Texas: No Birth Certificates for Illegal Aliens

Like the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, the issue of the 14th Amendment and ‘anchor babies’ is fuzzy to a lot of Americans for a number of reasons. One, civics, the founding of this republic, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not taught in school any more; a few schools here and there still do, but most of the schools across this country stopped teaching civics decades ago. More important to indoctrinate America’s children with lies about ‘climate change’ or sexual deviants are born that way.

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary WarThat is why we call them “mandatory government propaganda camps.”

This is is from Tom DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” Chapter 5.

“Congress blackmailed the Southern states into passing the 14th Amendment by prohibiting congressional representation by those states unless they ratified the amendment. Initially, every Southern state except Tennessee voted against ratifying the amendment. Congress responded by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which established military dictatorships to run the governments of the states. The Act required that the states pass the 14th amendment before military rule would end.”

Anarcho-capitalists are frequently accused of advocating “open borders.” We do not! We advocate for “no borders” meaning the absence of an arbitrarily coercive state. There is a big difference.

The current “immigration” mess vividly illustrates that the government can not perform its most basic function–protection of its citizens and their property. So why do we need it? We don’t. Think secession! Right down to the level of the individual household. — jtl, 419

 By: Devvy via NewsWithViews.com

Combat Shooter's Handbook“If anyone’s going to be deported, it’s going to be you! … Get out! We are the future. You’re old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you – leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Right now, we’re already controlling those elections, whether it’s by violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we’re going to take over.” –Augustin Cebada, information minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles.

  The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsSo called ‘anchor babies’ has been a tool of illegal alien females for decades to get their child U.S. citizenship when in fact, a child born of someone who smuggles themselves into OUR country, someone who was not invited into OUR country has no right to U.S. citizenship.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteLong have millions of us been fighting ‘anchor babies’ only be ignored by a Republican controlled U.S. House, Senate and White House under Bush, Jr., who did nothing to stop the human tidal wave. An invasion without an army.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewStates must fight legal fiction called ‘anchor babies’, October 3, 2011

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)“Consider these words from Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino, in his column (I hope you take the time to read all of it):

Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny

“In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.”

“He further points out: “But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.”

“Prof. Erler hit it out of the ball park: Children born on US soil of an illegal alien parent (or two parents) regardless of country of origin have no “right” to U.S. citizenship.”

Also from the column above and what ended up happening?

‘Anchor Baby’ Constitutional Amendment to Face Scrutiny in Congress – December 26, 2010 (FOX News)

“In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship. Such a hardened approach — and the rhetoric certain to accompany it — should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans’ favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012. Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session.”

“There is a rancid bill in Congress right now that should be rejected: H.R.140 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011. Why? Because it includes citizenship for illegal aliens who serve in our military. The Department of Defense is so hard up for IED fodder for the on-going illegal invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, they – with the blessing of the Outlaw Congress – have allowed illegal aliens to enlist. Currently there are about 29,000 illegal aliens serving in our military who should have been deported the minute their legal status was determined. Rep. Steve King’s bill rewards violating our immigration laws. That is not a solution, it’s a magnet for more illegals to invade this country and enlist. The military provides a lot of perks paid for by you and me. I’m sick of being fleeced to reward criminal behavior.

“Forget about pandering to the “Latino vote.” I am so sick of racist politics shoved down our throats by minorities. This isn’t about anyone’s race. It’s about our laws and the financial destruction heaped on this country as a result of allowing nearly 25 MILLION illegals into this country. Pile on the number of children birthed by illegal female aliens and the numbers become staggering. According to a 2010 study released by the Pew Hispanic Center, 79% of the 5.1 million children of criminals (illegal aliens) were born in the U.S. That means just over 4 million babies have been given U.S. citizenship when they should have been deported immediately with the mother. Since their mother had no right to be on U.S. soil, the baby has no “right” to U.S. citizenship. ”

Then along came The Donald, Trump that is and suddenly, the issue went nationwide in a big way. Trump brought up the issue in his usual politically incorrect way which sent the pro-lawlessness, pro-illegals organizations and their useful fools in the media into a frenzy. Republicans and conservatives are mean racists, blah, blah, blah. Get out the violins.

Immediately the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was shoved in everyone’s face. The bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment when talking about illegal aliens. Trump is getting accurate legal advice on this issue and has told the media as much repeatedly while they attack him. Their attacks aren’t detering support for Trump. As one average, ordinary American said to a reporter at Trump’s rally in Mobile, Alabama, August 21st when ask by a reporter why Trump is so popular, the man replied: “He is our microphone”. That says it all for millions.

Like the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, the issue of the 14th Amendment and ‘anchor babies’ is fuzzy to a lot of Americans for a number of reasons. One, civics, the founding of this republic, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not taught in school any more; a few schools here and there still do, but most of the schools across this country stopped teaching civics decades ago. More important to indoctrinate America’s children with lies about ‘climate change’ or sexual deviants are born that way.

Two, the dominant media outright lies about both the issues above (to protect Soetoro aka Obama) and because most of them are ignorant like Bill O’Reilly. FOX likes to continue advertising that gas bag has the number one show and perhaps he does but that doesn’t mean O’Reilly knows what he’s talking about when it comes to constitutional issues. He doesn’t and last week he showed his ignorance once again. Even if his staff did the research, if it’s wrong, O’Reilly should not have kept repeating over and over on his show.

Not only does Bill O’Reilly demand you believe that amendment automatically gives babies born on U.S. citizenship by an illegal alien mother, but he cited a court case he said ends the discussion: INS v. Rios-Pineda [471 U.S. 444]. Now, either Bill O’Reilly can’t read English or he chooses to ignore the very case he cites because he is flat out wrong.

No, Bill O’Reilly, the Constitution doesn’t make “anchor babies” U.S. citizens, August 24, 2015

“O’Reilly should stop treating a passing reference in a United States Supreme Court to “anchor babies” as United States citizens as a definitive pronouncement on constitutional law, study the history of the Fourteenth Amendment to glean its intent and apologize to Angela Tantaros and Donald Trump.

“Justice John Marshall Harlan II explained in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), that the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that citizenship needed to be defined, lest freed slaves be denied citizenship under the “reasoning” of the Dred Scott decision, “good law” before the Civil War and notorious since.

“Granting United States citizenship to “anchor babies” was NOT intended when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted. In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the United States to legal immigrants was a United States citizen. It did not address the issue of the citizenship of an “anchor baby.” Anchor babies” received a mention in an 1982 Supreme Court case in which it was not an issue. Therefore, that mention is merely dicta, not holding.”

Bill O’Reilly is a bully – especially when he’s proven to be wrong on an issue. A 6’5″ bully who makes it a practice to throw his weight around while playing like he’s really just your “humble correspondent”.

The Bill O’Reilly Sexual Harassment Case Fox News Wants You To Forget About

Bill O’Reilly Seeks Gag Order on His Own Wife and Children

“The host of the “O’Reilly Factor” has had a string of controversies over the last year. In February, a number of former colleagues came forward claiming that the Fox News host had exaggerated his own experiences in Argentine war zones. That same week O’Reilly was accused of lying about his minor cameo in the story of the JFK assassination. Then were more claims still that he exaggerated the dangers faced while covering the LA riots. Bill O’Reilly’s former colleagues say he’s embellished accounts of his reporting from Argentina in the 1980s.

“The good news for O’Reilly is that the storm has settled. Unlike NBC’s Brian Williams, who was fired after making similar embellishments, O’Reilly still sits comfortably atop the Fox News food pyramid. The bad news is that he’s now embroiled in a scandal that would appear to run afoul of the “family values” his network tries so hard to uphold…

“According to the sources claims – which were later backed up by court transcripts also obtained by Gawker – O’Reilly’s 16-year-old daughter told a forensic examiner that she had witnessed her father physically abuse her mother. Without knowing that his daughter was watching, O’Reilly allegedly dragged McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck”. Some other nasty stuff in that piece.

More Colleagues Claim Bill O’Reilly is Making Up His War Reporting Stories

As as been pointed in out in dozens of articles, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with giving citizenship to illegal aliens born on U.S. soil. It was about slavery and citizenship.

The column cited above (O’Reilly – make anchor babies U.S. citizens) really covers it all so I hope you’ll take time to read it. One of the cases cited is one I used in an older column exactly one year earlier than the article above: PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) – 457 U.S. 202 and why schools in this country are forced to educate illegal minors. My column goes to the solution: force self-deporting by tens of millions of illegals. If you missed my column, I hope you’ll take the time to read it because it is the solution, not another Band Aid. I also included quotes from Dirty Harry Reid about illegals, but you can watch him blast illegal aliens in his own words:

Harry Reid’s jaw-dropping flashback video: ‘No sane country’ would allow anchor babies or reward illegals, August 22, 2015

“In a speech before Congress in 1993 and uncovered by conservative web site The Right Scoop, Sen. Harry Reid blasted the fact that illegal aliens were given “rewards” for having babies in the United States. Heck, he even used the dreaded term “illegal alien.”

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?” Reid asked. “No sane country would do that, right?” Reid then slammed the fact that children of illegals are rewarded “with U.S. citizenship” and given social services in this country. The Nevada senator asked, with that information, “Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?” Wonder if anyone on the left is going to call him a racist.” The video is at the link above. Why haven’t see seen it on FOX News?

Of course, in order to steal citizenship for their illegal baby or minor child to be able to suck taxpayers in this country dry, there has to be a birth certificate issued. Texas is doing what should have been done for the past 30 years.

Mexican and Central American Illegal Immigrants Sue Texas for Birth Certificates, July 24, 2015

“Citizens of Mexico and several Central American nations have filed suit, claiming entitlement to birth certificates for their children born in the United States. They allege that the Texas denies them the certificates because they do not possess the required identification.

“The parent plaintiffs of the 23 children claim that the State of Texas violates their children’s rights because the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that any child born on U.S. soil warrants American citizen. It also provides that they are citizens of the state where they reside. The plaintiffs and their children reside in Texas.”

1. Texas is not violating their children’s rights because illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens and have no constitutional rights.
2. “…the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that any child born on U.S. soil warrants American citizen.” is simply repeating a fiction.
3. They and their children do not reside in Texas. They squatted here in Texas after sneaking across our border.

The articles continues:

“They allege in their petition filed in U.S. District Court in Austin that the birth certificates are being denied because of their immigration status. They argue that, “Such refusal is de facto based upon the immigrant status of the Plaintiff parents.” In the lawsuit, the parents do not refer to themselves as “immigrants,” or “illegal immigrants.” They refer to themselves in their legal capacity “as next friend.”

“In the petition filed in federal court in the Western District, the parents cite the Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and allege that their rights are being violated under these sections. At issue is the form of identification that is now being required of parents by the Bureau of Vital Statistics in border communities. They claim that officials in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Starr counties deny them birth certificates lawfully theirs and their childrens’.”

Again, it all comes down to the law: “…deny them birth certificates lawfully theirs and their childrens’.” Since they broke the law by sneaking across the border, they are not here lawfully so stop trying to twist words to justify a lie they are somehow “lawfully” entitled to birth certificates.

Memo From Middle America: Trump Says “Eliminate Anchor Baby Loophole” —Texas May Have Begun!, August 25, 2015

“According to the complaint by the plaintiffs, Texas officials refuse to provide birth certificates because they won’t accept the infamous matricula consular, a form of ID issued to illegals by Mexican consulates in the U.S, Now, illegals have to show a driver’s license or border identification or a visa with their passport.

“In Texas, an applicant for a driver’s license must produce documentation proving “Identity”, “Social Security number”, “U.S. citizenship or lawful presence status” and “Texas residency”. The “border identification card” is for foreigners who may live right across the border and are authorized to cross back and forth. It is a legal form of identification. But they didn’t have that either.

“The “visas with passport” part means Texas doesn’t accept a foreign passport unless it has a current U.S. visa attached [Texas fights suit after denying birth certificates to children of illegal immigrants, by Eyder Peralta, NPR, July 23, 2015]. Obviously, the plaintiffs can’t provide these documents.

“In effect, these illegals are demanding that the U.S. accept an identification document issued by the Mexican government with the express purpose of facilitating the illegals’ presence in the U.S. The Mexican government’s subversive scheme only works because too many American jurisdictions do accept it. (And seeing how well it worked for illegal Mexicans, Central American countries began issuing equivalent documents to their illegals in the U.S.)”

If this would have been done decades ago across this country, illegals would have gone back to where they came from because they come here to steal the fruits of your labor: “The parents complain their children are not able to obtain government benefits, including health insurance, and they cannot enroll their children into school.”

That’s right and the corrupt U.S. government has promoted sucking we the people dry to pay for illegals:

Why hasn’t the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau been indicted? February 2, 2010

“Keeping with the Obama Administration’s mission to conduct the most diverse outreach campaign in history, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau is touring Mexican border towns with high illegal immigrant populations to personally assure that those who fill out questionnaires this spring will not be deported.

“This is a safe thing for everyone to do regardless of your immigration status,” the president’s handpicked census director (Robert Groves) told residents of a renowned illegal alien “colonia” in south Texas this week. He visited several dilapidated makeshift homes off of a dirt road in a Laredo neighborhood called San Carlos to stress that census data will be kept confidential and not turned over to immigration authorities.”

“The census director is also giving illegal immigrants across the country a lesson in basic civics by explaining that hundreds of billions of federal dollars are allocated to state and local governments based on population. Being included in the decennial count will in turn allow them to receive more public benefits; “We want to count you and your family can benefit from the services,” Groves is telling illegal aliens.

“This marks the latest of many administration efforts to cater to illegal immigrants. A few weeks ago the government launched an unprecedented $133 million advertising campaign—in dozens of languages—to promote the census with the Spanish ads assuring the decennial count is confidential and cannot divulge respondents’ immigration status.

“The never-before-seen promotional blitz includes television commercials, print and outdoor ads as well as online advertising. Hundreds of ads have been drafted in 28 languages, including two Chinese dialects, Russian, Arabic and Tagolog. The Spanish advertisements, distributed on national television and print media, are of particular interest because they guarantee the safety of illegal aliens who fill out the census forms.

“A few months ago the government announced that, in an effort to reach out to illegal aliens, it is spending $26 million to send Spanish-language questionnaires directly to homes for the first time in history. In past years, participants could request special forms in several languages—including Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese—but the effort marks the first time that the government sends to entire regions census questionnaires in a language other than English.”

Count illegals in the census to make sure we the people are raped in higher taxes for their free ride. And remember: Since the people’s purse, the U.S. Treasury is overdrawn nearly $19 trillion dollars, all the money spent on illegals by the corrupt government in Washington District of Criminals is borrowed with the interest slapped on our backs, our children and grand children. More debt to fund liars, cheats and thieves lifestyles instead of saving we the people money by immediately deporting them:

Every Deported Illegal Household Saves Taxpayers More than $700,000

“For example, the American Action Forum (AAF), a business-backed pro-amnesty group, claims that legal costs and forced migration would spike the cost of Trump’s plan up to $300 billion to arrest and remove all illegal immigrants living in the United States. The AAF was founded by Fred Malek, who co-founded and chairs a hospitality investment company whose hotels employ many low skilled migrants.

“AAF’s cost projections have been trumpeted by many in the mainstream media such as NBC and Fox News.

“In reality, “a modest increase in enforcement (such as E-verify or visa tracking) would cause significant attrition in the illegal population– sending millions of illegals home on their own at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies. There’s good evidence for Vaughan’s argument. “Arizona’s population of unauthorized immigrants of working age fell by about 17 percent” in the course of a single year, after the state began to enforce E-verify, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The claim from Malek’s AAF also ignores the financial savings caused by the return of migrants to their home countries. Illegal migrants cost U.S. taxpayers a net total of nearly $100 billion annually, concluded a 2010 investigation by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.”

Imagine how those numbers have swelled over just the last two years with the surges of illegals crushing across the border here in Texas alone. And, now, we the taxpayers of Texas will spend money fighting a lawsuit that should be thrown out (above).

Naturally, the corrupt Mexican government is howling like a stuck pig:

Mexico Warns Texas to Stop Refusing to Issue Illegal Alien Babies Birth Certificates, August 27, 2015

“The Mexican government is warning that Texas’ denial of birth certificates for U.S. children born here to undocumented immigrants stands to imperil the relationship between Mexico and the Lone Star State. The concern was raised in an amicus brief filed Monday evening to lend support to immigrants parents who sued Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children, even after showing their “matrículas,” the ID cards issued by the Mexican consulate to undocumented immigrants.

“[It] not only jeopardizes their dignity and well-being, but could threaten the unique relationship between Mexico and Texas, the Mexican government said in a brief tied to a lawsuit filed against the state by Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid. The lawsuit, the Texas Tribune reported, was filed on behalf of six U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents, who came from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. Other groups since have joined the suit.”

They should rethink their bitching because you don’t push Texas around without a fight. The State of Texas has the absolute legal right to make required documentation mandatory. Not to mention what hypocrites they are:

Mexico Deports More Illegals Than The US Does – Mexico tightens immigration laws, while asking us to loosen ours, June 22, 2015

“Mexico has had more success at deportation due in part to its very stringent immigration laws. In fact, Mexico considers entering the country illegally a felony. The idea of languishing in a Mexican prison is enough to convince most illegals to avoid being caught there. In fact, most Central American people trying to flee their homeland are not looking to stay in Mexico. They are just trying to pass through to the United States.”

Last week I sent a letter to Texas Governor Greg Abbott who is no dummy. Prior to becoming governor in January this year, Greg Abbott was reelected as the 50th Attorney General of Texas on November 2, 2010. Prior to his election to three terms as Attorney General, Greg Abbott served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court and as a State District Judge in Harris County. I sent the same letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Besides being a lawyer, Paxton served in the Texas House of Representatives and then the Texas Senate.

I told them I fully supported not issuing birth certificates to illegal alien minors, but I also think there’s another legal issue here they need to look at: I believe babies born to women who sneak into this country are citizens of the mother’s country, not the U.S. And, since they are babies or minors under age 18, they cannot apply to relinquish that citizenship or apply for U.S. Citizenship.

Mexican Constitution – Chapter II – Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization.

A. Mexicans by birth are:

II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father.” A child born to an illegal alien female from Mexico is born with Mexican citizenship.

Honduras also has a constitution which says their citizens are Honduran citizens as does El Salvador and Communist China which I laid out in my letter to Abbott and Paxton. It seems to me the State of Texas cannot issue U.S. Birth certificates to babies of illegals because those babies are not eligible to become U.S. Citizens under the constitutions and/or laws of the birth mother’s country.

I hope they will look into that legal question. I also hope you will contact your governor and attorney general and tell them you fully support not issuing a birth certificate to babies or minors of an illegal alien mother.Stop the ‘anchor baby’ industry. They have no rights because they’re not citizens and should be deported as Donald Trump said: The baby goes with the mother back to where she came from. Only strong enforcement will discourage more illegals from sneaking into our country. If prissy sissy elected officials don’t have the stomach to get the job done they should be thrown out of office.

Children of an illegal alien mother should blame her, not we the people because the mother is the one who broke our immigration laws by sneaking across the border.

Links:

1 – When the New York Times Cheered Deporting Illegal Immigrants, August 22 , 2015
2 – How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
3 – The Fourteenth Amendment: Ignored and Gored, August 26, 2015

[Just a short note about 9/11. The cost of America’s undeclared “war” (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars – massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I’ve purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It’s very powerful simply because it’s one ‘ordinary’ man’s story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. Also, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]

© 2015 – NewsWithViews.com and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: devvyk@npn.net

Check out our WebSite Check out our e-Store Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.


 

Posted in Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MTV Says It’s Impossible For Black People to be Racist

Only white people can be racist

 You know, race relations would be a whole lot better if folks like MTV’s Franchesca Ramsey would just quit saying stupid shit like this. — jtl, 419

by Paul Joseph Watson via InfoWars

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

Posted in Racism and Race Baiters | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

There Is No Such Thing as “Settled Public Policy”

 Of course, you don’t have be the world’s biggest cynic to see why those who use this phrase use it in this context. It’s merely a political tactic — because its practitioners know politics trumps law — to shut the opposition up, and to demoralize critics of the government in an attempt to convince them that federal law can establish unchanging doctrine.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) Just more twisting and torturing of the language to gain an edge in the debate–and some people even fall for it. Sigh…

by Ryan McMaken  via Mises Daily

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) I’ve noticed a phrase that is being used with increasing frequency in the media by pundits and commentators. It’s only used by the winning side in various controversies. The phrase is “settled public policy” or, sometimes, “settled law.”

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)We saw it recently when Mark Oppenheimer in TIME claimed that any “organizations that dissent from settled public policy” should be subject to draconian tax increases (i.e., have their tax-exempt status removed). Oppenheimer was writing on the recent gay marriage decision from the Supreme Court, and in the wake of the decision, he must have sensed his opportunity to declare all his ideological opponents to be heretics, and thus anathema to civilized human society.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsOther examples abound as well. In an unsigned op-ed from 2014, The Los Angeles Times said that federal ownership of vast areas of land within states should never be questioned because “settled law” dictates that the matter is no longer open to debate.

Combat Shooter's Handbook So what is “settled public policy?” It is not a description of fact, but an assertion of correctness. For example, when a Supreme Court rules on something, as it did in the case of gay marriage — and which prompted Oppenheimer’s authoritarian diatribe — the supporters of the decision hail the matter as “settled” and no longer open to debate. It’s the secular version of Roma locuta estcausa finita est. The US government has spoken, the proponents of “settled public policy” proclaim. No more debate need be tolerated. But here’s the thing: There’s no such thing as “settled public policy.”

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteYou know what was once “settled public policy”? The Dred Scott decision. After all, the Supreme Court ruled with notable finality that black people have “no rights the white man was bound to respect.”

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewIn 1860, this was “settled law.” The Constitution, which is a blatantly pro-slavery document, was fairly clear on this matter. The chief justice at the time, Roger Taney, felt bound to rule according to the written text. And he thus concluded: blacks don’t have the same rights as whites. Case closed.

And yet it wasn’t. As I’ve noted before, politics trumps law, and as long as there is no such thing as “settled politics” — which there never is — there will never be “settled public policy.”

Here’s another example of settled law: Korematsu vs. the United States. In this Supreme Court case, the majority ruled that yes, it’s perfectly fine to round up people based on their race or ethnicity and put them in concentration camps. In fact, that ruling is still legally valid even today. The Court has never explicitly ruled against this precedent. But hey, it’s settled law, so anyone who opposes that sort of thing should just get over it.

Of course, you don’t have be the world’s biggest cynic to see why those who use this phrase use it in this context. It’s merely a political tactic — because its practitioners know politics trumps law — to shut the opposition up, and to demoralize critics of the government in an attempt to convince them that federal law can establish unchanging doctrine.

In fact, if one attempts to google the phrase “settled law” google returns this text at the very top of the search-returns page: “If you do a search for “settled law” on google most of the results revolve around either the ACA [“Obamacare”] or the Roe v. Wade decision. Both of which are highly contested.”

The fact that google highlights this connection to Roe and the ACA without being prompted tells us that activists and ideologues have been attempting to cast Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act as “settled law.” But google, like any serious scholar (oddly enough), immediately recognizes that such laws are anything but settled. Even in the short-term, they are highly contested, and in the medium- or long-term, they are even less “settled.”

In spite of this, the appeal to settled law has a certain air of legitimacy for Americans. Deeply ingrained in the American mind — especially among conservatives — is the idea that there is some kind of final, unchangeable constitutional law out there. American rightists often rather fancifully believe that there once was a time when most everyone agreed on what the constitution said, and that its text was sacrosanct. So even today, for them, once something is determined to be “the law” it must be respected. The political weakness of this position is apparent.

At the same time, American leftists hold closely to what Murray Rothbard called the “Whig theory of history” in which humanity is forever progressing toward ever greater and more enlightened heights. And thus, whatever the latest ruling is from the courts, must be the “correct” and more enlightened one. If a court rules the “wrong” way, it is merely a temporary setback on the way to a correct ruling.

Europeans, on the other hand, are less prone to such unsophisticated thinking. They understand that political reversals of fortune and legal aberrations can be commonplace in the political world. Certainly, one could have argued in 1989 that the right of the Stasi to imprison people for thoughtcrimes was “settled law.” And then, one day, the Stasi was gone — through extra-legal means.

But let us never let actual history get in the way of pressing the political advantage. The slave drivers of old certainly used Oppenheimer’s “settled public policy” tactic with the Dred Scott decision, proclaiming that the northern nullifiers and abolitionists were criminals who opposed what all “reasonable” people could see was settled public policy. “Those reprehensible abolitionists,” they surely said. “They try to overturn our lovely and established rule of law.”

The same political tactics persist today, although the ideologies have changed. And it is ideology that lies at the core of the matter. Contrary to the risible myth that courts are above and indifferent to the ideological and political contests of their time, the courts — and especially the US Supreme Court — tend to toe a line very close to whatever will please powerful interest groups at any given time. This is true so long as the court thinks the public at large will at least tacitly accept the decision.

The Court certainly took no political risks when it declared Japanese-Americans to be second class citizens with Korematsu. Nor did it go out on a limb with Dred Scott. When it has miscalculated its own political strength, though, the Court has suffered significant blows to its prestige. For example, when the Court ruled in Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) that the Cherokees had a right to private property within the state of Georgia, President Jackson simply ignored the Court and sent the Cherokees on a death march to Oklahoma. The Court learned its lesson: always make sure your ruling will get support from either Congress or the president.

Certainly the recent gay marriage ruling presented no risk to the Court. It knew it had the full support of the executive branch and half of Congress. Even if most Americans are blissfully unaware of the fact, the Court knows that without political support, legal rulings are meaningless.

But, over time, what the public will accept, and what interest groups and institutions hold the reins of power can change considerably. As these variables change, so will the courts, and the legal interpretations that their judges make. Nothing is ever “settled.”

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History  and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Anarcho-Capitalism, Austrian Economic Theory | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dis-Integrating America

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Dis-Integrating America

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Wednesday morning murders of 24-year-old Roanoke TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, 27, were a racist atrocity, a hate crime. Were they not white, they would be alive today.

Their killer, Vester L. Flanagan II, said as much in his farewell screed. He ordered his murder weapon, he said, two days after the slaughter of nine congregants at the African-American AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) “What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” said Flanagan.

 

To be sure, racism does not fully explain why Flanagan, fired from that same WDBJ7 station, committed this act of pure evil.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Black and homosexual, he said he was the target of anti-gay slurs from black males and racial insults from white colleagues. He had gotten himself fired from other jobs in broadcasting. He carried a grab bag of grudges and resentments.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Yet, in the last analysis, The Washington Post headline got it right: “Gunman’s letter frames attack as racial revenge.”

Other news organizations downplayed the racial aspect. But had those murdered journalists been young and black, and their killer a 40-something “angry white male,” the racial motivation would have been front and center in their stories.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsNow, Black America is surely as sickened by this horror outside Roanoke as was White America by the Charleston massacre.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualBut it is hard to see how and when we come together as a people. For racial crimes and race conflict have become “the story” that everyone seizes upon — since Ferguson in the summer of 2014.

On the first anniversary of Michael Brown’s death, protesters blocked public buildings in St. Louis and St. Louis County, shut down I-70 at rush hour. In Ferguson, hoodlums rioted and looted for days.

What justification was there for such lawlessness?

Explained some in the press, it was to protest the failure to prosecute a white cop who had killed an “unarmed black teenager.”

Left out of most stories was that Brown, 18, had knocked over a convenience store, throttled a clerk half his size, and was unarmed only because he failed to wrest a gun away from Officer Darren Wilson, whom a grand jury declared had acted in self-defense when he shot the charging 290-pound Brown.

Since then, we have had the Eric Garner incident on Staten Island, where a 345-pound black man, suffering from diabetes, asthma, obesity and heart disease, died of heart failure after being wrestled to the ground by five cops, none of whom was charged.

Came then the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, while in police custody.

There, six officers have been charged. Then came the death of a 12-year-old black kid in Cleveland, who was waving a toy gun.

As the incidents pile up, with white cops shooting black suspects, and black criminals killing white cops, the news goes viral and America divides along the lines of race and color, and between black and blue.

Though, let it be said, the violence in Ferguson and Baltimore was child’s play compared to Watts in ’65, Detroit and Newark in ’67, and D.C. and 100 other cities after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968.

“Can we all get along?” pleaded Rodney King, when South Central exploded in rioting, arson and looting after the L.A. cops who had beaten King were exonerated.

Answer: Probably not.

For what seems certain, ensuring that our racial divide widens and deepens, is that more incidents like those involving Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray are inevitable.

Why so?

First, violent crime, declining since the early 1990s, is rising again. And violent crime in black communities is many times higher than in the white communities of America.

Collisions between black suspects and criminals and white cops are going to increase, and some of these collisions are going to involve shootings. And such shootings trigger fixed, deep-seated beliefs about cops, criminals and injustice, they also cause an instantaneous taking of sides.

Moreover, this is the sort of “news” that instantly goes viral through the Internet, Facebook and 24-hour cable TV.

Liberals and Democrats take sides with the black community out of solidarity and to solidify their political base, while Republicans stand with the cops, law-and-order conservatives, and the Silent Majority in Middle America.

The race issue has even begun to split the Democrats.

When former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a card-carrying liberal, attended a conference of Netroots Nation and responded to a chant of “Black Lives Matter!” with the more inclusive, “Black Lives Matter! White Lives Matter! All Lives Matter!” he was virtually booed off the stage.

O’Malley proceeded to apologize for including the white folks.

To many Americans, even many who did not vote for him, the election of Barack Obama seemed to hold out the promise that our racial divide could be healed by a black president.

Even Obama’s supporters must concede it did not happen, though we would, again, argue angrily over why.

Read More At:  http://buchanan.org/blog/dis-integrating-america-16455

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Racial Violence | Tagged | Leave a comment

Coming To A Sheriff’s Office Near You

After a local resident approached and questioned law enforcement’s need for military hardware, the deputy immediately used ‘constitutionalists’ with ‘firearms’ as justification.

  The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe average American is 8 times more likely to be murdered by a cop than s/he is by a terrorist. Also, over the span of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, more Americans were killed by cops than were killed in both of the war zones put together. Please wake up and see that we live under a Police State every bit as evil as Nazi Germany. — jtl, 419

By Chuck Baldwin via NewsWithViews.com

Where Are The Pastors?

Combat Shooter's Handbook On the front cover of Washington State’s August 2015 “Inlander” magazine, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich is shown hands on hips standing on top of the “Don’t Tread On Me” (Gadsden) flag. The title of the article is “Daring To Tread.”

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe sheriff and at least one of his deputies have verbalized opinions that “constitutionalists” are threats to the sheriff’s office, the federal government, and to the country itself. Sheriff Knezovich even went so far as to compare “constitutionalists” with the Sunni Muslim terror group ISIS. The deputy indicated that the presence of armed “constitutionalists” in the county was the principal reason why the sheriff’s office was amassing military equipment. When asked to name names as to who he was referring to, Spokane County’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer (Sheriff Knezovich) named Washington State Representative Matt Shea and radio talk show host Alex Jones (who resides in Texas, not Spokane County, Washington).

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Writing for InfoWars.com, Mikael Thalen reports, “The Inlander piece highlights the sheriff’s ongoing campaign against local conservative groups who he feels are pushing dangerous rhetoric. When asked to specifically name those responsible, Knezovich pointed to both Rep. Shea and ‘all those folks that created the video about the Deputy.’

“Knezovich’s statement refers to exclusive footage released by Infowars last December which highlighted unsettling comments made by a Spokane sheriff’s deputy as he stood next to the department’s mine-resistant ambush protected military vehicle (MRAP). After a local resident approached and questioned law enforcement’s need for military hardware, the deputy immediately used ‘constitutionalists’ with ‘firearms’ as justification.

“‘I mean, we’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, lots of ammunition,’ the deputy said. ‘They have weapons here locally.’”

The report continued saying, “‘Instead of apologizing for the comments made by his deputy, Sheriff Knezovich essentially blamed Infowars for daring to report on the issue, claiming that the quote was taken out of context while failing to explain how such a brazen statement could be taken for anything other than its face value,’ noted Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson at the time.

“Speaking with Infowars, Rep. Shea expressed outrage at Knezovich’s latest comments and also the article’s analysis on a local pastor.

“‘I fought Islamic terrorists on the ground in Iraq face-to-face,’ Shea said. ‘I lost a man–who was a Christian and who would have fit the Sheriff’s definition of a constitutionalist–under my command fighting Islamic terrorists.’

“‘It is outrageous to compare constitutionalists and Christians to ISIS! We believe in freedom. We believe in liberty. A value set that is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. ISIS is anathema to those things. I call on every Christian and constitutionalist in this country to demand an apology from this Sheriff for his outrageous comments and demand his immediate resignation.’”

See the written and video reports here.

Readers should know that Representative Shea served in the U.S. Army with two combat tours overseas, including eight months in Bosnia as a platoon leader, and eleven months in Baghdad, Iraq, as a company commander. Matt was awarded a Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Combat Infantryman’s Badge along with other awards and commendations. Matt was also distinguished as being the top rated Captain in his Battalion. This is the man that Sheriff Knezovich says is as dangerous as ISIS.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Knezovich is illustrative of the propaganda that local and State police agencies and sheriff’s offices are receiving from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Working in tandem with the ultra-left wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), DHS constantly feeds anti-conservative, anti-constitutionalist, anti-patriot, anti-Christian, anti-veterans propaganda to local police agencies via its numerous “fusion centers” across the country.

See this report.

Add a historical and constitutional ignorance with a personal lust for power, and sheriffs and police chiefs across the country readily buy into the DHS propaganda. The result is men like Sheriff Knezovich and his deputy.

I dare say that a good many of the readers of this column reside in counties in which the sheriff feels exactly as does Sheriff Knezovich. Thank God, not all of our sheriffs and city police chiefs fall into this category. Some of them have actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are devoted to protecting the liberties of the citizens in their cities and counties. But far too many of them are of the ilk of Sheriff Knezovich.

But once again, I must ask, where are the pastors? Where are the pastors in Spokane County, Washington?

Spokane County, Washington, is filled with Christians and churches. It is a God-fearing community. Why are the pastors of Spokane County not rallying their churches against the obviously anti-Christian, anti-patriot, anti-constitutionalist bigotry of this sheriff’s office? Every pastor in the county and every church congregation in the county should be demanding with protests, phone calls, emails, letters, etc., that this sheriff resign. This should continue every day in perpetuity until he does so.

I’ll say it plainly: the only reason we have tyrannically-inclined men like Sheriff Knezovich in public office is because our pastors don’t have the man-stuff to stand up against it. We have corrupt, unconstitutional civil magistrates because America’s pastors willingly, sheepishly, cowardly go along with it. Behind every Big Government toady like Sheriff Knezovich are scores and hundreds of pastors who are aiding and abetting him.

Think what could happen in Spokane County, Washington–and in counties across America–if our pastors would courageously lead their congregations to stand against this kind of corruption and abuse of power. Just think!

Did our plucky pastors in Colonial America lead the Christian people of America to cast off the tyranny of the British Crown only to have their spiritual descendants in the pulpits willfully sit back as indifferent bystanders and allow the sons of the patriots to be led into servitude like sheep? Jonas Clark, Joab Houghton, John Peter Muhlenberg, James Caldwell, and the rest of the Black Regiment must be turning over in their graves.

In the meantime, Christians, constitutionalists, and gun owners in Spokane County, Washington, have a sheriff’s office that considers them to be potential terrorists in the similitude of ISIS.

Once again, we see how DHS training and indoctrination is teaching our local police agencies to regard freedom-loving Americans as the enemy. Now you know: all of those armored vehicles and military hardware owned by your local police department or sheriff’s office are purchased for the purpose of being used against us “constitutionalists.” Be sure to watch the video report contained in the Infowars.com news story linked earlier in this column. And then please remember what the Spokane County sheriff’s deputy said the next time you see one of those big armored vehicles rolling down the streets of your community.

How does it happen that local sheriff’s deputies can relate people who support the Constitution of the United States to Islamic terrorists? And tell me again what it was that those deputies and police officers swore an oath to, if it wasn’t the Constitution of the United States?

Then again, I remember sitting across the lunch table recently with an elected county official and asking him to tell me what the oath was he took when he was first elected to public office, and he candidly (and sheepishly) told me he couldn’t remember. It is obvious that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich doesn’t remember, either.

P.S. In light of the existence of constitutionally-illiterate and tyrannically-predisposed sheriffs like Ozzie Knezovich, let me remind readers that we have just recently produced an hour-long DVD wherein my son, Attorney Tim Baldwin, lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”

Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.

Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, they need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.

As his dad, I can tell you he taught me a lot! Believe me, being informed of your legal rights and responsibilities under the law is very empowering, which is exactly what America’s Founding Fathers intended. True power, true authority, rests with the People under God and the Constitution. Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.

Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.

Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.

Police Contact: How To Respond

And, folks, this DVD is a bargain at whatever price. How much value do you place on your liberties?

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

Donate to Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s Ministry.

© 2015 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

All unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.

The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.

The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.

This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.

They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419

Posted in Police State | Tagged , | 1 Comment

New poll reveals voters agree with Donald Trump

 While the news media, political pundits and Democrats — who feel compelled to offer advice to the GOP about how to win elections — denigrate and criticize the man known as The Donald, the more he’s bashed and denigrated, the higher go his poll numbers.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewI like the guy–not for his silly ideas but for the disruption and turmoil he creates. It makes the pundits and politicos crazy. Down right entertaining.

And, as to his popularity: 1) it should tell us something about the sad state of affairs in the uSSA and 2) once we get rid of this one, we do not need another nation-State style of government. — jtl, 419

By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri

  Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAn estimated crowd of 20,000 people on Friday night in Mobile, Alabama, poured into Ladd Peebles Stadium to see and hear the latest political phenomenon, the Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, explain why its time for a real change — the election of a successful businessman as the President of the United States. And many of those attending wanted to hear his message — and his plan — to get the U.S. borders under control and kick out criminal aliens who are currently allowed to walk the streets of so-called Sanctuary Cities.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)While the news media, political pundits and Democrats — who feel compelled to offer advice to the GOP about how to win elections — denigrate and criticize the man known as The Donald, the more he’s bashed and denigrated, the higher go his poll numbers.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualAs far as his ideas on immigration reform, Trump’s rhetoric and his plans appear to coincide with the opinions of a majority of Republicans and so-called Independents despite Republicans and Democrats in the news media who claim the majority of Americans want Obama-style amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States. And as far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans – Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting immigration-related felonies.

This weeks Rasmussen Reports national survey appears to show many Americans agree with Trump’s views on border security and criminal aliens. The pollster found that 70 percent of likely GOP voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided.

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Only four percent (4%) disagree. Among all likely voters — Republicans, Democrats and Independents — 51 percent favor building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border; 37 percent disagree, and 12% are not sure. A whopping 80 percent said that they support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; while only 11 percent are opposed and nine percent aren’t sure.

Donald Trump had released a policy paper this past week that calls for getting tough on illegal immigration. He even used a Rasmussen poll to show that contrary to what the news media say — that his immigration policy is outside of the mainstream — his proposal to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in this country. Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters disagree with the policy that says a child born to an illegal immigrant here is automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Just 34 percent favor President Barack Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation. Most voters continue to think instead that the United States is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are here illegally.

Rasmussen Reports has routinely found that most American voters want the border security with Mexico revamped to prevent further illegal immigration before there are discussions of amnesty. In May 2015, 63% said gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of illegal aliens already living in the United States, the highest level of support for border control since December 2011.

Even a majority of Independents (57%) favor building a wall compared to 30 percent of Democrats. Ninety-four percent (94%) of all voters who support a security wall at the border also support deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of a serious or violent crime in the United States. But even 65% of those who oppose a wall agree with the policy on deportations. While Donald Trump took a lot of criticism from Democrats and some of the Republican presidential hopefuls over his candid remarks about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, most U.S. voters agree with Trump that illegal immigration increases serious crime in this country.

The negative reaction to his comments increased media coverage of Trump, but then came the murder of a young woman who was a citizen in San Francisco by an illegal alien from Mexico who admitted he lived in that Californian city because it doesn’t enforce immigration laws. Most voters now want to get tough on so-called “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce these laws.”Someday — hopefully soon — the GOP will stop taking political strategy advice from Democrats who have always found common-cause with anti-American policies and destructive strategies. And to listen to the denizens of the nation’s news media is like listening to an opponent’s campaign staff since most reporters have betrayed their role as a disinterested third-party and have become a part of the Democratic National Committee,” claims Sonia Vega-Cruz, a former drug enforcement agent who has worked in U.S. border states.

© 2015 NWV – All Rights Reserved

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Posted in Contemporary Politics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Bryce Williams is a Product of the Contrived Race War

The awful truth about the tragic shooting today of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward is that they are both victims of the contrived race war that has gripped America.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsYep, and I know a bunch of white folks who are living in denial. — jtl, 419

via Infowars

Bryce Williams is a Product of the Contrived Race War

Image Credits: WND.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The awful truth about the tragic shooting today of reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward is that they are both victims of the contrived race war that has gripped America.

  Combat Shooter's Handbook  In a fax sent to ABC News, the gunman states that the shooting was a revenge attack for the Charleston massacre, his contribution to the “race war”.

On his own Twitter account he also said he targeted Parker because of her “racist comments” towards him.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewAnd yet what did Deray McKeeson, the de facto leader of ‘Black Lives Matter’ tweet before the identify of the shooter was even known? Before the bodies were even cold?

He blamed the shooting on white people. In the very minutes after news of this horrific incident broke, the figurehead of Black Lives Matter was exploiting the tragedy for political points scoring.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Then he had the nerve to retweet other people who decried those using it for political points scoring.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Same with Hillary Clinton and an army of other leftists. Before the gunman had even been caught, Clinton was using the tragedy to go after the Second Amendment.

This contrived race war – which has been legitimized by the Obama administration – is emboldening extremists on both sides of the equation.

The leftist media blamed all white people in the aftermath of Charleston.

So am I going to blame all African-Americans for what Bryce Williams did? No.

But when you create an environment, as the leftist media has done, when violence targeting innocent people is a justified response to claims of institutionalized racism – this is what happens.

We saw it with Ismaaiyl Brinsley – the guy who shot two NYPD cops in the head as part of a Black Lives Matter revenge attack.

And now the next Dylann Roof will see Bryce Williams’ violent rampage as a legitimate excuse for his form of revenge. The cycle never ends.

When are we going to stop allowing this race war narrative to divide us and tear at the fabric of our society?

When is the Black Lives Matter movement going to acknowledge black on black violence as part of the problem, just as several African-American voices have done in recent days?

When are we going to focus on how we can fix police brutality by having a rational national conversation about it that isn’t poisoned by race baiting.

Until that day comes, we’re going to see many more Dylann Roofs and Bryce Williams’ – and the victims won’t be black supremacists or white supremacists.

The victims will be innocent people. The victims will be churchgoers in Charleston. The victims will be and Adam Ward and Alison Parker.

Check out our WebSite Check out our e-Store Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Racial Violence, Racism and Race Baiters | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Market Corrections Inspire Dangerous Political Panic

Now, with dramatic declines in stock markets around the world, we are seeing what happens when governments and central banks attempt to counter market forces.

  The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsEconomic law is as real as the law of gravity and everyone knows “it’s not nice to fool mother nature.” She is a mean fickle bitch and will always get the last word in. — jtl, 419

The dangers of political intervention far outweigh the possible benefits

Combat Shooter's Handbook Some kinds of inflation people really hate, like when it affects food and gas. But now, with the whole of the American middle class heavily invested in stocks, there is another kind inflation people love and demand: share prices that increased forever.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteJust as with real estate before 2008, people seem addicted to the idea that they should never go anywhere but up.

This is the reason that stock market corrections are so dangerous. The biggest danger is not economic. It is political. Such corrections push politicians and central bankers to undertake ever-more nutty political in do order to fix them.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewTo make the point, Donald Trump immediately blamed China, which has the temerity to sell Americans excellent products at low prices. Bernie Sanders blamed “free trade,” even though the United States is among the most protectionist in the world.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Nothing in this world is more guaranteed to worsen a correction that a trade war. But so far, that’s what’s been proposed.

Tolerance for Downturns

It was not always so. In the 1982 recession, the Reagan administration argued that it was best to let the market clear and grow calm. Once the recession cleaned up misallocations of resources, the economy would be well prepared for a growth path. Incredibly, the idea was sold to the American people, and it proved wise.

That was the last time in American history we’ve seen anything like a laissez-faire attitude prevail. After the 1990s dot com boom and bust, the Fed intervened in an effort to repeal gravity. After 9/11, the Fed intervened again, using floods of paper money to rebuild national pride. That created a gigantic housing bubble that exploded 7 years later.

By 2008, the idea of allowing markets to clear became intolerable, and so Congress spent hundreds of billions of dollars and the Fed created trillions in phony money, all to forestall what desperately needed to happen.

Now, with dramatic declines in stock markets around the world, we are seeing what happens when governments and central banks attempt to counter market forces.

Markets win. Every time. But somehow it doesn’t matter anymore. There’s no more science, no more rationality, no more concern for the long term, so far as the Fed is concerned. The Fed is maniacally focused on its member banks’ balance sheets. They must live and thrive no matter what. And the Fed is in the perfect position now to use public sentiment to bolster its policies.

The Right and Wrong Question 

In the event of a large crash, the public discussion going forward will be: What can be done to re-boost stock prices? This is the wrong question. The right question should be: What were the conditions that led to the unsustainable boom in the first place? This is the intelligent way to address a global meltdown. Sadly, intelligence is in short supply when people are panicked about losing their retirement funds they believed were secure.

Back when people thought about such things, the great economic Gottfried von Haberler was tapped by the League of Nations to write a book that covered the whole field of business cycle theory as it then existed. Prosperity and Depression came out in 1936 and was republished in 1941. It is a beautiful book, rooted in rationality and the desire to know.

The book covers six core theories: purely monetary (now called Chicago), overinvestment (now called Austrian), sudden changes in cost (related to what is now called Real Business Cycle), underconsumption (now called Keynesian), psychological (popular in the financial press), and agricultural theories (very old fashioned).

Each one is described. The author then turns to solutions and their viability, assessing each. The treatise leans toward the view that permitting the recession (or downturn or depression) run its course is a better alternative than any large policy prescription applied with the goal of countering the cycle.

Haberler is careful to say that there is not likely one explanation that applies to all cycles in all times and in all places. There are too many factors at work in the real world to provide such an explanation, and no author has ever attempted to provide one. All we can really do is look for the primary causes and the factors that are mostly likely to induce recurring depressions and recoveries.

He likened the business cycle a rocking chair. It can be still. It can rock slowly. Or an outside force can come along to cause it to rock more violently and at greater speed. Detangling the structural factors from the external factors is a major challenge for any economist. But it must be done lest policy authorities make matters worse rather than better.

The monetary theory posits that the quantity of money is the key factoring in generating booms and busts. The more money that flows into an economy via the credit system, the more production increases alongside consumption. This policy leads to inflation. The pullback of the credit machine induces the recession.

The “overinvestment” theory of the cycle focuses on the misallocation of resources that upsets the careful balance between production and consumer. Within the production structure in normal times, there is a focus on viability in light of consumer decisions. But when more credit is made available, the flow of resources is toward the capital sector, which is characterized by a multiplicity of purposes. The entire production sector mixes various time commitments and purposes. Each of them corresponds with an expectation of consumer behavior.

Haberler calls this an overinvestment theory because the main result is an inflation of capital over consumption. The misallocation is both horizontal and vertical. When the consumer resources are insufficient to realize the plans of the capitalists, the result is a series of bankruptcies and an ensuing recession.

Price Control by Central Banks

A feature of this theory is to distinguish between the real rate of interest and the money rate of interest. When monetary authorities push down rates, they are engaged in a form of price control, inducing a boom in one sector of the production structure. This theory today is most often identified with the Austrian school, but in Haberler’s times, it was probably the dominant theory among serious specialists throughout the world.

In describing the underconsumption theory of the cycle, Haberler can hardly hide his disdain. In this view, all cycles result from too much hoarding and insufficient debt. If consumer were spend to their maximum extent, without regard to issues of viability, producers would feel inspired to produce, and the entire economy could run off a feeling of good will.

Habeler finds this view ridiculous, based in part on the implied policy prescription: endlessly inflate the money supply, keep running up debts, and lower interest rates to zero. The irony is that this is the precisely the prescription of John Maynard Keynes, and his whole theory was rooted in a 200-year old fallacy that economic growth is based on consumption and not production. Little did Haberler know, writing in the early 1930s, that this theory would become the dominant one in the world, and the one most promoted by governments and for obvious reasons.

The psychological theory of the cycle observes the people are overly optimistic in a boom and overly pessimistic in the bust. More than that, the people who push this view regard these states of mind as causative of economic trends. They both begin and end the boom.

Haberler does not deny that such states of mind are important and contributing elements to making the the cycle more exaggerated, but it is foolish to believe that thinking alone can bring about systematic changes in the macroeconomic structure. This school of thought seizes on a grain of truth, and pushes that grain too far to the exclusion of real factory. Interestingly, Haberler identifies Keynes by name in his critique of this view.

Haberler’s treatise is the soul of fairness but the reader is left with no question about where his investigation led him. There are many and varied causes of business cycles, and the best explanations trace the problem to credit interventions and monetary expansions that upset the delicate balance of production and consumption in the international market economy.

Large-scale attempts by government to correct for these cycles can result in making matters worse, because it has no control over the secondary factors that brought about the crisis in the first place. The best possible policy is to eliminate barriers to market clearing — that is to say, let the market work.

The Fed is the Elephant in the Room

And so it should be in our time. For seven years, the Fed, which controls the world reserve currency, has held down interest rates to zero in an effort to forestall a real recession and recreate the boom. The results have been unimpressive. In the midst of the greatest technological revolution in history, economic growth has been pathetic.

There is a reason for this, and it is not only about foolish monetary policy. It is about regulation that inhibits business creation and economic adaptability. It’s about taxation that pillages the rewards of success and pours the bounty into public waste. It is about a huge debt overhang that results from the declaration that all governments are too big to fail.

Whether a correction is needed now or later or never is not for policymakers to decide. The existence of the business cycle is the market’s way of humbling those who claim to have the power and intelligence to outwit its awesome and immutable forces.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reliving the Crash of ‘29

 A half-century ago, America — and then the world — was rocked by a mighty stock-market crash that soon turned into the steepest and longest-lasting depression of all time.

Keep in mind that Roghbard was writing in 1979. Anyhow…

I don’t know why “we” (the collective) bother studying history. It seems we never learn a damned thing from it.  — jtl, 419

By at Mises.org via LewRockwell.com

[First published in Inquiry, November 12, 1979.]

A half-century ago, America — and then the world — was rocked by a mighty stock-market crash that soon turned into the steepest and longest-lasting depression of all time.

It was not only the sharpness and depth of the depression that stunned the world and changed the face of modern history: it was the length, the chronic economic morass persisting throughout the 1930s, that caused intellectuals and the general public to despair of the market economy and the capitalist system.

Previous depressions, no matter how sharp, generally lasted no more than a year or two. But now, for over a decade, poverty, unemployment, and hopelessness led millions to seek some new economic system that would cure the depression and avoid a repetition of it.

Political solutions and panaceas differed. For some it was Marxian socialism — for others, one or another form of fascism. In the United States the accepted solution was a Keynesian mixed-economy or welfare-warfare state. Harvard was the focus of Keynesian economics in the United States, and Seymour Harris, a prominent Keynesian teaching there, titled one of his many books Saving American Capitalism. That title encapsulated the spirit of the New Deal reformers of the ’30s and ’40s. By the massive use of state power and government spending, capitalism was going to be saved from the challenges of communism and fascism.

One common guiding assumption characterized the Keynesians, socialists, and fascists of the 1930s: that laissez-faire, free-market capitalism had been the touchstone of the US economy during the 1920s, and that this old-fashioned form of capitalism had manifestly failed us by generating, or at least allowing, the most catastrophic depression in history to strike at the United States and the entire Western world.

Well, weren’t the 1920s, with their burgeoning optimism, their speculation, their enshrinement of big business in politics, their Republican dominance, their individualism, their hedonistic cultural decadence, weren’t these years indeed the heyday of laissez-faire? Certainly the decade looked that way to most observers, and hence it was natural that the free market should take the blame for the consequences of unbridled capitalism in 1929 and after.

Unfortunately for the course of history, the common interpretation was dead wrong: there was very little laissez-faire capitalism in the 1920s. Indeed the opposite was true: significant parts of the economy were infused with proto–New Deal statism, a statism that plunged us into the Great Depression and prolonged this miasma for more than a decade.

In the first place, everyone forgot that the Republicans had never been the laissez-faire party. On the contrary, it was the Democrats who had always championed free markets and minimal government, while the Republicans had crusaded for a protective tariff that would shield domestic industry from efficient competition, for huge land grants and other subsidies to railroads, and for inflation and cheap credit to stimulate purchasing power and apparent prosperity.

It was the Republicans who championed paternalistic big government and the partnership of business and government while the Democrats sought free trade and free competition, denounced the tariff as the “mother of trusts,” and argued for the gold standard and the separation of government and banking as the only way to guard against inflation and the destruction of people’s savings. At least that was the policy of the Democrats before Bryan and Wilson at the start of the 20th century, when the party shifted to a position not very far from its ancient Republican rivals.

The Republicans never shifted, and their reign in the 1920s brought the federal government to its greatest intensity of peacetime spending and hiked the tariff to new, stratospheric levels. A minority of old-fashioned “Cleveland” Democrats continued to hammer away at Republican extravagance and big government during the Coolidge and Hoover eras. Those included Governor Albert Ritchie of Maryland, Senator James Reed of Missouri, and former Solicitor General James M. Beck, who wrote two characteristic books in this era: The Vanishing Rights of the States and Our Wonderland of Bureaucracy.

But most important in terms of the depression was the new statism that the Republicans, following on the Wilson administration, brought to the vital but arcane field of money and banking. How many Americans know or care anything about banking? Yet it was in this neglected but crucial area that the seeds of 1929 were sown and cultivated by the American government.

The United States was the last major country to enjoy, or be saddled with, a central bank. All the major European countries had adopted central banks during the 18th and 19th centuries, which enabled governments to control and dominate commercial banks, to bail out banking firms whenever they got into trouble, and to inflate money and credit in ways controlled and regulated by the government. Only the United States, as a result of Democratic agitation during the Jacksonian era, had had the courage to extend the doctrine of classical liberalism to the banking system, thereby separating government from money and banking.

Having deposed the central bank in the 1830s, the United States enjoyed a freely competitive banking system — and hence a relatively “hard” and noninflated money — until the Civil War. During that catastrophe, the Republicans used their one-party dominance to push through their interventionist economic program. It included a protective tariff and land grants to railroads, as well as inflationary paper money and a “national banking system” that in effect crippled state-chartered banks and paved the way for the later central bank.

The United States adopted its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, in 1913, backed by a consensus of Democrats and Republicans. This virtual nationalization of the banking system was unopposed by the big banks; in fact, Wall Street and the other large banks had actively sought such a central system for many years. The result was the cartelization of banking under federal control, with the government standing ready to bail out banks in trouble, and also ready to inflate money and credit to whatever extent the banks felt was necessary.

Without a functioning Federal Reserve System available to inflate the money supply, the United States could not have financed its participation in World War I: that war was fueled by heavy government deficits and by the creation of new money to pay for swollen federal expenditures.

One point is undisputed: the autocratic ruler of the Federal Reserve System, from its inception in 1914 to his death in 1928, was Benjamin Strong, a New York banker who had been named governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong consistently and repeatedly used his power to force an inflationary increase of money and bank credit in the American economy, thereby driving prices higher than they would have been and stimulating disastrous booms in the stock and real-estate markets. In 1927, Strong gaily told a French central banker that he was going to give “a little coup de whiskey to the stock market.” What was the point? Why did Strong pursue a policy that now can seem only heedless, dangerous, and recklessly extravagant?

Once the government has assumed absolute control of the money-creating machinery in society, it benefits — as would any other group — by using that power. Anyone would benefit, at least in the short run, by printing or creating new money for his own use or for the use of his economic or political allies.

Strong had several motives for supporting an inflationary boom in the 1920s. One was to stimulate foreign loans and foreign exports. The Republican party was committed to a policy of partnership of government and industry, and to subsidizing domestic and export firms. A protective tariff aided inefficient domestic producers by keeping out foreign competition. But if foreigners were shut out of our markets, how in the world were they going to buy our exports? The Republican administration thought it had solved this dilemma by stimulating American loans to foreigners so that they could buy our products.

A fine solution in the short run, but how were these loans to be kept up, and, more important, how were they to be repaid? The banking community was also confronted with the curious and ultimately self-defeating policy of preventing foreigners from selling us their products, and then lending them the money to keep buying ours. Benjamin Strong’s inflationary policy meant repeated doses of cheap credit to stimulate this foreign lending. It should also be noted that this policy subsidized American investment banks in making foreign loans.

Among the exports stimulated by cheap credit and foreign loans were farm products. American agriculture, overstimulated by the swollen demands of warring European nations during World War I, was a chronically sick industry during the 1920s. It had awakened after the resumption of peace to find that farm prices had fallen and that European demand was down. Rather than adjusting to postwar realities, however, American farmers preferred to organize and agitate to force taxpayers and consumers to keep them in the style to which they had become accustomed during the palmy “parity” years of the war. One way for the federal government to bow to this political pressure was to stimulate foreign loans and hence to encourage foreign purchases of American farm products.

The “farm bloc,” it should be noted, included not only farmers; more indirect and considerably less rustic interests were also busily at work. The postwar farm bloc gained strong support from George N. Peek and General Hugh S. Johnson; both, later prominent in the New Deal, were heads of the Moline Plow Company, a major manufacturer of farm machinery that stood to benefit handsomely from government subsidies to farmers. When Herbert Hoover, in one of his first acts as president — considerably before the crash — established the Federal Farm Board to raise farm prices, he installed as head of the FFB Alexander Legge, chairman of International Harvester, the nation’s leading producer of farm machinery. Such was the Republican devotion to “laissez faire.”

But a more indirect and ultimately more important motivation for Benjamin Strong’s inflationary credit policies in the 1920s was his view that it was vitally important to “help England,” even at American expense. Thus, in the spring of 1928, his assistant noted Strong’s displeasure at the American public’s outcry against the “speculative excesses” of the stock market.

The public didn’t realize, Strong thought, that “we were now paying the penalty for the decision which was reached early in 1924 to help the rest of the world back to a sound financial and monetary basis.” An unexceptionable statement, provided that we clear up some euphemisms. For the “decision” was taken by Strong in camera, without the knowledge or participation of the American people; the decision was to inflate money and credit, and it was done not to help the “rest of the world” but to help sustain Britain’s unsound and inflationary policies.

Before the World War, all the major nations were on the gold standard, which meant that the various currencies — the dollar, pound, mark, franc, etc. — were redeemable in fixed weights of gold. This gold requirement ensured that governments were strictly limited in the amount of scrip they could print and pour into circulation, whether by spending to finance government deficits or by lending to favored economic or political groups. Consequently, inflation had been kept in check throughout the 19th century when this system was in force.

But world war ruptured all that, just as it destroyed so many other aspects of the classical-liberal polity. The major warring powers spent heavily on the war effort, creating new money in bushel baskets to pay the expense. Inflation was consequently rampant during and after World War I and, since there were far more pounds, marks, and francs in circulation than could possibly be redeemed in gold, the warring countries were forced to go off the gold standard and to fall back on paper currencies — all, that is, except for the United States, which was embroiled in the war for a relatively short time and could therefore afford to remain on the gold standard.

After the war, the nations faced a world currency breakdown with rampant inflation and chaotically falling exchange rates. What was to be done? There was a general consensus on the need to go back to gold, and thereby to eliminate inflation and frantically fluctuating exchange rates. But how to go back? That is, what should be the relations between gold and the various currencies?

Specifically, Britain had been the world’s financial center for a century before the war, and the British pound and the dollar had been fixed all that time in terms of gold so that the pound would always be worth $4.86. But during and after the war the pound had been inflated relatively far more than the dollar, and thus had fallen to about $3.50 on the foreign-exchange market. But Britain was adamant about returning the pound, not to the realistic level of $3.50, but rather to the old prewar par of $4.86.

Why the stubborn insistence on going back to gold at the obsolete prewar par? Part of the reason was a stubborn and mindless concentration on saving face and British honor, on showing that the old lion was just as strong and tough as before the war. Partly, it was a shrewd realization by British bankers that if the pound were devalued from prewar levels England would lose its financial preeminence, perhaps to the United States, which had been able to retain its gold status.

So, under the spell of its bankers, England made the fateful decision to go back to gold at $4.86. But this meant that Britain’s exports were now made artificially expensive and its imports cheaper, and since England lived by selling coal, textiles, and other products, while importing food, the resulting chronic depression in its export industries had serious consequences for the British economy. Unemployment remained high in Britain, especially in its export industries, throughout the boom of the 1920s.

To make this leap backward to $4.86 viable, Britain would have had to deflate its economy so as to bring about lower prices and wages and make its exports once again inexpensive abroad. But it wasn’t willing to deflate since that would have meant a bitter confrontation with Britain’s now-powerful unions. Ever since the imposition of an extensive unemployment-insurance system, wages in Britain were no longer flexible downward as they had been before the war. In fact, rather than deflate, the British government wanted the freedom to keep inflating, in order to raise prices, do an end run around union wage rates, and ensure cheap credit for business.

The British authorities had boxed themselves in: They insisted on several axioms. One was to go back to gold at the old prewar par of $4.86. This would have made deflation necessary, except that a second axiom was that the British continue to pursue a cheap credit, inflationary policy rather than deflation. How to square the circle? What the British tried was political pressure and arm-twisting on other countries, to try to induce or force them to inflate too. If other countries would also inflate, the pound would remain stable in relation to other currencies; Britain would not keep losing gold to other nations, which endangered its own jerry-built monetary structure.

On the defeated and small new countries of Europe, Britain’s pressure was notably successful. Using their dominance in the League of Nations and especially in its Financial Committee, the British forced country after country not only to return to gold, but to do so at overvalued rates, thereby endangering those nations’ exports and stimulating imports from Britain. And the British also flummoxed these countries into adopting a new form of gold “exchange” standard, in which they kept their reserves not in gold, as before, but in sterling balances in London.

In this way, the British could continue to inflate; and pounds, instead of being redeemed in gold, were used by other countries as reserves on which to pyramid their own paper inflation. The only stubborn resistance to the new order came from France, which had a hard-money policy into the late 1920s. It was French resistance to the new British monetary order that was ultimately fatal to the house of cards the British attempted to construct in the 1920s.

The United States was a different situation altogether. Britain could not coerce the United States into inflating in order to save the misbegotten pound, but it could cajole and persuade. In particular, it had a staunch ally in Benjamin Strong, who could always be relied on to be a willing servitor of British interests. By repeatedly agreeing to inflate the dollar at British urging, Benjamin Strong won the plaudits of the British financial press as the best friend of Great Britain since Ambassador Walter Hines Page, who had played a key role in inducing the United States to enter the war on the British side.

Why did Strong do it? We know that he formed a close friendship with British financial autocrat Montagu Norman, longtime head of the Bank of England. Norman would make secret visits to the United States, checking in at a Saratoga Springs resort under an assumed name, and Strong would join him there for the weekend, also incognito, there to agree on yet another inflationary coup de whiskey to the market.

Surely this Strong–Norman tie was crucial, but what was its basic nature? Some writers have improbably speculated on a homosexual liaison to explain the otherwise mysterious subservience of Strong to Norman’s wishes. But there was another, and more concrete and provable, tie that bound these two financial autocrats together.

That tie involved the Morgan banking interests. Benjamin Strong had lived his life in the Morgan ambit. Before being named head of the Federal Reserve, Strong had risen to head of the Bankers Trust Company, a creature of the Morgan bank. When asked to be head of the Fed, he was persuaded to take the job by two of his best friends, Henry P. Davison and Dwight Morrow, both partners of J.P. Morgan & Co.

The Federal Reserve System arrived at a good time for the Morgans. It was needed to finance America’s participation in World War I, a participation strongly supported by the Morgans, who played a major role in bringing the Wilson administration into the war. The Morgans, heavily invested in rail securities, had been caught short by the boom in industrial stocks that emerged at the turn of the century. Consequently, much of their position in investment-banking was being eroded by Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which had been faster off the mark on investment in industrial securities.

World War I meant economic boom or collapse for the Morgans. The House of Morgan was the fiscal agent for the Bank of England: it had the underwriting concession for all sales of British and French bonds in the United States during the war, and it helped finance US arms and munitions sales to Britain and France. The House of Morgan had a very heavy investment in an Anglo-French victory and a German-Austrian defeat. Kuhn, Loeb, on the other hand, was pro-German, and therefore was tied more to the fate of the Central Powers.

The cement binding Strong and Norman was the Morgan connection. Not only was the House of Morgan intimately wrapped up in British finance, but Norman himself — as well as his grandfather — in earlier days had worked in New York for the powerful investment banking firm of Brown Brothers, and hence had developed close personal ties with the New York banking community. For Benjamin Strong, helping Britain meant helping the House of Morgan to shore up the internally contradictory monetary structure it had constructed for the postwar world.

The result was inflationary credit, a speculative boom that could not last, and the Great Crash whose 50th anniversary we observe this year. After Strong’s death in late 1928, the new Federal Reserve authorities, while confused on many issues, were no longer consistent servitors of Britain and the Morgans. The deliberate and consistent policy of inflation came to an end, and a corrective depression soon arrived.

There are two mysteries about the Great Depression, mysteries having two separate and distinct solutions. One is, why the crash? Why the sudden crash and depression in the midst of boom and seemingly permanent prosperity? We have seen the answer: inflationary credit expansion propelled by the Federal Reserve System in the service of various motives, including helping Britain and the House of Morgan.

But there is another vital and very different problem. Given the crash, why did the recovery take so long? Usually, when a crash or financial panic strikes, the economic and financial depression, be it slight or severe, is over in a few months or a year or two at the most. After that, economic recovery will have arrived. The crucial difference between earlier depressions and that of 1929 was that the 1929 crash became chronic and seemed permanent.

What is seldom realized is that depressions, despite their evident hardship on so many, perform an important corrective function. They serve to eliminate the distortions introduced into the economy by an inflationary boom. When the boom is over, the many distortions that have entered the system become clear: prices and wage rates have been driven too high, and much unsound investment has taken place, particularly in capital-goods industries.

The recession or depression serves to lower the swollen prices and to liquidate the unsound and uneconomic investments; it directs resources into those areas and industries that will most-effectively serve consumer demands — and were not allowed to do so during the artificial boom. Workers previously misdirected into uneconomic production, unstable at best, will, as the economy corrects itself, end up in more secure and productive employment.

The recession must be allowed to perform its work of liquidation and restoration as quickly as possible, so that the economy can be allowed to recover from boom and depression and get back to a healthy footing. Before 1929, this hands-off policy was precisely what all US governments had followed, and hence depressions, however sharp, would disappear after a year or so.

But when the Great Crash hit, America had recently elected a new kind of president. Until the past decade, historians have regarded Herbert Clark Hoover as the last of the laissez-faire presidents. Instead, he was the first New Dealer.

Hoover had his bipartisan aura, and was devoted to corporatist cartelization under the aegis of big government; indeed, he originated the New Deal farm-price-support program. His New Deal specifically centered on his program for fighting depressions. Before he assumed office, Hoover determined that should a depression strike during his term of office, he would use the massive powers of the federal government to combat it. No more would the government, as in the past, pursue a hands-off policy.

As Hoover himself recalled the crash and its aftermath,

The primary question at once arose as to whether the President and the federal government should undertake to investigate and remedy the evils. … No President before had ever believed that there was a governmental responsibility in such cases. … Presidents steadfastly had maintained that the federal government was apart from such eruptions … therefore, we had to pioneer a new field.

In his acceptance speech for the presidential renomination in 1932, Herbert Hoover summed it up:

We might have done nothing. … Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. … No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times.

The massive Hoover program was, indeed, a characteristically New Deal one: vigorous action to keep up wage rates and prices, to expand public works and government deficits, to lend money to failing businesses to try to keep them afloat, and to inflate the supply of money and credit to try to stimulate purchasing power and recovery. Herbert Hoover during the 1920s had pioneered the proto-Keynesian idea that high wages are necessary to assure sufficient purchasing power and a healthy economy. The notion led him to artificially raising wages — and consequently to aggravating the unemployment problem — during the depression.

As soon as the stock market crashed, Hoover called in all the leading industrialists in the country for a series of White House conferences in which he successfully bludgeoned the industrialists, under the threat of coercive government action, into propping up wage rates — and hence causing massive unemployment — while prices were falling sharply. After Hoover’s term, Franklin D. Roosevelt simply continued and expanded Hoover’s policies across the board, adding considerably more coercion along the way. Between them, the two New Deal presidents managed the unprecedented feat of making the depression last a decade, until we were lifted out of it by our entry into World War II.

If Benjamin Strong got us into a depression and Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt kept us in it, what was the role in all this of the nation’s economists, watchdogs of our economic health? Unsurprisingly, most economists, during the depression and ever since, have been much more part of the problem than of the solution. During the 1920s, establishment economists, led by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale, hailed the 20s as the start of a “New Era,” one in which the new Federal Reserve System would ensure permanently stable prices, avoiding either booms or busts.

Unfortunately, the Fisherites, in their quest for stability, failed to realize that the trend of the free and unhampered market is always toward lower prices as productivity rises and mass markets develop for particular products. Keeping the price level stable in an era of rising productivity, as in the 1920s, requires a massive artificial expansion of money and credit. Focusing only on wholesale prices, Strong and the economists of the 1920s were willing to engender artificial booms in real estate and stocks, as well as malinvestments in capital goods, so long as the wholesale price level remained constant.

As a result, Irving Fisher and the leading economists of the 1920s failed to recognize that a dangerous inflationary boom was taking place. When the crash came, Fisher and his disciples of the Chicago School again pinned the blame on the wrong culprit. Instead of realizing that the depression process should be left alone to work itself out as rapidly as possible, Fisher and his colleagues laid the blame on the deflation after the crash and demanded a reinflation (or “reflation”) back to 1929 levels.

In this way, even before Keynes, the leading economists of the day managed to miss the problem of inflation and cheap credit and to demand policies that only prolonged the depression and made it worse. After all, Keynesianism did not spring forth full-blown with the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

We are still pursuing the policies of the 1920s that led to eventual disaster. The Federal Reserve is still inflating the money supply and inflates it even further with the merest hint that a recession is in the offing. The Fed is still trying to fuel a perpetual boom while avoiding a correction on the one hand or a great deal of inflation on the other.

In a sense, things have gotten worse. For while the hard-money economists of the 1920s and 1930s wished to retain and tighten up the gold standard, the “hard-money” monetarists of today scorn gold, are happy to rely on paper currency, and feel that they are boldly courageous for proposing not to stop the inflation of money altogether, but to limit the expansion to a supposedly fixed amount.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it — except that now, with gold abandoned and each nation able to print currency ad lib, we are likely to wind up, not with a repeat of 1929, but with something far worse: the holocaust of runaway inflation that ravaged Germany in 1923 and many other countries during World War II. To avoid such a catastrophe we must have the resolve and the will to cease the inflationary expansion of credit, and to force the Federal Reserve System to stop purchasing assets, and thereby to stop its continued generation of chronic, accelerating inflation.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The Best of Murray N. Rothbard

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty

Posted in Austrian Economic Theory | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Windows10 – Full Blown Electronic Tyranny

Do NOT put Windows 10 on your computer.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Privacy & Asset Protection, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment