LRC in trouble?

Lew Rockwell needs our help.

Please consider what you can.

Donate to Lew Rockwell.com

Legalized Theft

I had a discussion the other day on the Patriot's Lament radio show on the word "theft." The discussion was about the city of Fairbanks upping the amount of forfeitures it needed to fill the gap in the city budget.
I claim that asset forfeiture is theft. A caller to the show said while I might think it is theft, the city council says it is not theft, as long as it is doing the stealing.
So if a city, State, or any legislature concludes that what it does is not theft, does that mean that it is not?
If I punch someone in the nose, can I claim that it is a nostril love tap?
If I murder someone, can I call it a long sleeping spell?
Can a body of individuals change the Law of Nature, to justify its perceived needs?
Is theft always theft?
If a starving person steals food from an open kitchen window, isn't it still theft? Whether the person who was stolen from wants to receive restitution from the thief is not the concern here. Whether the starving person really needed the food more than the owner of the food doesn't matter either.
It is still theft.
It's the question that is not really all that old: if a government steals, is it really theft? Is the State held above the Law, rather than to a higher standard of the Law?
I say it is not that old of a question because in the past, it was well known that even the King himself was not above the Law.
From William Blackstone:
"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."
 
And the Founding Fathers of America saw it quite simply, from Thomas Jefferson:

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society, their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

In other words, just because man leaves the State of Nature and joins others in the State of Society, he is still held to the same Law as he was in the State of Nature, such as, do not Steal.
The very reason man leaves the State of Nature to join society is to protect his very property from theft, among few other things.
 Stealing violates the Law of Nature as its violator must take property that is not his from another person who has the rightful or higher claim to that property.
Simply being elected to an office does not grant the elected person special privileges, most certainly not the privilege to steal.

Otherwise this would mean that slavery would be legal and just. For we are talking about the very Right of Self Ownership when we speak of theft, and more so theft by the State.
If the State, or even some puny individual at a lowly city council, can steal from you legally, then that lowly city council claims ownership of your very body, and claims ultimately that you are its slave.

So, the real discussion over things such as asset forfeitures is not whether it hurts the poor at a higher percentage than others, it's not whether the State is too liberal in using the so-called law, it is not whether due process is violated or not, and I agree in the affirmative to all the above; the real discussion is whether or not it is theft.

And if it is, then this should be the focal point of our discussion.
It is theft.
Individuals using the State claim to be above and outside the Law, and choose to steal from their neighbors. They call it "legal" and the "law," but it is just theft, plain and simple.


                                                                       ______

Now I want to briefly speak to the Fairbanks City Council, that wretched gang of thieves, and enemy of a free people.
I am quite happy that you have been so forthcoming in telling the people of Fairbanks that you consider yourselves above the Law, and also that you consider the people of Fairbanks to be your slaves.
It has to be this, or otherwise you have to admit that you are simply thieves of other men's means.
The fact that you PUT INTO YOUR NEW BUDGET, additional monies you have not even yet stolen from us, through fines and asset forfeitures, by doing so you have opened many people's eyes to what you really are:

You are an enemy of the Poor.
You are an enemy of Justice.
You are an enemy of The Law.
You are an enemy of Righteousness.
You are an enemy of the People.
You are an enemy of God.

While Justice on this earth may not seem to always come swiftly, Justice will indeed come.

But don't take my word for it.


Whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society." John Locke










  

Send the FAA to the Boneyard!

By: Michael Anderson (for Patriot's Lament)

December 16, 2015

Ever since Monday I have been seething with hatred for the state-even more than usual. On Monday the FAA released a new regulation requiring the registration of “Unmanned Arial Systems” (UAS) weighing 0.55 pounds or more. This includes any toy or model aircraft that can be controlled, even if it's only flown in your yard. The FAA did say that this does not include paper airplanes. They seriously state that on their website. How did we get to the point that we now have to register our model airplanes? There are some modelers on comments sections thinking this is great because now, their hobby is legitimate. Now they can feel responsible and important, now that they can get another pat on the head by their master.

Compulsory registration of private property is a fundamental violation of property rights. Once someone is forced to register their property with the state, they no longer own it-they rent it. In this case, involving registration of drones and RC airplanes, the renter of what was once his property must provide name, home address, email and five dollars every three years. That doesn't sound like much. But the civil and criminal penalty is outrageous. The civil penalty is up to $27,500 and the criminal penalty is up to $250,000 and three years in prison. All of that for not registering a model airplane. So what if you register and in three years it expires and you forget to register or you crashed it and didn't report it.  Will some goon from the FAA show up and fine you or take you to prison? That is the risk that you take when you register. I wouldn't register in the first place- You'll be better off. If you are stupid enough to actually register your model airplane or helicopter, you have just given ownership of your model to the federal government and you paid them $5 to take ownership of it. Only the state could negotiate that kind of rip-off. 

The FAA claims that this regulation is about safety. They claim that with all drones and models being registered, they can easily find someone who causes damage to property and they can know who to fine and it will make people be more responsible. This is a nonsensical argument. If I cause damage to property with my drone, I am liable for repairs anyway, just as if I cause the damage with a rock when I throw it into an aircraft engine or through a window or into a sports stadium. By the FAA's logic we need to register all rocks with the FAA before we can throw them.  Bureaucrats never find an end to the list of regulations that would help us “be safe”. Bureaucrats also don't seem to realize that more government encourages people to be less responsible, a topic for another article. It won't be long before we are forced to register or cut off one or both of our hands for the cause of safety and national security. After all, a person without hands can't commit a mass shooting or fly a drone or throw a rock. It is unfortunate that so many people loose all capacity for rational thought as soon as a bureaucrat or safety officer shows up and employs the safety excuse on them. 

 Of course, like all bureaucracies, the FAA doesn't offer any sort of incentive for compliance, except they won't put you in prison or bankrupt you. Deputy FAA Administrator, Michael Whitaker, made the disgusting statement “Our real challenge is to get them to understand the rules and get them to comply”. That's right, get those tax cows to comply with our arbitrary dictates. Bend over, we got a broomstick for you. In a free society, that is one without a state, such a registration would be voluntary and the fee would provide an incentive, such as local RC airfields or at least a magazine subscription. Bureaucrats tend to be some of the laziest, least intelligent and least moral members of society and as such, they view all private property as theirs for the taking and convince themselves that paperwork makes us safer because they can't come up with a better excuse for the general looting of the public. This makes them, both, Liars and thieves. Unfortunately some of the public are even dumber than the bureaucrats and accept such ludicrous claims and even view them as a path to being praised by those who wish to rob them.  

In 2012 The FAA was tasked with coming up with drone regulation. The FAA formed a board from private organizations to “advise” them on these new regulations. One of those orginizations was the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Apparently the FAA didn't listen to anything they had to say because the Executive Director of the AMA, Dave Mathewson, who participated in the task force said education programs are the way to ensure safety, rather than a registry that will create “an unnecessary burden” on the group’s members.

Section 336 of the FMRA explicitly prohibits the FAA from regulating hobby aircraft that are flown within line of site. The FAA responded to the section 336 challenge by stating “While section 336 bars the FAA from promulgating new rules or regulations that apply only to model aircraft, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking and does not exempt model aircraft from complying with existing statutory and regulatory requirements”. In other words, “We don't give a shit”. So even if you did get prosecuted for not registering your model airplane you could take it to court and win, after you loose your house to pay for the legal fees. This is how a tyranny (the state) works- it violates it's own alleged code of conduct and then just bankrupts the tax cow. After all, the state can get all the money it needs from the other tax cows to keep the case going. This is what happens to a people who have failed to properly define words such as the word “right”, which is another subject for another article. 

When the FAA was tasked with coming up with drone regulations and they were focused on drones used for commercial purposes, which is no less a violation of property rights. Again we see how regulation on one group becomes expanded to all groups. Clearly this is not about safety, especially considering the outrageous fines. One only needs to type “FAA funding” into Startpage to find the real reason for these regulations. The FAA routinely runs out of money and these fines are needed to keep the FAA bureaucrats employed. Back in September, they were granted a six month funding extension, in 2013, the FAA's funding was cut, resulting in ATC layoffs and in 2011 through 2012 the FAA went through 20 temporary funding extensions that resulted in partial shutdowns. The FAA needs money and like all agencies of the state, they will take it at the point of a gun, rather than operating in a peaceful market situation. The drone regulations and fines are just the FAA gasping for cash to survive. 

Back when I completed my private pilot rating, the FAA stated that their purpose was to promote General Aviation. After the 9/11 false flag they changed their stated mission goal to enforcing compliance to regulation. The FAA no longer even pretended to be interested in the rights of pilots or passengers. It is now only interested in advancing the cause of the state (public looting). At one time the FAA provided some good services and its employees really did try to provide quality services. But like all state agencies, the FAA became just another guaranteed pension for the dumb and corrupt. 

The FAA is mostly a regulatory body charged with the safety of air travel. But it's bureaucratic nature and inability to adapt make it a danger. It was only this year that the FAA upgraded from their old HOST system that was developed in the 1960's. The new system, called ERAM began development in 2002, was installed in the spring of 2015 and is a $2.1 billion part of a larger $40 billion project called NexGen that will have the air traffic control system upgraded by 2025. In other words, the system will be upgraded by 2025 with a system that is already outdated today. Would you find a private organization running air traffic control with massive, power-sucking antiquated computer systems from the 1960's when a smart phone and a cheap app can do the same job? Would you find private companies spending $40 billion for the upgrade? You can purchase smartphone apps that combine data from multiple sources for instant and exact locations of aircraft everywhere in the world. Finally, why must the airspace be run by one central agency when each airport and control center can run itself and communicate with all of the others instantly with modern technology? 

Clearly the FAA has outlived any usefulness it might once have had. It has become so narcissistic that it assumes it can control model airplanes and helicopters in your own yard and it is such a bureaucratic behemoth that it is only now beginning to upgrade from fifty year old technology to fifteen year old technology. It is time for the FAA to just die and be replaced by privately funded and operated aviation services. Take AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) for example. It spends millions of dollars every year just lobbying politicians on behalf of pilots. In 2014 they spent $2.5 million on lobbying. In 2013 they spent $2.83 million on lobbying. Why not get rid of the state and the politicians, then all of that money could go to AOPA airports and ATC systems that are far more efficient than the decrepit old systems the FAA still relies on. The FAA is just another pile of ruble in a crumbling nation that sacrificed the market. This is one more great example as to why we just need to abolish the state and allow the market to service our needs. 

Trump's policy is stupid and dangerous

Please check out this post I wrote on our Facebook page.
Trump is dangerous to Liberty

Ron Paul's most important message to us today.

Please watch this important insight from Dr. Ron Paul. As we talked about this last Saturday on Patriot's Lament radio, do NOT succumb to the fear-mongering of the State.
It is ALL lies.

Ron Paul Institute

I am a big supporter of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
I really believe the work that they are doing there is actually taking that step up and forward from when Dr. Paul was a congressman. Lovers of Liberty should support the Institute.
Please join me and send them whatever you can for the fight for Liberty.
Thank you!
Ron Paul Institute

Remove consent

And watch Leviathan fall.

The Independent Institute has a clever video series well worth your time

http://www.independent.org/lovegov/

Iran Sanctions and the Entangling Alliances of the Gas Wars:

Article by Michael Anderson.

If you want to find the culprit, follow the money. We've all heard that. Likewise, if you want to know where the next war will be, follow the pipeline plans. When it comes to large engineering projects, plans always change, even from day to day, at times. In such a relationship, it only seems logical that as plans suffer major changes, so must the wars. After all, major wars are about conquering the areas where the oil is located and minor battles are about clearing out the population that happens to be blocking the pipeline route. Wars are Never started by aggrieved parties who just want “justice” They are always started by the state to establish or enhance monopolies while using some fake grievance as the official reason. Today, oil and gas are the one most closely associated resources related to acts of war.

It can be quite confusing to follow who is “our” enemy and who is “our” ally on any given day. Just yesterday I saw that the US had given Turkey permission to bomb the Kurdish fighters who are fighting ISIS.  Among the Kurdish fighters there are Americans who decided, out of their own ignorance as to the origin of ISIS (Saudi Arabia and the US), to fight ISIS.  Americans join the poor Kurds (who's gassing was one of the excuses for the first gulf war) to fight ISIS, who makes fake threats of attacking the “homeland”. Then America agrees to the bombing of those Kurds aided by independent American fighters. 

For over a decade, now, we have been bombarded with propaganda about Iran obtaining a nuke. It was the event that woke me up to how the world really worked. The claims were so crazy that I couldn't take the cognitive dissonance any longer and that was when I was a republican. Fortunately for the whole world, the NIE discovered in 2007 that there were no nukes or preparation for nukes and Washington lost their narrative for a “justified” pre-emptive war. The old fable of Iran getting nukes persists among the neo-cons and their mindless parrots. Unfortunately, Iran has been held under sanction for years under the excuse that they are seeking nukes, even with the proof that they were not and are not. Nor is Iran a nation with a trend of attacking anyone. In fact, the last time they attacked anyone was in 1798. Whereas the US can't go six months without finding a new “enemy” to attack, often backed by Israel, and Saudi Arabia or initiated by Israel and Saudi Arabia. 

According to John Perkins, in his book 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man', part of his job was to make sure lucrative projects were awarded to US corporations. He also writes about the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. After Saudi's oil embargos against the US, the US treasury had been employed in a deal with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia would provide cheap and plentiful oil to the US and promise not to embargo the US again and in return, the US Treasury would provide the money to turn Saudi Arabia into a rich first world country and would supply the US military to fight Saudi Arabia's petrol-wars. 

In the past few years, the wars have turned to gas. Several major gas lines have been proposed. Some were abandoned for better ones and some have already gone into operation. Natural gas has long been in short supply in Europe and since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has been Europe's savior in this area by leading the charge to get gas to Europe. But others want that business and are willing to destroy Russia's allies to get the gas line routes.

 Fig 1: Petroleum map of Iran and surrounding area.

One proposed pipeline was the Nabucco line that would go from Azerbaijan, through Turkey and into Europe, as shown below. As the reader can see, One of the feed lines originates in Iran and the other in Azerbaijan (see fig 2). The Gas would have been supplied by the Shah Deniz Gas Field in the Caspian sea on the north side of Iran and operated by BP

Fig 2: Proposed Nabucco Line.

The plan for the Nabucco line was developed in 2002 (hmmm) and abandoned in 2013 after Iran, Iraq and finally Azerbaijan dropped out as potential suppliers. The Nabucco plan was beat out by a competing plan, the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) which will supply gas from the same, Shah Deniz, gas field. But even that will supply only about one percent of Europe's demand.

Syria in the Way

In August of 2013, right after the Nabucco line was abandoned, Saudi backed rebels launched poison gas canisters in Damascus, Syria. The attack was blamed on Assad and the US claimed to have taped the events. However the US never released its “proof” that Assad was to blame. Latter, video of Rebels launching gas canisters surfaced and spread around Youtube and on August 30, 2013  Dale Gavlak of the AP reported that the rebels detonated chemical weapons by accident, not knowing what they were and having been supplied with them by Saudi Arabia and while having been on the payroll of Saudi Arabia. Apparently the rebels were supposed to deliver them to Al-Quaeda offshoot Jahab Al-Nusra but they exploded in a tunnel, killing a dozen rebels. John Kerry tried his hardest to get the world to believe Assad did it. But Why? It is not commonly known that Obama had vetoed a Franco-Saudi plan to outright Assassinate Assad in 2012 by using US carrier based warplanes to bombard Damascus for 12 hours, then raid the palace and kill Assad and his family. The Obama administration was “concerned” about the carnage it would inflict on the population. Was that out of a moral concern or a concern of appearance? Obviously they were concerned about appearance since the US State Dept worked so hard to get the world to believe Assad carried out the later chemical attack to justify the very same military action that was proposed the previous year by Saudi Arabia. 

But why all this effort to oust Assad? Because Syria has been an ally and gas production partner of Russia and Russia provides most of the gas to the EU. But Saudi Arabia, Qatar and even Israel want that business.  The Al-Quada associated rebels in Syria, who were fighting Assad (now ISIS), are backed by Saudi Arabia, the US and Qatar. Qatar has proposed the Qatar-Turkey line which would transit through Saudi Arabia. Gas for the Qatar-Turkey line would be sourced from the North Dome/South Pars Gas field in the Persian Gulf, right off the coast of Qatar and it happens to be the largest gas field in the world, yet found, containing an estimated 51 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of gas. It is split between Qatar and Iranian territories. The South Pars portion is actually on the north side, but lies in the southern territory of Iran, hence, the confusing names. Refer to the red area on fig 1.  The agreement for the new gas line going from Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey was agreed upon on June 25^th, 2011. But only Syria stood in the way and Assad did not want to agree because he did not want to hurt Russia's share in the region. In 2011, Syrian geologists had discovered a gas field near the Mediterranean port of Tartus, and near Homs, Syria, an area also leased by the Russians. If developed by Syria and Russia, this field could also supply gas to Europe. Gazprom owns and operates production and distribution facilities in Syria. Those very expensive Russian facilities have been under threat by ISIS since the conflict started, and, in May, 2015, ISIS blew up a gas line supplying the Gazprom facility in Furqlus, part of the Homs area. This “mega”-field is now in the hands of ISIS, Saudi Arabia's proxy army backed by the US. The Chinese have had claim to some of the wells in this discovery, also, but they are not in production yet. So, of course, China is sided with Russia. ISIS is an attempt to take over the middle east for Saudi Arabia.

Iran: A New Opportunity.

A competitor to the Qatar-Turkey line is the Iran-Iraq-Syria Line that will take gas from the South Pars field, and send it through a new Iranian trunk line called the IGAT-6. From there, it will travel north, through Iran, supply Iraq and then through Syria and then on to Europe. A similar line had been in the works until 2010 when US Sanctions forced Swiss partner Elektrizitätsgesellschaft Laufenburg to back out. Until the discovery and development of the South Pars field, Iran was actually a net importer of LNG. The agreements for building the IGAT-6 line were signed on July 15, 2015 with the Iranian Government covering 75 percent of the 2.3 billion dollar cost. This just happens to be the day after Obama lifted sanctions on Iran, on July 14, 2015, an action backed by the UN. Key to this story is also the fact that Shell Oil owes 2.3 billion dollars to Iran and that in June, 2015, Shell executives were in Tehran having talks and now, Iran will soon have the largest floating LNG terminal in the world. With sanctions lifted, Iran will no longer be limited to exporting gas only to Turkey and Armenia, but also to Iraq, Which is part of the IGAT-6 plan, and on to Europe. New export agreements for the Iranian gas are to made in the near future. Since the Qatar-Iran-Iraq line is stalled, due to the conflict in Syria, Iran appears to be a much brighter prospect to getting gas to Iraq and Europe at some point in the future. Shipment of Iranian gas to Iraq will begin in a few weeks with a 25 year contract. In addition to gas exports, Iran hopes to start exporting metals and automobiles to Europe and Iran's Deputy Economy Minister Mohammad Khazaei stated that they have already completed negotiations with some European companies wanting to invest in Iran.

Pakistan and China?

According to an agreement made between Iran and Pakistan in 2012, a new contract was signed to ship Iranian gas to Pakistan. According to the terms of the agreement, Pakistan was to be ready to receive the gas in the end of 2014 with a one million dollar per day penalty if the deadline was not met. But sanctions on Iran have prevented Pakistan from completing its part of the project. Recently, however, Pakistan has entered into a 46 billion dollar project to ship gas to China to reduce China's dependence on the Straight of Malacca for energy imports. (http://civilnet.am/2015/07/26/lifting-of-sanctions-to-boost-iranian-gas-exports-petrostrategies/#.VbkGdLaVs8o) 

Russian Competition.

In 2011 Russia began the Nord Stream line that provides gas to Europe, via  pipes under the Baltic Sea. Discussion for the Nord Stream line began in 1997 and it was laid between May of 2010 and November of 2011. The EU has long been a net importer of gas. Even in 1997, the EU demand for gas was 439 bcm but its production was only 245 bcm. Connecting Europe to Russian gas supplies has long been seen as a solution to Europe's gas shortage, considering that Russia has almost as much gas (44,600 bcm reserves in 2012) as the middle east. The Nord Stream line allows Russia to divert some of the gas that would have gone through Ukraine and Belarus resulting in an annual loss of $700 million, worth of transit fees, for Ukraine. Most of the Russian gas will still be transiting through Ukraine, however. It is also important to note some of the late propaganda we have received about Lithuania's need for Nato troops to protect them from an “uptick” in military activity in the form of Russian troops and Russian planes flying over, some with transponders turned off. Take a look at the map in fig 3. Do you see that little pink spot between Lithuania and Poland? That is the Russian Oblast Kaliningrad. It Holds a large Russian Naval base and has since WWII. It is the only port in the Baltic that remains Ice-free year round and, thus, is an important port to maintain the Russian fleet and presumably to maintain the Nord Stream line. Of course there are Russian military aircraft flying over. It's an old Russian base. Considering the tensions that have brewed, I might turn my transponder off, too, if I were a Russian pilot flying over the area. Oh, for us Anarcho-Capitalists, it has been a Russian Economic Free Zone since 1991. There is no military buildup against Lithuania. The Russians have always been there.

 Fig 3: Russia's Nord Stream Line Completed in November, 2011. 

In December of 2012, Russia also began work on the South Stream project which will send Russian gas under the Black Sea and through the Balkans and into Austria and Italy. The South Stream project is projected to be complete in 2018 (fig 4). Even if the Middle East pipelines like Nabucco had been built, they would not be able to compete with the amount of gas that Russia can supply through the South Stream line. Not even the new Iranian line can. The gas provided through IGAT-6 could only supply half of what the Russian South stream line can and as of now, IGAT-6 is only going as far as Iraq and Turkey. Europe needs Russia or it freezes.

Fig 4: Russia's South Stream line began in December 2012, slated for completion in 2018.

Lately the neo-cons have been enraged (or at least they pretend to be to stir up the political fervor among their flocks of war-pigs) by Obama's lifting of sanctions on Iran. “Obama is putting Iran on the glideslope to a nuclear bomb” says Chris Christie. According to Ted Cruz, Iran could set off an EMP over New York. Neo-cons are claiming Obama is allowing Iran to fund terrorism and other forms of nonsensical fear mongering for the war-hungry. The US, under Obama, the Bush's, Clinton and Reagan has been funding, training and supplying various terrorist groups throughout the world for decades. The neo-con mystics are even claiming that their crossword puzzle, called the Torah Code, is predicting an imminent nuke attack by Iran and therefore Israel must nuke Iran first. Obama may be a tyrant in a whole lot of ways but lets be honest. He didn't lift sanctions on Iran because he is a Muslim terrorist in presidential drag. He lifted sanctions because Iran now has a market advantage against Saudi Arabia. Sanctions on Iran have not been recently supported by Saudi Arabia, only because Saudi Arabia demands a more “decisive action” by the US against Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia now officially supports the lifting of sanctions. Sanctions have only put the US in the middle of tribal wars between sects of the same religion. 

America's wars are the result of interventionist policy. By exposing the US to the tribal resource wars  of the region in entangling alliances.  ISIS was a creation of Saudi Arabia and allies to take middle-east gas fields and since the US had long ago promised to give military aid to Saudi Arabia, the US made itself a partner in a major terror campaign to simply steal resources. Clearly Europe sees a benefit in trading with Iran. It is far more lucrative than spending money dropping bombs on Middle-East countries for Saudi-Arabia. In fact, while researching this article I found an advertisement by Saudi Arabia hailing the benefits of “Decisive Storm”, a military action led by Saudi Arabia against Yemen, as if it were some kind of miracle cream (http://www.arabnews.com/DecisiveStorm) .  This is just one audacious example of the mindset of the Saudi royals. They are a mafia with no regard for property rights or life. To them, like to many US politicians, war is just business. 

Perhaps European and US companies are tired of dealing with Saudi Arabia's monopolist wars and the lost opportunities it has cost them. Companies operating in the market are always willing to cooperate with each other if it helps them profit. The Shah Deniz field was to be operated by BP, but other companies from Russia and Iran also held shares in that field. It is the State that is in constant conflict for tax revenue and transit fees and that depends on who gets to have the line travel through “their” conquered territory. In reality, although the US is the Giant, it got that way with cheap access to oil and the trade-off was to sell its mercenary services to the nation that provides that resource-Saudi Arabia and now- Qatar. But after all of these years of watching Saudi Arabia orchestrate and participate in false flags to stir up conflict and using the US to depose Saudi's oil rivals while despicable US politicians profit off the wars they help orchestrate what we may be witnessing is an example of the market breaking the current war cycle. But even parasites can adapt, so it is possible that politicians will make deals with Iran, similar to those made with Saudi Arabia. Is it possible that, with ISIS (Saudi) now in control of so much of Syria, Saudi Arabia will allow Iran to send gas through? Is it possible that the US realizes it can no longer afford to be Saudi Arabia's henchman (politically or financially) and now it needs to move on to greener pastures? Since the deals established with Saudi Arabia, the US has been willing to carry out Saudi Arabia's desires and with NATO being run by the US, that puts Europe at odds with the US. Either Europe breaks ties with NATO, to maintain gas supplies from Russia or it freezes. Europe's NATO alliance is forcing it against its own supplier. Or the US breaks with Saudi Arabia and makes peace with Iran to keep getting oil and gas. The sanctions against Iran were always a tool used to appease the Saudi's. There was never any real concern about Iran having nukes. It was all a ploy.

Thomas DiLorenzo writes at LRC blog...

So many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of government regulations have accumulated over the past several generations that we are all now at the mercy of any nitwit/moron/jerk/sufferer of small-man syndrome who weasels his (or her) way into the lowliest of jobs in the smallest of government bureaucracies. Once implanted there, they make full use of all the levers of bureaucracy that have been built up over more than 200 years to push the rest of us around and make us jump through their financial hoops in order to stroke their own phony self importance.

His full post is here.

Two powerful editorials...

D.C. creates the monster it then scares us with. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally.

Where does ISIS get those wonderful toys?

Once we're scared it then appeals to every aspect of our being, both good and bad, to lure us into doing its dirty work.

Katy Perry, master propagandist

Patriot's Lament with Becky Akers

The wonderful Becky Akers joins us on Patriot's Lament Radio. We start out talking about Benedict Arnold, and in true Becky Akers style, she exposes the State Leviathan for what it is.
I have to say, Becky has ramped it up since the last time we spoke. Enjoy!

Americans "defend freedom" in the weirdest way...

Americans have "defended freedom" for 240 years by showing that they don't actually think it works because at every turn they take it way from others and their own away.

Don't blame [insert politician], blame the people who elected him!

In the system of voting, not being plundered isn't an option. The choice is to what extent one is plundered and to what extent one receives the fruits of that plunder, with everyone being convinced that he's plundered more than what he receives back. In this way each person feels justified in voting to maximize the amount of pelf directed to himself. This is the war of all against all, organized, systematized and rationalized (as in moral excuse making).

Dr. Robert Higgs writes about those perceptive folks who say that we shouldn't blame the politician, but those who elect him, here.

Ambrose Bierce, among others (including yours truly), did not doubt that representative democracy is a sham: “You can effect a change of robbers every four years,” he wrote. “Inestimable privilege to pull off the glutted leech and attach the lean one! And you cannot even choose among the lean leeches, but must accept those designated by the programmers and showmen who have the reptiles on tap.”

The piece is worth reading.

To be sure, the folks who vote for [insert politician] may be morally repugnant for doing so, or they may be trying to alleviate the predations on themselves which they feel most acutely.

George W. Bush slithers out from under his rock

Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute, writes a good piece about the recent event of George Dubya's little speech attacking I'llbombya's middle east policy.
Hey George, who cares what you think you lying little snake in the grass. Go crawl back under the rock you came from, you scum.

George W. Bush, "Don't talk to Iran"

Ron Paul Liberty report

Daniel McAdams makes some very good points about so called Christians who support U.S. military interventionism.

Becky Akers

The great Becky Akers will join us on Patriot's Lament by phone this Saturday the 25th. We will be discussing her book on Benedict Arnold, the real history, and we will discuss what the colonies faced from the British, how they dealt with it, compared to the Leviathan Americans are faced today, and how we should deal with it.
Becky is always awesome, so you don't want to miss this one!!


"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution."
 John Adams

Patriot's Lament with Daniel McAdams

Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, joins us on the radio for an hour. We talk about the Ron Paul Institute, the great work they are doing there, and of course, foreign policy. Daniel, as always, was awesome!

For some things you REALLY do need a state...

Robert Higgs (Crisis and Leviathan) writes thusly on Facebook:

Libertarians in general and libertarian anarchists in particular are constantly bumping up against people who object to removing the government from its involvement in this, that, and the other area of economic and social life. The objectors urge that but for the government’s undertaking to do X, that X would never have been done. Often we can answer such objections easily by pointing out that at some time in history X (where X is, for example, road construction and maintenance; education of children; provision of law and order; investment in new scientific and technological knowledge; and so forth) was in fact done privately or that, even though X has never been done privately in the past, it might be done privately in the future in ways we can describe in at least a general way.

Yet, if we libertarians are honest, we must admit that private individuals left alone by the government almost certainly would not have brought forth many of the outputs that governments have produced—for example, super-powerful nuclear weapons and thousands of delivery vehicles capable of wreaking wholesale death and destruction on an unimaginable scale; poison gases and the means to employ them in large-scale battles; an enormous number of prisons in which millions of people---many of whom have violated no one’s just rights---are warehoused to gratify the greed of crony capitalists and slake the thirst of puritanical zealots for tormenting their fellows; vast legions of spies and informants dedicated to invading the privacy of every living human being; and so forth. Let’s face it, fellow libertarians, for certain tasks, only government can get the job done.

Choose this day who you will serve...

Max McNabb writes about the American church of warmongering.

I can only speak for myself when I was in that mindset.

Jesus says to me, "Do you love me more than these? (gesturing to a stack of American flags)".
"Lord, you know I'm fond of you," I replied.

Jesus says to me, "Love your enemies."
"I'll love America's enemies when they stop glowing," I replied.

"Fear not those who can destroy the body."
"I'm so scared of dirt poor Muslims on the other side of the planet I'll happily cheer for a war on them based on accusations which are barely coherent, ripping the bodies of their children asunder."

"Trust in the Lord."
"I trust the Lord for something ephemeral in the distant future and some small things in the here and now. I trust in horses (the military) and princes (Republican politicians) for all of the big things, and I'll gladly cheer them as they kill millions of people."

Who is really our God? Jesus or Mars?

There ought to be a law...

Blimey Cow chimes in.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you have a badge.

Will Grigg speaks about BluePrivilege.

The person enforcing the law, with a gun, effective permission to use it on you, handcuffs, radio and a gang of people to back him up, lying in official reports and on the witness stand if necessary, has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the law, says the Supreme Court.

For us little people, there is no benefit of the doubt. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for us.

For the police the law in question must be reasonably knowable, understandable and promulgated.

For us little people we're responsible for every jot and tittle of an edict, every musing of a judge, every ambition of a bureaucrat.

This is called "law and order" or "justice".

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a reasonable standard in a world where the law requires an identifiable victim and a private property violation. In positive law it makes the entire world into a maze of traps and snares.

Without the state, who would provide the illusion of justice and security?

Thanks to Robert Higgs for finding this.

The FBI has been misrepresenting in court the findings of its elite hair analysis unit, to the tune of 26 of the 28 specialists in 95% of the 268 cases reviewed so far. They've been tilting the tables for prosecutors.

If you should happen to serve on a jury, you might want to know what the word of an FBI "expert" is worth.

You can read about it here.

Be all the herd that you can be, in the Army...

Dan Sanchez writes a marvelous piece about how people are intentionally manipulated into being lemmings for the power and prestige of our rulers.

Just go ahead and friend (or follow) Bob Higgs on Facebook

as he writes things like this constantly...

There ought to be a law here; there ought to be a law there; law, law, and more law. And so we end up where we are now, immersed in laws -- nobody knows how many gazillions of them altogether -- on the books of governments at every level, from the township and village, to the states, nations, and United Nations. Into every empty space, a law is shoved at someone's behest. And those who favor, support, and enact these laws (and the countless regulations whose bureaucratic creation they authorize) always represent themselves as well-intentioned, as aiming only at promotion of the general public interest.Yet, it is odd that these lawmongers never appear to recognize that a world flush with laws is necessarily one in which the real rulers are the prosecutors and cops with the discretion to decide whether and how to enforce all of these government edicts; and that a world in the hands of prosecutors and cops is, in the most literal sense, a police state.

The Grandma test

Robert Higgs (Crisis and Leviathan, The Independent Institute, Lew Rockwell.com) writes on Facebook:

Some of you may remember what I call the Grandmother Test, which I usually state in the form of a question: Do you approve of threatening your grandmother with death -- and, should she remain resolutely recalcitrant all the way down the line -- of carrying out that threat in the event of her resistance in the case of every law and regulation now on the government's books (at every level of government)?
You should understand that in fact every law and legally authorized regulation does carry such an implied death sentence, however much proponents of this law or that law may deny that it does. I maintain that not one law and regulation in ten thousand warrants such extreme enforcement against my grandmothers (RIP, in my case) or anyone else. These people who call themselves the legitimate government should put away their guns and start acting civilized. The current extent of their dictation and the harshness of their enforcement actions fly in the face of both reason and decency. It's as if the entire world had been overrun by violent, irrational bullies.

If you don't subscribe to Will Grigg's page you're missing quite a bit...

It is interesting that the phrase "compelling state interest" has its origins in the 1944 decision where the Supreme Court upheld the mass incarceration of people because they had Japanese ancestry.

Proving that the totality of politics is, as Lenin said, the question of who does what to whom, and the conflict to be the who and not the whom, George Takei now seeks to be on the "pitching" side. His family was wrongly held by WW2 internment. It is a shame he missed the larger lesson, but he is not alone.

Will Grigg writes eloquently about this issue here.

Television and other wastes of time...

I watch "The Good Wife" because they occasionally come down somewhat on the right side of an issue, though usually not for the best reason (NSA spying). They also give the other (statist) side at least something resembling a fair airing (a reasonable gun advocate, for example). The blatant airbrushing of Hillary is funny, too.

This weeks episode ended with the 2nd lead female character saying that the law is a matter of battling pity stories, and the government is mommy making everyone "play nice". This reinforces the necessity to gain political power (join into the contest of all against all) and abandon voluntary society because if your mommy isn't the one deciding there is no limit to what can be taken from you and what can be forced upon you.

This is the concept of positive law/positive rights. Rather than minimizing social conflict it institutionalizes it. Under voluntary society conflicts are constant, but they tend to diminish because conflict is uneconomical. Under political society the political class gain power, devotees, and resources from every conflict. Should social peace accidentally break out the political class would have to start conflicts so that the productive population didn't wonder why they were tolerating such a large blatantly parasitic class.

Social Justice Warriors for totalitarianism

Should a catering company owned by a Jew be forced to serve a meeting of skinheads?

For me the only important word in that sentence is "force".

To force someone is to take something which is rightfully theirs (or credibly threaten to do so) if they don't do as you say. If the skinhead's job is the difference between making payroll that month or not, that isn't a matter of force. There are plenty of unpleasant alternatives which aren't "force" in the sense of modes of social cooperation/interaction.

It is a logical fallacy to use definition one of a word to state a premise, but then shift to definition two when you want to reach a conclusion.

Will Grigg makes a devastating critique of the Totalitarian World of the Social Justice Warriors here. Listen and be enlightened.

Sadly, Penn Jillette, who is normally pretty fair, falls into a few logical traps in the opening sound byte. I suspect it is because he lacks sympathy for the people being forced and loses his focus on the issue at hand.

Google, possibly part of the empire all along...

Has Google decided to suppress unpopular opinion? It is surely within their rights to refuse to help monetize anti-authoritarian sites, but it is something we should be aware of.

Revolution!

Daniel McAdams on Patriots Lament after he films the Ron Paul show.

Join us and learn about Peace and Prosperity, March 21.

Still waiting...

Don't be the first person to stop clapping.

Or be seen clapping too slowly.

Will Grigg writes talks the totalitarianism of what passes for conservatism in the United States.

To paraphrase and sum up Will's closing...

Patriotism is the love of the particular, the love of one's people because they are ones own. It is in no way exclusionary of other people similarly loving their own people. Patriots of different peoples can deal with each other in good faith.

Nationalism, in contrast, is a variety of bellicose exclusivist collectivism. American Exceptionalism uses the language of nationalism to justify imperialism.

American exceptionalists view the country as something to be used, not something to be preserved.

The state is the agency which decides in all disputes, including those involving itself...

If you sit on a jury, consider this when listening to the police testimony.

Jeffery Schultz: Are there any red flags that would indicate someone had been arrested for drugs they didn’t possess or that officers were planting evidence?

Deputy Sheriff: Not really. Planting evidence is done in such a way it can’t be disputed. Before we write our reports, we can review all the evidence. When our fellow deputies write their supplemental reports, they usually wait until the primary officer writes his report and then uses the facts from those reports. There is no independent recollection ever, and this is standard procedure everywhere. Chances are, if you are reading a police report, you are reading a well thought out, well-rehearsed story that has little in common with what actually took place.

Wouldn't you rather be policed by an organization in which the person talking to you could be personally held accountable for anything he does?

Like this?

You aren't sovereign if you're servile.

Will Grigg writes a heartrending article here.

It is interesting that the state calls people who file lawsuits against its minions "paper terrorists". However, if you fall under the state's malignant gaze the prosecutor will pile a mountain of life ruining CRIMINAL charges on you. The prosecutor charging you criminally will face a sympathetic, TO HIM, jury which will most likely convict on at least one of his charges. Plea or take that 1 in 200 chance that the jury will see your side of things. But THAT ISN'T terrorism, because the state is the one which designates who is a terrorist and who isn't. And IT isn't, no matter how it behaves.

As Will writes...

“Sovereignty” is a claim of ownership. If individuals cannot be “sovereign,” their only choice is servility. There was once a thoroughly imperfect but in many ways commendable country on the North American landmass that was created by people who understood that principle, and shed blood in righteous defense of individual liberty. That country has been supplanted by a soyuz in which even speaking of such things is often treated as a crime.

Obama gives no shortage of targets for substantial criticisms...

yet folks continue to harp on the trivial and stupid ones.

Daniel Larison opines here.

Obama was definitely the lesser evil in 2008

At The American Conservative, Daniel Larison has a very good article about McCain's odd sense of honor.

The article is worth reading, but this selection from a comment to the article seemed to precisely sum up the twisted logic behind the honor of war.

The problem with McCain and many other hawks is that they view war as a game....To them, once a war has started and people from “our side” have died, the US must persevere in order to “honor the fallen”. And so they pervert the logic of war from an act in which lives are sacrificed to prevent even greater loss of life into one in which lives are sacrificed to vindicate the decision to go to war and to justify the earlier loss of life.

How many Americans (and non-Americans, if anyone cares) have to die to fulfill McCain's sense of honor?

For those who feel so compelled, can they please not force me to participate by looting me and implicating me in their adventures? The world is full of fights. I try to stick to those where I have enough first hand knowledge of the circumstances that losing my property, honor, or life is actually a sensible risk.

It is common knowledge that D.C. politicians are liars and frauds, but somehow killing at their behest is "honorable". This doesn't compute.

A reminder.

The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. 
Samuel Adams
Where are the Sons of Liberty?!

Truth hurts??

Being anti-war is bad why???

Becky Akers writes:

No matter which brand of “Christians” represented Leviathan, they ruled in accordance with the Satanic State’s master rather than the Lord they professed. And always will.

The congregants rejected her observation.

Read her conversation with a fellow Alaskan here.

The complete and undeniable truth

Can you handle it?

How Germany became Nazi Germany

Richard Ebeling writes: 

Hayek documented, the Nazi movement had developed out of the “enlightened” and “progressive” socialist and collectivist ideas of the pre-World War I era in Imperial Germany, ideas that many intellectuals in England and the United States had praised and propagandized for in their own countries in the years before the beginning of the First World War in 1914.Large numbers of American graduate students went off to study at German universities in the 1880s, the 1890s, and the first decade of the 20^th century.They returned to the United States and spoke and wrote about a new and higher freedom observed in Germany, a “positive” freedom provided through government welfare state paternalism rather than the mere “negative” freedom of individual liberty in the form of absence of coercion in human relationships as practiced in America.

Sound familiar? Towards the end Dr. Ebeling graduates from preaching to meddling...

With the realization that it is a controversial subject, let me suggest that a type of person who searches out employment and specialized surveillance work in the National Security Agency because he truly believes that there are potential “enemies” everywhere threatening harm to the “homeland” is highly likely to be a person who gives few second thoughts about whether intruding into the privacy of ordinary people’s emails, phone conversations, text messages, and private computer documents is unethical, illegal or even simply “bad manners.” 

Indeed, the more zealous among such types of individuals will at the end of their workday not lose sleep due to a guilty conscience that a human being’s privacy rights have been violated. He is more likely to be thinking of tomorrow’s day of work and how he can find ways to do it even more effectively, regardless of high much more other people’s rights and privacy might have to be abridged in the attempt to attain the highly allusive goal of “national security.” 

Indeed, way back in 1776, the famous Scottish economist, Adam Smith, warned about such people in government, when he said that nowhere would such political power “be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”Men are easily subject to arrogance and hubris, and never is that human weakness so to be feared as when government has the power that allows such individuals to practice their pretensions of superior knowledge and wisdom over their fellow human beings.

The earnest true believers are more dangerous than the cynics. As C.S. Lewis said, they do evil with the approval of their own conscience.

What are rights? How do we know we have them?

A very interesting discussion about how we know we have rights.

I'm currently reading The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Heumer. For those who have issues with the concept of natural rights his arguments may be persuasive. It isn't an either-or situation.

Becky Akers talks to a fellow Alaskan about the meaning of freedom

You can read it here.

Classical Liberalism rejects aggressive war.

(Classical) Liberalism rejects aggressive war not on philanthropic grounds but from the standpoint of utility. It rejects aggressive war because it regards victory as harmful, and it wants no conquests because it sees them as an unsuitable means for reaching the ultimate goals for which it strives. Not through war and victory but only through work can a nation create the preconditions for the well-being of its members. Conquering nations finally perish, either because they are annihilated by strong ones or because the ruling class is culturally overwhelmed by the subjugated. -- Ludwig von Mises HT2 FFF.org

Interestingly, no state ever presents any war to its population as one of its own aggression. It is a practice from time immemorial for states to hide their own acts of provocation from their people and present to them only the reactions of the other nations or peoples, going back at least as far as the Spot Resolution in the US. In Lincoln's time, as in our own, anyone who asks questions with uncomfortable answers is labeled unpatriotic, not hailed as being prudent about the future of his home, family and culture and protecting that future from political opportunists who see war as simply another patronage opportunity.

Smedley Butler got the essence of the issue right: "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

The Military Industrial Complex is "capitalism" in the same way that rape is love.


It is really funny to hear the nativists complain about illegal immigration and the fact that subjugated people maintain portions of their prior culture even when forcibly assimilated into the US, and vote accordingly, even while defending the manifest destiny which made it a logical inevitability. The irony is rich, but it is lost on them.

Mark Thornton to join Patriots lament

Tomorrow, January 31st, join us at 660 Kfar. On the web, 660 Kfar click the "listen live" button to tune in.
This is going to be great.

Jack Hunter opines about people criticism of American Sniper in the American Conservative.

Jack makes some good points. And this comes back to a point I made on the radio a few weeks ago. What sort of person DOES these things to other people? And the answer is NORMAL people do. Normal people who think that "just following orders" absolves one of moral responsibility for what one does. Normal people who think (as I once did) that THEY would never be THAT evil as to start a useless war or a war under false pretenses (not realizing that is how all of the prior ones were started). Normal people who are involved in their own lives and don't really think about what D.C. is doing to "little people" abroad and so, as Scott Horton says, history begins with the two planes running into the World Trade Center. People who see the things that they love under attack subtly and unable to come to terms with the problems then see a big, obvious battle as a straightforward way of doing, if not the right thing, something. Blaming our problems on people we don't much like anyway is easier, especially when "our" side has overwhelming military superiority.

Patriot's Lament with Dr. Walter Block

Dr. Block joins us for an hour of fantastic discussion.

Thank you Dr. Block.

Chris Kyle, benefactor of head drillers

Dan Sanchez writes about a popular movie at his blog.

The closing paragraph is weighty:

As radio host Scott Horton never tires reminding his listeners, the chief role of the American troops in Iraq was to fight a bloody civil war on behalf of the Shiite side and to install Iran-backed Shiite militias in power. These militias used death squads to ethnically cleanse Baghdad and other cities of Sunnis, and, as Will Grigg never tires reminding his readers, imposed a Sharia-compliant constitution over a once-secular country. This Shiite jihad was, in effect, Chris Kyle’s true mission, for which millions of American Christians now lionize him.

The reason our neighbors and family members go to the other side of the planet at the behest of our betters has nothing to do with keeping us safe. It has to do with flattering the egos of our betters, who tax and regulate our every move, and keeping their patrons in a competitively privileged position.

As Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

Government or Free Market certification?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-strange-story-of-how-a-completely-fake-gas-powered-clock-radio-got-its-energy-star-certification/

Did the scandal cut into the EPA's bottom line?

Were high level people sacked?

Would Underwriters Labs be so cavalier?

Hero or Traitor?

He’s infamous for something he tried but failed to do while the amazing feats he actually accomplished are forgotten.

He’s reviled as an irredeemable traitor when in reality he was one of liberty’s staunchest champions.

Critics of Edward Snowden sneeringly compare him to this long-dead hero—and they’re right but for the wrong reasons.

His name was Benedict Arnold, major general in the Continental Army of the American Revolution. Without him, Americans probably would have lost their battle for liberty—and yet they despise him. Most neither know about nor appreciate the lopsided victories he won against the most powerful empire of his day. And they certainly can’t understand why he suddenly reversed course to side with that empire. They damn him for trying to deliver one of the Continental Army’s most strategic forts to the British instead of thanking him for his triumphs at Valcour Island and Saratoga—triumphs that birthed an independent republic devoted, however briefly, to liberty.

Benedict Arnold was born 274 years ago this week. What better way to celebrate than to learn the real story behind this cardboard villain via my novel, Abducting Arnold? Ergo, I’m offering readers of Patriot’s Lament a special deal: 50% off the e-reader versions of Abducting Arnold and 50% off my first novel, Halestorm (in which Arnold makes a brief but unflattering debut). In other words, get both e-books for the price of one. And join me in toasting Benedict Arnold, Hero!

What are you fighting for?

It certainly isn't for democracy. The people who determine the majority of D.C.'s policies aren't elected, aren't even vaguely answerable to those people who ARE elected.

National Security and the Double Government

The abstract presents the solution as the electorate getting involved. Ha. That's a good one. The solution is the population not consenting, not approving of their children being used as cannon fodder (morally, if not as much physically), being sand in the gears of Leviathan, having the minds of free men and not identifying with the folks generating chaos abroad and at home.

Thanks to LRC Blog and Charles Burris for this.

The War Psychology and its Fruit

In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace. -- John Foster Dulles (HT2 LRC)

WW2 followed immediately by the Cold War addicted the American population to the adrenaline (and spending patterns) of the war psychology. Large parts of the population feel no sense of purpose (and may not have a job) if they don't have an existential external threat. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the actions of a proud, boastful and fearful people directing half of the world's military spending will be antagonistic and scary to much of the rest of the planet.

The treatment by the US of Putin, who was dangerously (to himself) pro-US early on, demonstrates how this plays out over time.

Here is a very interesting interview by Scott Horton with Boyd Cathey (scholar and assistant to the eminent conservative author Russell Kirk).

Chris Rossini about North Korea

Chriss Rosinni talks about what the North Korean defector should do...

First, it's never the person (i.e., the tyrant, the dictator, the President, etc.) Rather it's the ideas and beliefs that are held by the victims. In this case, the main issue is not Kim Jong-un. He's just the flavor of the day. After him, there's surely a long and endless line of tyrants that would fill his void.
If the dominant idea held by the North Korean people is that they must be ruled, yearn to be ruled, and despise any other alternative, then the crumbling of Kim Jong-un idolization will mean nothing. They'll just idolize someone else.
People in the United States suffer from a similar dilemma. Americans are ruled by rotating tyrants. The idea was accepted that if the tyrants serve a term of 4-8 years, that this is somehow superior to it just being one person. Every new American tyrant is idolized at first, with tears and incense, while the tyrant whose term is coming to an end is cursed as a bum. Americans are like a dog that returns to his own vomit.

If all you want to do is unseat the current tyrant, then you're not accomplishing much. The new tyrant will have to consolidate power, perks, and pelf for his cronies the same as the last one did. He won't have the option of not doing that because the last one's cronies will be fighting to retain their sway and the new tyrant will need allies of sufficient heft to hold them back.

Each transition of power ratchets up the predation on the private/free economy and the liberties of the people, EXCEPT when there is an overriding mood on the part of the population that the last guy went WAY too far. A little too far isn't enough. The changing of the faces will overwhelm that.

When the people want to be free and are content to let their neighbor also be free, when they want to have leaders only of their own personal choice and don't want to impose that choice on their neighbors, THEN there will be progress.