and Ed Markey. Markey won the nomination with 57% of the vote.

Ed Malarkey is the far-left moonbat known for his love of “Cap-n-Trade,” regardless how carbon taxes or other energy- and environment-related intrusions make us all less free, less prosperous, less secure and are really just counter-productive. (Obviously, there are far sounder ways to protect the environment and our liberty at the same time, by the way.)

The losing Democrat candidate in the special election primary, Steve Lynch, is the one Massachusetts Democrat in Congress who voted against ObamaCare. Supposedly, some conservatives – yes, there are one or two here – stated that they took a Democrat ballot and voted for Lynch “because he voted against ObamaCare.”

However, what the conservative dupes don’t seem to understand is why Democrat Lynch voted against ObamaCare – because it didn’t have a “public option.” Lynch wants the government to participate in providing insurance as a competitor with private insurance companies. As many readers already know, when the government provides people with a “competitive” alternative, the private insurers will be run out of business. This “public option” plan is really the sneaky way for politicians to eventually get their “single payer” plan that they really want – complete government control over everybody’s health and medical matters, whether we like it or not. (That really worked in the Soviet Union, for sure.)

On the Republican side, former Navy SEAL, Obama campaign contributor and political hack wannabe Gabriel Gomez won that party’s nomination with 51% against former U.S. attorney Mike Sullivan and former Romney legal counsel Dan Winslow.

I am hearing in the news that political newcomer Gomez will be supported by the national GOP (The “Grand Old Progressives”), despite Gomez’s supporting and donating to Obama’s presidential campaigns, and Gomez’s support for gun control and same-sex marriage.

So, as with the Democrats, the senile old GOP really like their political power, and they will support anything (anything but principle, that is) as long as they stay in control.

And Gomez has said that he, like Scott Brown, will “reach across the aisle.” Ah yes. He’s a “Bipartisan Consensus” kind of guy. That Bipartisanship thing has really worked throughout history, hasn’t it?

Anyway, I’m sure you can see just how useful these primaries and elections really are, year after year, decade after decade.
And speaking of former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, did he run in the special election? Nope.

Apparently the longtime GOP hack has been visiting New Hampshire and is considering running for U.S. Senate against incumbent N.H. Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in 2014.

Now, this Scott Brown person is the guy who throughout his previous campaigns for U.S. Senate bragged about how he was the only candidate in the race who was born and raised in Massachusetts and has spent his whole life here, and was devoted to the people of Massachusetts. But apparently he has been bitten by the “political bug,” and is anguished over his loss of power he had in the U.S. Senate. (Yech!)

And after this special election, there is another election in 2014 for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, the regularly scheduled election at the conclusion of John Kerry’s six-year term. But will Scott Brown consider running in that election? Uh-uh. Could he possibly win such an election? Uh-uh. As stated above, he will have to switch to the Democrat Party to win something in this People’s Republic now.

But does it really matter who wins in this special election, or next year’s elections, in Massachusetts or any other state? Of course not! These politicians are all the same – they’re statists. They love political power, and, frankly, most of them have been going through life as professional politicians, government bureaucrats, or government-subsidized lawyers, lobbyists or corporatists, so to hell with them!

In other words, most of these pols have been living a life of political enrichment and empowerment, as opposed to the “economic means,” as the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer would call it. The difference is that some people use the political means of State power and authority to impose aggression against others to get what they want, while others use the economic means of peaceful, free productivity and exchange with the absence of aggression.

So, no, it doesn’t matter who replaces John Forbes Heinz Kerry in the U.S. Senate. We would be better off if that remained an empty seat. And the same goes for all the other seats as well.

In fact, we would all be better off if Congress would just adjourn and go home permanently, and take all those damn laws, special interest-favoring policies, tax-thefts, regulations and intrusions with them.

So, just what good have these politicians and bureaucrats actually done for America?

Exactly.

They should all be fired, and not replaced!

And the same goes for the states and locals as well!

Just imagine the freedom – and prosperity – we would have without them and their bureaucratic intrusions. People would be free to associate with their doctors and it would be kept private. People could start businesses in any field without having to ask for some parasite’s permission, and work without having their earnings stolen from them and their labor enslaved by non-productive racketeers, banksters and hooligans. Law and order would actually be restored by the people whose main means of security and protection would be theirs to choose, with no restrictions. No dependence on “law enforcement,” as “law enforcement” is no longer dependable.

And by the way, speaking of the police state in Watertown following the Boston Marathon bombings and police ordering residents to leave their own homes while police illegally search them: Whatever happened to “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”?

But how secure are you in your person, house, papers and effects with police in your home while you are not there to supervise them? Because not only are government police not dependable, they are also extremely untrustworthy! If we got rid of the inherently corrupting “law enforcement” socialism that we have now, we would be much better off. But I digress.

Anyway, in recent Massachusetts electoral races, the most recent candidate promoting liberty was the young Joe Kennedy (not the current Joe Kennedy who replaced Barney Frank but the other one who is of no relation to “The Kennedys”).

The other young Joe Kennedy ran against Scott Brown and Martha Coakley in the 2010 senatorial special election to replace the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy.

And prior to that “not-a-Kennedy” Joe Kennedy, we had Libertarian Carla Howell who ran for governor against Willard Romney and some also-rans in 2002. Carla is now the executive director of the national Libertarian Party. Who knows why, as the LP hasn’t really made much progress since it began 40 years ago, and they have been what some people would call “statist lite.” Sadly, the “Party of Principle” has not been as principled as one would like.

But people who want their freedom restored must realize that politics and government are not the answers to our problems. They are the causes of our problems. If people don’t understand that, then perhaps they should read the aforementioned Oppenheimer, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard as well, to name just a few.

So, regarding the upcoming special election to replace John Kerry, it would be best for the people of Massachusetts to just sit this one out.

And every other election as well, as a vote for anyone is a vote for the evil State and against your life and your freedom.

Articles for Wednesday

May 012013

Lew Rockwell: Another Nail in the Neocon Coffin

Gary Gibson: Rising House Prices Are a Central Bank Scam

Tony Cartalucci: West’s WMD Lies Fray as Syrian Army Overruns Terrorist Proxies

Roger Roots: How Prosecution Quotas Make the Legal System a Farce

Justin Raimondo: Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the Penumbra of Terror: The Alleged Boston Marathon Bombers Had Help

Gary North: Nisbet on Messianic War

Kurt Nimmo: National Review Critiques Alex Jones as Fire-and-Brimstone Preacher

Jeff Berwick: Connecticut Begins Gold Dealer Shutdown

The Daily Bell: Here Comes the New Fed Boss

Philip Weiss: Rightwing Israel Discourse Makes Even Dershowitz and Foxman Look… Moderate

Wendy McElroy: Obama, Union Buster?

Radley Balko: Boston and Militarism: The Colonial Era

Thomas Knapp: The Usual Suspects vs. Syria: WMD for We But Not for Thee

Sheldon Richman: Did President Obama “Radicalize” the Tsarnaevs?

Glenn Greenwald: A Young Yemeni Writer on the Impact and Morality of Drone-Bombing His Country

Alex Kane: Treatment of Boston Suspect Exposes ‘Muslim Exception’ to U.S. Constitution

Ryan McMaken: Equality in Gun Control Finally Achieved

“Anti-Government”

Apr 302013

I found this post from April 2010 in my archives and will repost it here now.

“Anti-Government” … Who, Me?

April 20, 2010

President Clinton wrote an op-ed today regarding yesterday’s anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and, as though he was implying a reference to the Tea Party protest movement of today, opined that the “anti-government” types are motivated by “the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.” The BELIEF that…?? Well, as an “anti-government” type, I must affirm that, yes, the greatest threat to our freedom IS our government!! And not just the government, but the biased media who act as the government officials’ official stenographers. It is THEY who are dangerous and the biggest threats our freedom faces. In fact, the American Founders were “anti-government”!! Presidents Bush (either one) and Obomber wouldn’t recognize the Founders’ concepts and ideas if they fell over them! (Bush and Obomber have fallen over many things, if you know what I mean.)

Government—or, more precisely, the State—has never been a protector of our liberty. It is the State (particularly the U.S. government) that has been violating our liberty more and more since the Founding, and it is the government that has made us less safe—NOT protecting us! The Government has been the chief trespasser of our property and robber of our wealth. Clinton is nuts, as well as ignorant and corrupt.

And the Tea Party movement’s critics have also been accusing “anti-government” types of being “conspiracy theorists.” When the U.S. Congress rushes through a 2000+ page medical and insurance fascism bill, with all the bribes and back-door deals and rams it into law in the dead of night, that’s not “conspiring?”

If the the gangsters and hooligans in Congress weren’t engaging in “conspiracies” then I don’t know who is! Jeepers! And this guy, Stupak (When I first heard the name “Stupak,” I thought they were talking about the sound a stapler makes.), I wonder what they paid him (or threatened him with) to make him change his mind.

This is what you get when you give an institution any kind of monopoly and especially the power of compulsion over others. Our freedom and our rights to life and liberty were somewhat secured and assured around the time of the American Revolution—and the Founders even came up with a document that recognized that freedom and those rights: The Declaration of Independence, that even described our right to “throw off” a tyrannical government and “abolish it”—but our rights and our freedom began to dwindle as soon as the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land. All the Constitution did was establish the federal government and allow officials of the federal government to have the power of compulsion over us and the power of institutionalized monopolies that forbade fellow citizens from entering particular fields of endeavor that were monopolized by that government, in which case it’s time to be thrown in the hoosegow.

These are the main reasons why I wrote about this November’s elections, or any elections, “More Rearranging of Deck Chairs,” because that’s what these elections are.

Last Fall was when I became familiar with economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s articles and his views, and the concept of the government’s compulsory territorial monopoly of protection and judicial decision-making, and that’s the time that I did big Edith Bunker impressions, “Oh, NOW I get it!”, etc. I am glad that Prof. Hoppe established his Property and Freedom Society, an organization of mostly “cultural conservatives,” and whose statement of principles includes:

The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against—anyone in one’s personal and business relations—and unconditional free trade. It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of “outcome” or “opportunity,” and it has an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians. As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: “What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. … There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government.”…..

And I agree with those principles, recognizing the rights of the individual, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to freedom of association and freedom of contract. Notice how it also mentions the right to “discriminate.” Under the umbrella of the individual’s right of self-ownership and the right to control one’s own private property, one has a right to associate with (including establishing a voluntary contract with) or not associate with whomever one wishes, and the right not to be forced to associate with someone with whom one does NOT wish to associate with. For example, the 1964-65 Civil Rights Act (and similar laws) applied to both public and private property. It should only apply to public property, including the public transportation, government-owned buildings and facilities, parks, etc. It should NOT include restaurants and other businesses and properties that are privately owned. The owner of private property has a right to include or exclude whomever one wants on one’s own privately owned property, and for whatever reason. If a business such as a restaurant is referred to as a “public accommodation,” it’s still a privately owned business. The more “general public” one’s business deals with, or the larger the business, still doesn’t make it “more publicly owned,” otherwise have the State buy it from the owner. If a Black lady in Roxbury, Massachusetts owns a store or restaurant, and she doesn’t want Whites in there, that’s her right to keep them out. Any forcing of people onto her business or property (by law, police, etc.), against her will, is trespassing. And if she doesn’t want males, or children, or Catholics, it is her RIGHT to say “You can’t come into my business.” And I am not a racist, because I don’t care what people’s skin color is (unlike President Obama, Chris Matthews and others of their ignorant ilk, who are literally obsessed with people’s skin color), but, my point is, separating private from public property is necessary to understanding what freedom is all about.

Bottom line: The only one with actual, legitimate “rights” is the individual, who has a right to be free from the aggression of others, in one’s person and one’s property. Unfortunately, the idea of “civil rights” has turned that around to give people the right to force themselves onto or into the business or property of others against their will, and that’s aggression. Aggression is immoral, no matter what. The Civil Rights Act should only apply to public property and government-run functions, NOT private property or businesses.

So, in the workplace, employers (in the private sector) have a right to hire and fire whomever they want and for whatever reason, but laws that were made from ignorance restrict their rights. For example, Boston Symphony Orchestra music director James Levine has had one medical problem after another since he began with the BSO in 2004, and it looks like, because he has been absent so much now, they might terminate his music directorship (although it may not have been so easy for them to do that had he remembered to sign his contract!).

Of course, the violation of freedom regarding the aforementioned situations comes in with the use of armed police to enforce the laws that violate our rights and freedom. A lot of people are very authoritarian and are pro-police. The Obommunists now are the former ’60s anti-police radicals. While the conservative right still approves of using police for this or that, now the left loves the police, as we will see when the peaceful Tea Party protesters will experience just how much those Stalinists President Obomber and Stinker of the House Nancy Lugosi don’t like their authority and control being challenged or protested. At LewRockwell.com, Will Grigg has one article after another that describes why we might want to question reliance on police as the ones to protect our liberty or safety. Just this week Will had one about the “police looters” at Hurricane Katrina. And yesterday Wendy McElroy had a post about a recent police brutality incident. We have a right to be “anti-government” and protest peacefully, like the Tea Partiers (unlike Bill Ayers who used not only violence but murder as a way to express his protest).

WTKK radio host Michael Graham himself was arrested and thrown in the hoosegow last year because of driving with a revoked license. He said the police officers were civil and cordial which I don’t doubt. Of course, he shouldn’t have even been bothered by the police, and don’t get me started again on the driving stuff. Let me make THIS perfectly clear: Driving is a RIGHT, not a “privilege.” Graham’s freedom of movement and right to go about his business was grossly violated in this incident. Just look at all the stress that these government officials caused him, and I’ll bet it was stressful. All of that kind of thing should not be tolerated in a free society. The police- staters out there just don’t get it.

Another thing about Michael Graham is that he has become a Professor of Campaigning at his new political Candidates School. He teaches people who are interested in running for public office just how it’s done. I don’t know exactly what good that’s going to do anyone, since these elections are Rearranging of Deck Chairs. When his students learn how to run for office, then they will learn how to manipulate their voters into believing that their legislative actions are actually in the voters’ best interests, and then they will learn how to stick legalese and bureaucratese into legislation to get away with more and more theft and trespassing, and that’s how things go.

In fact, just this morning, a lady called Glenn Beck’s show, saying she wanted him to run for president, and gave a list of things “we need in a president.” And Beck said he could never get elected, and he gave some of his suggestions of what we need in a president. Actually, we really don’t need a president. We don’t need to be “led” by someone through life. We need freedom. Each one of us needs the freedom to achieve what we want to achieve in life and lead our own lives, without the intrusions of others. That’s what we need.

Older Entries Newer Entries