On Getting Libertarianism Right

How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity of all sorts of physical things, interact with each other, conceivably from the beginning of mankind until the end of human history, peacefully, i.e., without physically clashing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control of one and the same given thing?

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)Actually, it is very simple. Read on. You will enjoy and learn. — jtl, 419

By Hans-Hermann Hoppe via  LewRockwell.com

The social theory sailing nowadays under the label “Austro-Libertarianism” has a long and prominent history going back many centuries, culminating, during the second half of the 20th century, in the work of Murray N.  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)   Rothbard, and continued today by his various intellectual disciples and students, including myself. The theory provides a simple, argumentatively irrefutable (without running into contractions) answer to one of the most important questions in the entire field of the social sciences: How can human beings, “real persons,” having to act in a “real world” characterized by the scarcity of all sorts of physical things, interact with each other, conceivably from the beginning of mankind until the end of human history, peacefully, i.e., without physically clashing with one another in a contest or fight concerning the control of one and the same given thing?

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Put briefly, the answer is this: Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, clashes regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without I and you ever clashing.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View And who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly. And second, as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsIn short, then, formulated as a principle: You shall not aggress against another person and his justly acquired property and you may use physical violence exclusively in defense of your own person and property against an aggressor.

While the importance of this “Austro-libertarian” insight can hardly be overrated, however, it is just as important to recognize what questions this theory does not answer.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualWhen we look at the real world we cannot but notice that it is distinctly different from a libertarian social order. And yet the libertarian theory in itself does not entail an answer as to why this is so – except to conclude that people apparently are not intelligent or willing enough to recognize and embrace its truth – and consequently, how to actually achieve the ultimate libertarian end of a Stateless society from some distinctly un-libertarian starting point. Nor does the theory imply much if anything concerning the question of how to maintain a libertarian social order once achieved and make it sustainable. To answer these questions pure theory is insufficient and must be complemented by empirical study. One must turn from pure theory to human history, psychology and sociology.

Unfortunately, all-too-many self-proclaimed libertarians have neglected or refused to do so and naively embraced the currently reigning – and only “politically correct” – view that all people and in particular all groups of people are essentially equal as regards their mental and motivational make-up, and that any observable inequalities are either the result of mere accident and circumstance or past injustice and as such can and should be made good by some corrective, “equalizing” measures.

The acceptance of this belief in the empirical equality and hence, the interchangeability, substitutability and replace-ability  of all people and all groups of people, has led many libertarians – the now so-called “left”-libertarians – to endorse and promote the very same agenda pursued presently already more or less vigorously by the ruling elites all across the Western World (are they all secretly libertarians?): of multi-culturalism, unrestricted “free” immigration, “non-discrimination,” “affirmative action” and “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative lifestyles.”

Given this curious programmatic alliance between left-libertarians and the ruling elites, it is not entirely surprising that, notwithstanding the dearth of any outstanding left-libertarian intellectual talent, the “elite” main-stream media (MSM) has attentively followed and reported on their every position-paper or pronouncement and thereby helped create the impression in the public mind that left-libertarianism is libertarianism.

At the same time, to the same effect and equally unsurprising, the very same MSM systematically ignored the contrary fact – or else deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented it – that left-libertarianism, already at its first public appearance, had come under heavy attack from, above all, Murray Rothbard, the very founder and fountainhead of modern libertarianism, as only fake-libertarianism. Owing to their patently false, unrealistic assumptions concerning the nature of man, he had pointed out,[i] the very means and measures advocated by left-libertarians for the attainment of libertarian ends were false as well. In fact, given the libertarian end, they were counter-productive and would lead to more rather than less conflict and infringements of private property rights.

Real libertarians – in contrast to left-libertarian fakes – must study and take account of real people and real human history in order to design a libertarian strategy of social change, and even the most cursory study in this regard – indeed, little more than common sense – yields results completely opposite from those proposed by libertarian fakes.

While members of the same species, men (including women) are strikingly different and unequal. Not just individually, one man from another, but also collectively, one group of men connected more or less closely by a commonality of language, religion, culture and custom from another group of men with another language, religion, culture and custom. (Hardly surprising, if one considers the fact that all present people are typically the descendants of people that have lived far apart from each other going back hundreds or even thousands of years and thus formed separate and distinctly different gene pools!)

More to the point and just as obvious: Men, not only individuals considered in isolation, but also groups of individuals considered as communities or cooperatives, with their various languages, religions, cultures and customs, display significant differences and inequalities as regards the degree of conformity of their conduct with libertarian principles.

While no society can do without some degree of conformity to the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) at least insofar as its internal relations are concerned – that is: there can be no society that allows for a “free-for-all” of murder, homicide, battery or the “taking” of other persons’ things -, the degree of conformity displayed by different societies or communities is strikingly different. Some appear like permanent war-zones or lawless hell-holes filled with brutality and cruelty, whereas others, at the other (positive) end, approach the libertarian ideal quite closely (say, Liechtenstein).

Viewed from a global macro-perspective, it should be obvious also (especially to a libertarian), that all great libertarian thinkers which successively and gradually built up the system of libertarian law and order have been “Western Men”, i.e., men born and raised in countries of Western and Central Europe or their various overseas dependencies and settlements and intellectually and culturally united by a common lingua franca (once Latin and now English) and the trans-national Catholic Church or more lately and vaguely a common Christianity. That it is in these Western societies, where libertarian principles have found the most widespread public acceptance and explicit recognition as “natural human rights.” That, notwithstanding their blatant shortcomings and failings, it is Western societies, then, that still resemble, comparatively speaking, a libertarian social order most closely. And finally also, unsurprisingly insofar as the widespread recognition and explicit acceptance of the NAP by the members of a society are signs of a comparatively high(er) intelligence and impulse control, that it is these societies, then, that also are the technologically and economically most advanced.

These observations alone should be sufficient to reveal any libertarian advocate of “free,” unrestricted and non-discriminatory immigration of non-Westerners into the countries of the West as a fool. Every such immigrant – not to speak of mass-immigration – poses the risk of further diminishing and undermining the already limited freedom and private property protection presently still enjoyed in the West. To prevent this, any libertarian worth its name must instead advocate the strict and utmost discrimination vis-à-vis any potential immigrant – he might be an avowed communist or socialist or import his familiar hell-hole culture into one’s own midst – and from the very outset he must be strictly opposed in particular to any form of mass-immigration. As well, he should begin to realize that the Western ruling elites currently promoting immigration from non-Western countries are not motivated by libertarian ends, but by a calculated desire of using foreign immigrants as vehicles for the further expansion of their own domestic power, reach and level of interference with the private property rights of domestic residents.

As well, when we shift from a macro- to a micro-perspective and look only at any particular Western society (say, the US or Germany), we reach similar and further specified and refined conclusions concerning libertarian strategy.

Each of these Western societies is ruled by some different gang of people in control of some separate, geographically defined State; and each State-gang claims, concerning everyone and everything on “its” territory, then, that only it, i.e., only State-gang members, are authorized to act as ultimate legal authority, judge, enforcer and executioner in any conflict or contest of wills. In short: each separate State-gang claims and exercises a territorial monopoly of aggressive violence against “its” own private people and property.

No State currently ruling over different parts of the Western World achieved this rank and position as ultimate judge and executioner immediately and at once, however. It took hundreds of years to bring this about and replace or displace a once, for a lengthy period in Western history highly decentralized system of social authority by the present system of centralized and monopolized State authority.

For much or even most of the European middle-ages no State and State authority existed. All authority was social authority. There were hierarchies of authority: heads of family households, priests, bishops and a distant pope; patrons, lords and over-lords; and countless different and separate communities, religious, social and professional orders, assemblies, guilds, societies, associations and clubs, each with its own rules, hierarchies and rank-orders. But no authority was absolute, and no one and no one group of people held a monopoly on its rank or position of authority. Even feudal kings could be called upon and brought to justice by other, competing authorities.

The strategy that any would-be-State promoter had to pursue, then, and that all Western States continue to pursue until today, has been dictated by this quasi-libertarian medieval starting point. In a nutshell, it boils down to the rule: You must undermine, weaken and ultimately destroy all competing authorities and hierarchies of social authority. Beginning at the highest levels of authority and from there on successively down, ultimately to the most elementary and decentralized level of social authority invested in the heads of individual family households, you (every Statist) must use your own initial authority to undermine all rival authorities in stripping away their right to include and exclude: to determine autonomously who is a member and who can come before you and who is not or cannot, and which conduct is or is not in accordance with its own membership rules and may result in various penalties ranging from admonishment or warning to outright exclusion or expulsion.

Kings must no longer be allowed to freely determine who is another king or the next king, and who can or cannot come before them for justice and assistance; and assemblies of kings must no longer be allowed to determine who to include or elevate to their own rank and who to exclude or demote. Likewise, for any separate community, association, order, club, etc.: No one must be free to autonomously determine its own rules of admission and exclusion. And ultimately so also for all individual family households: No head of household must be allowed to set down his own house-rules governing the admission to his house and the conduct of all household members. In sum: Free association and dis-association (separation) of people in physical space and free affiliation and dis-affiliation of people through shared or un-shared memberships in various organizations must go.

And how to achieve this? By enlisting the support of everyone resentful of not being included or promoted in some particular association or organization or for being expelled and excluded from them. Against this ‘unfair’ discrimination you, the State or would-be State, must promise the excluded ‘victims’ to help get them in and get them a ‘fair’ and non-discriminating treatment in return for their binding affiliation with you. On every level of social authority, you must encourage and promote deviant behavior (behavior preventing inclusion or leading to exclusion) and then use these deviants to undermine any authority other than your own. Free association and affiliation must be replaced by forced integration and forced affiliation – euphemistically called multiculturalism and affirmative action.

In light of these observations, it should become rather obvious why the left-libertarian program does not and cannot achieve the supposedly libertarian end of a State-less social order, but, to the contrary, will lead to a further expansion of monopolistic State powers.

“Free” mass immigration from the non-Western world, “multiculturalism,” “affirmative action,” “non-discrimination,” the propagation of “openness” to “diversity” and “alternative life-styles,” to “feminism” and “gay- and gender-ism,” and of “anti-authoritarianism,” – they all are and must be seen as means to further diminish whatever little discretionary, discriminatory and exclusionary powers still remain in Western societies in the hands of non-monopolistic social authorities and hierarchies of social authority, and to correspondingly expand and increase the powers centralized, concentrated and monopolized in the hands of the State.

For more than two decades, following in Rothbard’s footsteps, I have tried to get libertarianism right again – most prominently with my Democracy – The God That Failed (2001) – in complementing libertarian theory with social realism (history, psychology and sociology), and to rescue libertarianism from left-libertarian flakes and fakes and repair the public misperception that they are and represent what libertarianism is all about. The reaction to these endeavors – in particular Rothbard’s and mine – from the side of left-libertarians has been furious. This notwithstanding, however, they were instrumental in that today, among self-described libertarians, left-libertarianism is in retreat, while the influence of realistic-right libertarianism has steadily grown.

Throughout the entire period, the Ludwig von Mises Institute – mises.org – and Lew Rockwell – lewrockwell.com – have stood out as bulwarks against the infiltration of libertarianism by leftist thought. As well, Ilana Mercer has been an early critic of left-libertarianism with her paleo-libertarian blog – barelyablog.com. More recently, outlets for explicitly and decidedly anti-leftist libertarian thought have proliferated. There is “Bionic Mosquito” with his blog – bionicmosquito.blogspot.com. There is Sean Gabb’s and now Keir Martland’s British Ludwig von Mises Centre – mises.uk.org. There is Jay Engel’s blog – austrolibertarian.com. There is Matthew Reece’s site – zerothposition.com – and Chase Rachels’ radicalcapitalist.org. There is Robert Taylor’s excellent and highly important book Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution (2016). And there is Stefan Molyneux with his show on freedomainradio.com and Tom Woods with his show on tomwoods.com.

[i] Murray Rothbard, “Big-Government Libertarians,” in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 100-115.

The Best of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat 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.

Advertisements
Posted in Libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How “History” Professors View the “Civil War”

He had some interesting commentary in his article that backed up what Donnie Kennedy and I said in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.  The title of his article was The Civil War Was a Victory for Marx and Working-Class Radicals.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAh yes, democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes it is helpful in understanding a concept by taking it to its end conclusion. With respect to democracy, it is impossible for a true-total democracy to survive for very long. That is because we would each own a pro-rata share of the other. And, before anyone could do anything, he/she would have to get permission from everyone else and so nobody could do anything. Obviously, humanity would soon become extinct under such conditions. — jtl, 419

by Al Benson Jr.Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America at revisedhistory

Combat Shooter's Handbook  Many who will read this are already aware of how our current crop of “historians”–so called, view the War of Norther Aggression. However, some who read it may not be all that aware, and so this is written for those unaware ones who still labor under the naive delusion that the War was fought over slavery and that communism did not rear its ugly head in America until at least the 1930s. Well, it did rear its ugly head in the 30s–but it was the 1830s, not the 1930s. By the 1930s communism was already well established here. It’s just that no one bothered to inform the American public.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteI spend considerable time on the internet scrounging around for information in those areas that concern me, and one of those areas is the record of communist and socialist infiltration in this country, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I recently ran across an article by Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of history at George Washington University. The article was written back in July of 2013 and, at that time, Professor Zimmerman was working on an international history of the American War of Northern Aggression. Of course he didn’t call it that.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewHe had some interesting commentary in his article that backed up what Donnie Kennedy and I said in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.  The title of his article was The Civil War Was a Victory for Marx and Working-Class Radicals. When I read that I 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)thought “I wonder what some of the students in high school and college history classes would think of Zimmerman’s viewpoint if it were presented to their classes in this manner.” of course, thanks to decades of government school indoctrination that might not bother all of them, but it might bother some–and that “some” might ask embarrassing questions of their “history” teachers. To counteract that possibility the War is usually presented to our students as a noble Northern crusade to eradicate slavery in that mean old, racist, South. The fact that four slave states remained in the Union is seldom touched upon.

Zimmerman couches it in this manner, quite revelatory in its own way.  He says: “For revolutionary socialists, the Civil War was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.” The communists are really high on “democracy.” It’s one of their favorite euphemisms, but they don’t mean the same thing by it you have been taught to believe it is.

Professor Roy Colby, in his book A Communese-English Dictionary notes the communist understanding of democracy as: “a collectivistic dictatorship; a totalitarian state.” It’s interesting that the Founding Fathers all had a very dim view of Democracy. They felt it eventually led to tyranny. So what Professor Zimmerman is telling us, whether he even realizes it or not, is that the Civil War was a victory for the totalitarian state against the concept of private property. You folks that have never thought of it in those terms need to start trying to wrap your minds around that concept.

And Zimmerman, again, back up what Donnie Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists when he says: “Marx also followed the progress of the Civil War closely because so many of his fellow exiled European revolutionaries fought in the ranks of the Union Army. Defeated and sent into American exile after a wave of European revolutions in 1848-49, many discovered the struggle against slavery a more hopeful strategy than they have previously pursued. Revolutionary socialist were thus one of the many groups that won the Civil War. For them it was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.

How many of you have ever seen the results of the War of Northern Aggression presented in this fashion? Not many I’ll wager. What Zimmerman is telling you here, if you can begin to grasp it, is that the result of the War of Northern Aggression was a victory for communism against the right of private property–and by private property I don’t just mean slaves. Anyone who has read about Sherman’s March through Georgia and South Carolina knows the utter contempt Sherman and his “bummers” had for private property–all private property. They expended lots of time and effort destroying as much as they could in their gentle ministrations to an almost prostrate Confederacy. And they were especially hard on Christian Churches. Does that tell you anything? It should!

So communism, in one form or another, has been alive and well in this country for longer than most people care to think about. Zimmerman is probably not even aware of Donnie’s and my book, but his commentary in this article backs up just about everything we said in it, only in a little less detail.

I don’t know Professor Zimmerman, but from the way he writes I would assume he is a graduate of the University of Political Correctness. And, in his honesty,  he admits to the same things Donnie and I have written about. Seems I have read a passage in Scripture about something being confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses.

 

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 Civil War, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

When Judged by the Content of His Character

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) This, for the sake of truth, should never be forgotten. You folks enjoy your holiday. — jtl, 419

by Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Introduction

In his famous “I have a dream” speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for a day when people would be “judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” That is exactly what I propose to do in this essay—to discover how the speaker himself measures up against his very own yardstick.

Justification: Why this essay?

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)  “There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives…The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr…constructed solely from one line in his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech” (1).

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)On the Friday before the 2008 Martin Luther King holiday, I received an e-mail message via the faculty net at the small “State supported” (the significance of that will become self-evident as I proceed) West Texas university where I taught. The message was from a friend with whom I have engaged in several amiable debates in the past. He said, in part: “On Monday the 21st, we celebrate the life and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His vision, peaceable message and ultimate sacrifice contributed heavily to the civil rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Americans today. Let us always remember the man and his lesson of humanity. He is truly one of my heroes.”

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute Having read enough to know the real truth about King, I was somewhat offended. I replied: “I am having a problem figuring out how a womanizing plagiarist with direct ties to the Communist party could be anybody’s hero. Personally, I plan to work Monday and take General Lee’s birthday as comp time.” (In truth, I always work both days and take no comp time for either of them.)

Combat Shooter's HandbookAt first, my message was blocked by “the State’s” censor. But finally, it was delivered with the words “On behalf of” on the “From” line: Wow! Did a rather entertaining, instructive and revealing “barrage of badgering” ensue!

As is perfectly predictable, the tired old label of “racist” was the most commonly occurring charge. There were expressions of incredulity as to how anyone who is “supposed to be educated” (in the government’s schools, I would add) could possibly and so vehemently attack such an “American icon.” They never quite made it to “bed wetter,” “animal abuser” or “child molester” but I had my doubts there for a while.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThus, the purpose for this essay is to address those charges and, hopefully, correct some of the wrong thinking and myths about King who is erroneously portrayed as someone who, if he were still alive today, would be “on our side” in fighting con men, shysters, shakedown artists and race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Materials and Methods

 A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualAny reader tempted to charge that I relied only on biased, “hater” or “right wing” sources, should consider:

Much of the information concerning King’s support for black power, reparations, affirmative action and socialism as well as his philandering and plagiarism can be found in I May Not Get There With You:  The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson(2).

Furthermore the idea that King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, and reparations is debunked in his very own books Where Do We Go from Here (3) and Why We Can’t Wait (4).

In addition, the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who King called “the best friend I have in the world,” substantiates much of King’s womanizing in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down(5)

Phony from the beginning

The man we know as Martin Luther King, Jr. was born with the name Michael King on Jan. 15, 1929 in Atlanta. In 1935 his father, a self ordained Baptist preacher, changed his own name to Martin Luther King presumptively assuming the mantle of the great Protestant reformer, Martin Luther. He announced to his congregation that henceforth he was to be called Martin Luther King and his son Martin Luther King, Jr. “Daddy” King never bothered to have this act legalized in court. Martin Luther King, Jr. lived and died as Michael King (6, 7).

Hypocrisy

King, the charismatic speaker, does not seem to be the committed Christian he professed to be. In fact, he said that the Bible was filled with “legends and myths” and denied that Christ was physically raised from the dead. As a seminary student King was not at all enthusiastic about Christianity. Carl Rowan wrote in Reader’s Digest (September 1967) that “the thinking of Gandhi and Thoreau was … burning inside King” (6).

Cloaked in Secrecy

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the American people to know all of the sordid details of Kings life at this time.

J. Edgar Hoover tried to make all the FBI files available to the President, Congress and all the major electronic and print media. But, on Jan. 31, 1977, Coretta Scott King obtained a federal court order sealing 845 pages of FBI records about her husband for 50 years, “because its release would destroy his reputation!” This federal judge sealed the files until the year 2027. The President and the media said nothing and the charade continues. (8) A cowardly, spineless Congress voted to make King’s birthday a national holiday. In 1983, Senator Jesse Helms appealed to the Supreme Court to release the files, so the bill to create the Martin Luther King Federal Holiday could be abolished. He was denied (7).

The FBI surveillance yielded scores of file cabinets full of damning material. According to one source, there are over 60,000 censored pages. A small amount of this material has been released under the Freedom of Information Act. However, most of it has been labeled “Obscene.” (Lest you think the surveillance was obtained by “conservatives” with designs on ruining King, know that the FBI wiretaps were approved by then Attorney General Robert Kennedy.) (6)

Plagiarism

The first public sermon that King ever gave at the EbenezerBaptistChurch (in 1947) was plagiarized from a Protestant clergyman named Harry Emerson Fosdick. The work was entitled “Life is What You Make It.” This is according to the testimony of Reverend Larry H. Williams, King’s best friend at the time (9).

Martin Luther King, Jr. never legitimately earned the title of “Dr.” because he plagiarized his way through BostonUniversity and Crozer Theological Seminary.

After graduation from college, King received a degree from the Seminary and then a Ph.D. from BostonUniversity. Forty years later it became widely known that King plagiarized much of his doctoral dissertation (6).

This documented and verifiable fact was revealed by those who were closest to him. David J. Garrow (a leftist academic who was sympathetic to King) said that King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in King’s repeated cheating (9).

No one less than the four senior editors of “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.” stated that his writings at both the university and the seminary, “when judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship” were “tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism” (10). Plagiarism is particularly apparent in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology…only 49 per cent of sentences in the section on Tillich (in his doctoral dissertation) contain five or more words that were King’s own….’”  (9).

In 1989 in the British Sunday Telegraph, Ralph Luker, associate editor of the King Papers Project noted that “M.L. King has plagiarized the thesis of Jack Boozer, a fellow Boston University theology student and later Professor of Religion at Emory University” (11).

King’s plagiarism was widely discussed in 1990 at the Southern Intellectual History Circle at Chapel Hill, N.C. This was chronicled by the Rutherford Institute and the National Endowment for the Humanities was informed of the Plagiarism. The Wall Street Journal carried front line stories of the plagiarism (11).

In 1991, a Boston University committee reported that “45% of the first half and 21% of the second half of King’s thesis was plagiarized. Boston University… concludes that the thesis was academically dishonest” (7, 8, 9, 11).

According to the New York Times, BostonUniversity officials eventually admitted, “There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation.”  Even so, they concluded that, “No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree, (because such action) would serve no purpose” (7, 8, 9, 11).

King never outgrew his obsession for stealing the intellectual work of others. According to documentation assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow, “The first book that King wrote, Stride Toward Freedom, was plagiarized from numerous unattributed sources (9). Furthermore, over his life, most of his papers, speeches, and “sermons” were copied word for word from Dr. Jack Boozer, Edgar S. Brightman, and Paul Tillich. As a matter of fact, he lifted whole sections of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech from a sermon by Archibald Carey, a popular black preacher in the 1950’s (7, 8, 9, 11).

Womanizing

King led a bizarre sex life which included acts of shocking perversion.

Soon after getting used to his new name, Martin Jr. realized he had a flair for dramatic oratory. And soon after that, he realized he had a flair for seducing women. A King biography notes the young man “would scout the schools… to find the best looking…girls.” King is quoted as saying “we wreck girls…we wreck up all the women” (6).

The FBI had King’s offices and hotel rooms under electronic surveillance from 1963 to 1968. (Lest one jump to the conclusion that this was some sort of “right wing conspiracy,” this surveillance was on the order of none other than Attorney General Bobby Kennedy). The primary intent of (and legal justification for) the tapes was to record King’s transactions with communist agents. By chance, it also recorded wild interracial sex orgies including acts of perversion (7).

The Jan 19, 1998 issue of Newsweek reports that  “FBI bugs picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and sounds of illicit sex”, all the while, Martin Luther King was shouting profanities and obscenities (11).

It was also found that King’s aids used tax exempt money donated to his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to hire White prostitutes to perform sexual acts with him. He often used two prostitutes at the same time.

On January 31, 1977 U.S. Federal Judge John Smith Jr. ordered these shocking tapes sealed for 50 years—i.e. all the sordid details will not be available to the public until the year 2027. Led by the late Rep. Larry McDonald, some 90 Congressmen pressured Congress to find out what was on these tapes before they approved the disgraceful King Holiday Bill. A cowardly and spineless Congress voted 338 to 90 approving the King Holiday.

Never-the-less, many of the shocking incidents recorded in the tapes have become known. For example, in Washington’s old WillardHotel, King forced White women to drink “black Russian” and perform sexual acts with him. In Las Vegas King’s aids paid $100 each to prostitutes to join him in orgies. In New York city King got drunk and threatened a young White girl working for civil rights to submit to his strange sexual tastes or he would jump from the 13th floor window. During King’s trip to Norway to accept the Nobel Prize, he was filmed and stopped by police while naked and chasing a woman down the hotel corridor. In Los   Angeles a dentist supporter of King was outraged when he discovered his wife engaged in weird sexual acts with the civil rights leader. King was forced to flee the city after the dentist threatened to kill him. This escapade was taped on February 20, 1968—only about 2 months before he was assassinated (6).

FBI tapes and the agents who monitored King are not the only sources of documentation for King’s sordid behavior. According to Congressman William Dickinson (R, Alabama), “Drunkenness and sex orgies” occurred during civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery. In a story in the Atlanta Journal, dated March 31, 1965, Dickinson is quoted as saying “all night sessions of debauchery” took place in a CHURCH! (6).

Furthermore, one of King’s closest friends, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, wrote a book in 1989 (And the Walls Came Tumbling Down) in which he talked about King’s obsession with prostitutes. One source quotes Abernathy as saying, “Martin Luther King had a sexual orgy with three white women, one of whom he brutally beat, the night before he was killed.” King would often use church donations to have drunken sex parties, where he would hire two to three white prostitutes, occasionally beating them brutally (11).

As mentioned above, the FBI uncovered King’s habit of using SCLC money to hire prostitutes to keep him entertained during the civil rights tours. According to witness who worked in local hospitals, many of these prostitutes would end up in the emergency room after being physically abused by King (8).

The American people do not have direct access to the surveillance files on King. But, according to Assistant FBI Director Sullivan, King embezzled or misapplied large sums of money contributed to the “civil rights” movement.  “He used SCLC funds to pay for liquor and numerous prostitutes, both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days” (12).

The last night Martin Luther King spent on earth was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis having sex with two prostitutes and physically beating a third. “Retired FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal and said that he was initially ‘One hundred percent for King…’ until he learned the truth during the investigation.” Sullivan said that, over 30 years with the FBI, “King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate” (8).

It should be kept in mind that King was married with four children while this was going on.

King was a Marxist with Communist Party Connections and Affiliations

The Augusta Courier reported (in 1957) that Martin Luther King attended the HighlanderFolkSchool, a communist training school in Monteagle, Tennessee. The school was founded by Myles Horton and Don West, both members of the Communist Party U.S.A. The agenda at many of these meetings was to plan tours of the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots. The school was abolished after being charged with being a subversive organization (8, 11).

Along with Stanley Levison and Bayard Rustin, King went on to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Levison , a lawyer, was identified as a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party, USA. Bayard Rustin was well known as a homosexual and a Communist (6).

This organization was staffed and funded by other Communist individuals and front groups. King accepted money from the organizations to fund his movements. In return, he appointed communist leaders to run certain districts of the organization (8).

The known Communist, Stanley Levison, was King’s “handler.” Levison had been in charge of secret funneling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA for years. He was King’s mentor and the real brains behind many of King’s shenanigans. He edited King’s book, Stride Toward Freedom and arranged for a publisher. He even prepared King’s income tax returns. It was Levison who wrote many of King’s speeches and King called him one of his “closest friends.” It was he who was actually in control of the fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC (12, 13).

The SCLC had no Christian underpinnings. It existed purely as a political front and King was the front’s front man. After a long probe, the Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities for the State of Louisiana determined that both the SCLC and Dr. King were “substantially under the control of the Communist Party” (6).

According to a U.S. Government Memorandum from W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont dated August 30, 1963: “We must mark him now…. as the most dangerous Negro in the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security” (12).

From the October 3rd 1983 Congressional Record: “The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation…., or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power” (12).

According to David J. Garrow, a sympathetic King biographer, “King privately described himself as a Marxist.”  In The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., (1981) Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, “…we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution…. The whole structure of American life must be changed…. We are engaged in the class struggle’” (12).

The Communist influence in the civil rights movement was noted by FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover who said “The Communist Party strives to exploit what are often legitimate…complaints and grievances for the advancement of Communist objectives”….Martin Luther King Jr. was a dupe who was used to advance an agenda and, having been elevated to martyrdom, is STILL being used after his death (6, 11).

King’s economic leanings were blatantly Marxist. Lew Rockwell addresses these in The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr. by quoting directly from King himself (14). Rockwell leaves no doubt as to King’s Marxist views on economic matters.

Slavery is, by definition, forcing someone to work for less than he would otherwise voluntarily accept on the market. The welfare state requires taxation. (The government does not have anything to give to anyone that it hasn’t previously taken from someone else—at the point of a gun.) Taxation is, by definition, slavery. Thus, the welfare state is a slave state.

Marxism is an ideology that is, by necessity, based on violence. In fact, it is probably the most violent of all the political ideologies devised by man. Worldwide it has been responsible for the death of more people than all the other tyrannies of history combine—including those of Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot.

As stated above, King was (and continues to be) a dupe for the Marxists, fitting very well the definition of what Engles called a “useful idiot.” (15)

Non-violent policy of violence: Another example of King’s Hypocrisy

King publicly advocated peace and non-violence. But privately, he encouraged violent acts—i.e. he incited violence while preaching nonviolence (7). He was a master of the art of “double-talk” and, wherever he went, violence erupted. He incited riots in Birmingham, Montgomery, St. Augustine, Cleveland, Chicago, Albany and many others.

He actually explained the strategy himself in an article in the Saturday Review (April 3, 1965) where he set forth the four steps of his technique:

  1. Non-violent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights.
  2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them.
  3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation.
  4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation (16).

The next several paragraphs are examples of his double-talk technique.

On July 28, 1967 King said: “I can’t recommend burning down Cleveland. We end up getting killed more than anyone else and our businesses get burned.” Notice how he does not condemn violence. His only justification for constraint is that “they might get killed!”

In Birmingham, May 4, 1963, King stated: “I have a deep commitment to nonviolence. It took police and fire hoses to quell rioting blacks.”

King wrote: “The purpose of our direct action programs (is) to create a crisis packed situation. We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.”

In August of that year he said: “Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage.”

Riots broke out in Chicago when King marched his mobs into an all White neighborhood. He explained that this brought out the hatred in Whites for the world to see. That night he spoke before the West Side Club under a sign which read: Burn Baby Burn – Boycott Baby Boycott.” That night roving bands of blacks broke windows, looted stores and stoned police cars.

According to the FBI, many of Kings “nonviolent” marches were in reality “carefully crafted public image appearances that were usually accompanied by the violent demonstrations of his followers” (8)

The Legacy

After years of racial tensions, the flames of which were enthusiastically fanned by the media, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. After that came the “War on Poverty.” The ruinous results are easily seen today. The country is heavily in debt as a result of all sorts of welfare programs.

As every day passes, more and more people (Blacks and Whites) believe that the state is obligated to provide for their every need. The more dependent people are on the nanny state, the more control government has over them. No Black leader has the fortitude to point out “the plight of the Negro” is worse than ever (6).

The Welfare State has made slaves of us all—Black and White. To reiterate a statement made above—the government does not have anything to give to anybody that it has not already taken from someone else. Affirmative action is racist. Lew Rockwell put it mildly when he said, “Race-based public policies create social conflict” (14).

All such policies are, by necessity, implemented through force, violence (and/or the threat thereof). Allegedly in this case, “force” is applied to achieve “racial harmony.” Examine that sentence logically. How is it possible for “force” to achieve any kind of “harmony?” The two concepts are polar opposites.

The fact of the matter is that the initiation of force by one group against another creates disharmony. That explains why racial hatred is more deeply embedded in society today than it was when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. The open racial tension that existed during the 1960s is dwarfed by the level of racial tension that seethes beneath the surface today. And, of course, at least part of that must be attributed to the content of Martin Luther King, Jr’s. character and his legacy.

As this is being written, there are those who would like to solicit the awesome force of government to silence me. Indeed, the government is powerful enough to shut me up. It can lock me away in one of its Gulags (like Guantanamo). It can even murder me with impunity–a crime that it commits daily and on a massive scale (and calls it “war”). Neither of those would change the truth. But, knowing that does little to increase “harmony” or reduce “tension.”

In sum, King’s legacy is one of racism and violence.

Conclusion

No matter what nits you may want to pick (for example, one reviewer insists that Abernathy did not mention King’s obsession with “White” prostitutes), the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. Carmeron L. Horne sums it up very well: When judged by the content of his character, Michael King was a “thoroughly despicable hypocrite, a violent and immoral degenerate,
a worthless charlatan, and a Marxist” (8).

Those who would level the charge of “racism” should note that the preceding description made no reference to race. That is because it was not King’s race that made him these things. It was the content of his character as manifest through his behavior.

Recommended Solution

Somewhere during the course of the “barrage of badgering” an individual protested that “The very police state you oppose had dogged MLK. I suspect much of the negative press about the man may have been the result of this government effort.”

It is highly likely that the author of this statement does not realize that it holds the key to the resolution of the entire mess.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and men like him play a useful role in the continuation and aggrandizement of the State—i.e. they are useful to the state.

Government and liberty are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is a zero sum game: More government = Less Liberty. In a truly free world (a stateless society) there would be no such thing as a Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. That is because men like Martin Luther King would not exist. That, in turn, is because they would be of no use or value to anyone.

Footnotes

1. Epstein, Marcus. Myths of Martin Luther King. LewRockwell.com.

2. Dyson, Michael Eric. I May Not Get There With You:  The True Martin Luther King

3. King, Martin Luther, Jr. Where Do We Go from Here

4. King, Martin Luther, Jr. Why We Can’t Wait

5. Abernathy, Rev. Ralph. 1989. And the Walls Came Tumbling Down, a biography of Martin Luther King.

6. Starrett, Mary. How a Marxist Came to be an American Hero. NewsWithViews.com Jan 16, 2004 Quoted within that article: King, A Critical Biography by David Lewis; Martin Luther King, The Man Behind The Myth, by Des Griffin and the National Observer, 1963.

7. Steele, Edgar J. The Perfect American Holiday.

8. Horne, Cadrmeron L. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ROBERT E. LEE or Happy Birthday, Martin Luther King, Jr.?

9. Hoffman, Michael. 1992. Holiday for a Cheater. Wiswell Ruffin House, Dresden, New York.

10. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. Official publication of the M.L. King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc.

11. Montgomery, Victor M. Letter to the Editor. Greenville, NC newspaper of record.

12. Strom, Kevin Alfred. The Beast As Saint: The Truth About Martin Luther King.

13. Morse, Chuck. Was the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. a Communist? (Link no longer active at the time of this writing.) http://www.chuckmorse.com/was_mlk_a_communist.html

14. Rockwell, Lew. The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr. All King quotes are from A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by J.M. Washington [San   Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986], in particular his “A Time for Hope” (1968), “Where Do We Go From Here?” (1967), and Playboy interview (1968).

15. Thinking about King’s connections to the Communist party is particularly painful for me as it elicits many unpleasant memories. During these same years, I and about 40% of the other military aged males of my generation were killing and being killed by communists in South East Asia. Most of us thought (mainly as the result of the State’s propaganda) that we were “doing the right thing”—that they were “a threat to our way of life.” In the meantime, King et al (especially the New Totalitarian “boomer elite” that occupied the university campuses during those years) were orchestrating a Marxist revolution right here at home. And said revolution was a success. Marxists and fellow travelers (democratic socialists) are currently in firm control of all of our major social institutions.

16. Stang, Alan. 2004. Martin Luther King, Jr.—Communist Fraud.

17. This essay addresses only half of the equation. In a subsequent paper I will use the same yardstick (the content of his character) to judge one of the greatest, and most honorable, Americans to have ever lived—General Robert Edward Lee.

Supplemental Reading

Obviously, the issue addressed in this essay has its roots in what the victor (who always writes the history books) erroneously calls the “civil war.” It was not a civil war. By definition, a civil war is a war between two opposing factions for control of one central government. This war was fought between two sovereign states. To its victims (those of us who continue, to this day, to suffer the oppression of the occupation) the most descriptive name would be “The War for Southern Independence.” Personally, I prefer “The War of Yankee Aggression.”

The occupier’s fairy tails (aka history text books) insist that this terrible and totally unnecessary mass murder was all about slavery. It was not. The primary motivation for the Yankee aggression was the enrichment of northern industrialists being taken out of the hides of Southern agriculturalists. It was also about the lust of history’s most heinous serial killer (aka “Honest” Abe) for continental empire.

The following books set the record straight by meticulously documenting the truth with impeccable scholarship.

Adams, Charles. 2000. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Rowman & Littlefield.

Gutzman, Kevin R.C. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Constitution. 2007. Regnery.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. 2002. Forum.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2006. Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. Forum.

Kennedy, James R. and Walter D. 1994. The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Company. Gretna, LA.

Woods, Thomas E. 2004. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History.  Regnery.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume. Click here to buy the paperback version from the FlyoverPress aStore.

Digital media products such as Kindle can only be purchased on Amazon.com. Click Here to buy the Kendall Version on Amazon.com

 

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 Political Correctness, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Desire For Total Control

Is taking over the Communications Commission what the Marxists are doing by forcing local radio and television stations to be controlled by the “already fake news” outlets?

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsDid you ever wonder? How can any country claim to have freedom of speech when it has a Federal Communications Commission?

There are two things that we ABSOLUTELY MUST do: 1) Openly recognize and admit that we live in a communist country and 2) stop being polite to the enemy. — jtl, 419

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The latest commentary by our two political commentators as they take a long view on history. Al Benson Jr. via The Copper Head Chronicle

The Desire For Total Control

by Schwartz & Viscount

Combat Shooter's HandbookIt goes way, way back. Check out the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Man wanted to reach to Heaven by his own efforts, to be God, as it were. If you read the Genesis account you see that he didn’t quite make it. However, that has not stopped his efforts in that direction for centuries and they continue to this day.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThe Caesars controlled the Roman Empire, which was all of southern Europe, the eastern Mediterranean area, and much of North Africa; the known world at that time. Caesar (depending on which one) was a benevolent dictator. You could have whatever religious beliefs you wanted to–as long as you recognized Caesar as Lord. The Christians wouldn’t, couldn’t, do that, hence Caesar would not have total control–and that was where their problems began. For them, Jesus the Christ was Lord, not Caesar. When Caesar tried to force the issue, and a lot of Christians died, it was the beginning of the end for Rome.

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)For us in this country, it goes back to the British Empire. King Henry started the Church of England, a.k.a. the Anglican, or, in this country, the Episcopal Church. Henry wanted everyone to worship the way he thought was right, although there was more to it than that. This resulted in the Pilgrims, separatists by belief, leaving England and coming to America so they would not be under the king’s control in their worship.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualAnd, as time passed, the children of the Pilgrims and Puritans had major problems with King George over taxes on tea and other things, and finally, at Lexington and Concord, King George discovered that he did not have the total control he craved. The “Divine Right of Kings” was, in the final analysis, only their desire to control all in their realms. In the end, it did not work out. Not that some of what replaced them has been much better in many instances!

But the quest for control continued on (as it still does in our day)! Our ULN-civil war was really not about freeing the slaves; it was, in the end, about controlling the whole country. Lincoln didn’t want a country “half slave and half free”–he wanted it, politically, ALL slave. And he accomplished this–more than 80 years after our Declaration of Independence and the victory over King George. One way he sought to control it was with a heavy tariff, beneficial only to the North, which the South ended up paying most of. But that is another story.

Fact is, Lincoln sought (to commend and promote Union troops) many openly socialistic men as officers; men who had failed in their 1848 efforts to coerce the German populace and others into swallowing their Marxist/socialist ideas in Europe. Having failed in Europe they naturally matriculated to the US, where they could then force their brand of total control on an unsuspecting American populace–starting in the South.

You have to ask the question; did some of these guys induce some of the atrocities committed by Sherman and Sheridan  in their wanton destruction of many of the wonderful homes/plantations in the South, along with all the other property they destroyed. One author called Sherman’s men in South Carolina “A legion of devils.” An apt description! But these were the same tactics used by Hitler and Stalin.

Friends, that is Communism (Marxism)–control by force and destruction. In your minds it may seem far fetched or absurd, but think about this: Is taking over the Communications Commission what the Marxists are doing by forcing local radio and television stations to be controlled by the “already fake news” outlets? Is this one more way to control what is supposed to be an entity for the expression of our free speech (First Amendment Rights)? The FCC has out-stepped its bounds by allowing this to happen.

In fact, you might ask the question–“Who owns the airwaves–the FCC or God?” If the answer is God, then possibly the FCC should think about shutting its doors and sending its people home.We don’t expect that to happen, though, because for the bureaucrats the agenda is always control. Little by little, so no one notices, their intention is always control!

 

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat 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 History, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Copy Lincoln

The failure to respect Ullah’s rights because he has said he was inspired by a foreign power would commence a slippery and horrific slope, down which any person who is hated or feared or appears foreign or different or misunderstood at any given moment might be pushed.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsFor anything to be a human “right” it must be universal–applicable to all men in all places and at all times. And, contrary to the propaganda camp version, the constitution does NOT “give” anybody their rights. God does that. But supposedly, the constitution guarantees those rights.  I say “supposedly” because those guarantees have, over time, become virtually meaningless.

It’s time boys! jtl, 419

Here We Go Again  By via LewRockwell.com

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteFor the second time in two months, someone who has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State has plotted to kill innocents in New York City and has executed his plot.

According to police, at the height of the Monday morning rush hour this week, in an underground pedestrian walkway that I have used many times, in the middle of Manhattan, a permanent legal resident of the United States named Akayed Ullah detonated a bomb he had strapped to his torso in an effort to kill fellow commuters and disrupt massively life in New York.

Combat Shooter's HandbookThe bomb was inartfully constructed, and it injured slightly four people nearby and Ullah himself seriously. He survived, was captured on the spot and is now in the joint custody of the New York Police Department and the FBI in the prison ward of Bellevue Hospital.

Ullah’s wounds had barely been addressed by emergency room physicians when the calls began to resonate in the government and in the media to strip him of his constitutional rights and ship him to a military facility in South Carolina or at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThese voices argued without access to any evidence that because the Islamic State is a foreign power with an army that has sworn to do harm to Americans and destroy our way of life, its soldiers have no constitutional protections when they go about their destruction. Ullah is a soldier of this foreign army, this argument goes, and should be treated as a soldier under the Geneva Conventions. That means he should be removed from the civilian judicial system and interrogated and tried by the military.

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)This argument essentially suggests that the police in New York or the FBI or the president somehow possesses the lawful authority from some unstated source, before guilt has been adjudicated, to suspend Ullah’s fundamental rights. This view of human liberty treats personal rights — even those guaranteed by the Constitution — as if they were gifts from the government offered in return for good behavior. Yet it defies history and the plain meaning of the Constitution.

Ullah’s rights to legal counsel and to a jury trial are expressly guaranteed by the Constitution; hence, no government official, no matter how powerful or well-intended, can interfere with them. The right to counsel attaches whenever anyone is confined against his will, charged with a crime or interrogated by authorities — whichever occurs first. The right to a jury trial attaches whenever the government wants the life, liberty or property of any person. The constitutional language guarantees these rights to every “person” — not citizens, not Americans and not just good people.

In Ullah’s case, the harm authorities say he caused occurred in the U.S. — while he was physically and lawfully in the U.S., where he was apprehended — so it is extremely unlikely that the crowd that denies the supremacy of the Constitution will get its way.

The failure to respect Ullah’s rights because he has said he was inspired by a foreign power would commence a slippery and horrific slope, down which any person who is hated or feared or appears foreign or different or misunderstood at any given moment might be pushed.

As a practical matter, the NYPD and the FBI are far better at gathering evidence than the military, and federal prosecutors are far better at getting convictions than are their military counterparts. It is a Hollywood-infused myth that Guantanamo Bay produces results. It does not. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been waiting in Gitmo for 15 years for his military trial.

When voices in the government clamor for the removal of fundamental liberties, it is often to mask the government’s own failures. I have argued for many years that government surveillance will turn us into East Germany — a modern-day totalitarian society that collapsed in 1989. I have also argued that surveillance doesn’t work. The place in which the Monday explosion occurred is one of the most video-surveilled in New York. Do the police watch these videos in real time as was promised when the cameras were installed? They do not.

As well, Ullah’s mobile phone recorded his whereabouts and communications prior to the explosion, also in real time, and the National Security Agency had all this, in real time. Did the NSA share it with the NYPD? It did not.

Some in government have asked what good the Constitution is if it fails to keep us safe. That is a bit silly, isn’t it? The Constitution is a piece of paper on which is written the supreme law of the land. Its purpose was to establish the federal government and to limit all government. But it is only as valuable to personal freedom as is the fidelity to it of those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping. If the people we have hired to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution can cut corners to get to bad people, what will protect us when they want to cut corners to get to the rest of us?

When President Abraham Lincoln cut constitutional corners during the Civil War, he was unanimously rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The case, Ex parte Milligan, involved a civilian whom the government sought to try in a military court. The high court wrote: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

This danger of the mob’s approving the curtailment of constitutional protections for unpopular monsters is as real today as it was after the Civil War. We must vigorously guard against it.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

 

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 Constitutional Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Moral Values and Customs

Unfortunately, customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price — and that includes the recent revelations regarding the treatment of women.

Well…it depends on what your definition of “is” “is.” Sigh… jtl, 419

By Walter E. Williams

I’m approaching my 82nd birthday, and my daughter will occasionally suggest that modernity is perplexing to me because I’m from prehistoric times. As such, it points to one of the unavoidable problems of youth — namely, the temptation to think that today’s behavioral standards have always been. Let’s look at a few of the differences between yesteryear and today.

One of those differences is the treatment of women. There are awesome physical strength differences between men and women. To create and maintain civil relationships between the sexes is to drum into boys, starting from very young ages, that they are not to use violence against a woman for any reason. Special respect is given women. Yesteryear even the lowest of lowdown men would not curse or use foul language to or in the presence of women. To see a man sitting on a crowded bus or trolley car while a woman is standing used to be unthinkable. It was deemed common decency for a man to give up his seat for a woman or elderly person.

Today young people use foul language in front of — and often to — adults and teachers. It’s not just foul language. Many youngsters feel that it’s acceptable to assault teachers. Just recently, 45 Pennsylvania teachers resigned because of student violence (http://tinyurl.com/yacmn5dz). Back in what my daughter calls prehistoric times, the use of foul language to an adult or teacher would have meant a smack across the face. Of course, today a parent taking such corrective action risks being reported to a local child protective service and even being arrested. The modern parental or teacher response to misbehavior is to call for “time out.” In other words, what we’ve taught miscreants of all ages is that they can impose physical pain on others and not suffer physical pain themselves. That’s an open invitation to bad behavior.

It has always been considered a good idea to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage or at least adulthood. During the sexual revolution of the 1960s, lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passe and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills and abortion. Out-of-wedlock childbirths are no longer seen as shameful and a disgrace. As a result, the rate of illegitimate births among whites is over 30 percent, and among blacks, it’s over 70 percent.

For over a half-century, the nation’s liberals — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many in today’s generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral, right or wrong, is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or what is or is not criminal.

Society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. Customs, traditions and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots, such as thou shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and shalt not cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers and others in authority, plus those courtesies one might read in Emily Post’s rules of etiquette. These behavioral norms — mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t.

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching. There are not enough cops. Laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct in producing a civilized society. At best, the police and the criminal justice system are the last desperate lines of defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, customs, traditions and moral values have been discarded without an appreciation for the role they played in creating a civilized society, and now we’re paying the price — and that includes the recent revelations regarding the treatment of women.

The Best of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

Copyright © 2017 Creators.com

Previous article by Walter E. Williams: Independence for Catalonia, Bavaria, Veneto

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) 

 

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Combat Shooter's HandbookCombat 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 Culture War, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

America, Mind Your Own Business

 Both these conflicts reveal underlying realities that help explain America’s 21st-century long retreat. We face allies and antagonists who are more willing than are we to take risks, endure pain, persevere and fight to prevail.

I hope he is right! Are Southerners (and Flyover Country folks) more willing than Yankees (and Urban Marxists) to take risks, endure pain, preserve and fight to prevail? I think so. Think secession! – jtl, 419

By via LewRockwell.com

“We will never accept Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea,” declaimed Rex Tillerson last week in Vienna.

“Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns full control of the peninsula to Ukraine.”

Tillerson’s principled rejection of the seizure of land by military force — “never accept” — came just one day after President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and pledged to move our embassy there.

How did Israel gain title to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights? Invasion, occupation, colonization, annexation.

Those lands are the spoils of victory from Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War.

Is Israel being severely sanctioned like Russia? Not quite.

Her yearly U.S. stipend is almost $4 billion, as she builds settlement after settlement on occupied land despite America’s feeble protests.

What Bibi Netanyahu just demonstrated is that, when dealing with the Americans and defending what is vital to Israel, perseverance pays off. Given time, the Americans will accept the new reality.

Like Bibi, Vladimir Putin is a nationalist. For him, the recapture of Crimea was the achievement of his presidency. For two centuries that peninsula had been home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and critical to her security.

Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, and, eventually, we will accept this new reality as well.

For while whose flag flies over Crimea has never been crucial to us, it is to Putin. And like Israelis, Russians are resolute when it comes to taking and holding what they see as rightly theirs.

Both these conflicts reveal underlying realities that help explain America’s 21st-century long retreat. We face allies and antagonists who are more willing than are we to take risks, endure pain, persevere and fight to prevail.

This month, just days after North Korea tested a new ICBM, national security adviser H. R. McMaster declared that Trump “is committed to the total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

If so, we are committed to a goal we almost surely are not going to achieve. For, short of a war that could go nuclear, Kim Jong Un is not going to yield to our demands.

For Kim, nuclear weapons are not an option.

He knows that Saddam Hussein, who had given up his WMD, was hanged after the Americans attacked. He knows the grisly fate of Moammar Gadhafi, after he invited the West into Libya to dismantle his nuclear program and disarm him of any WMD.

Kim knows that if he surrenders his nuclear weapons, he has nothing to deter the Americans should they choose to use their arsenal on his armed forces, his regime, and him.

North Korea may enter talks, but Kim will never surrender the missiles and nukes that guarantee his survival. Look for the Americans to find a way to accommodate him.

Consider, too, China’s proclaimed ownership of the South China Sea and her building on reefs and rocks in that sea, of artificial islands that are becoming air, missile and naval bases.

Hawkish voices are being raised that this is intolerable and U.S. air and naval power must be used if necessary to force a rollback of China’s annexation and militarization of the South China Sea.
Why is this not going to happen?

While this area is regarded as vital to China, it is not to us. And while China, a littoral state that controls Hainan Island in that sea, is a legitimate claimant to many of its islets, we are claimants to none.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan are the other claimants. But though their interests in the fishing grounds and seabed resources may be as great as China’s, none has seen fit to challenge Beijing’s hegemony.

Why should we risk war with China to validate the claims of Communist Vietnam or Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless regime in Manila? Why should their fight become our fight?

China’s interests in the sea are as crucial to her as were U.S. interests in the Caribbean when, a rising power in 1823, we declared the Monroe Doctrine. Over time, the world’s powers came to recognize and respect U.S. special interests in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

Given the steady rise of Chinese military power, the proximity of the islets to mainland China, the relative weakness and reluctance to confront of the other claimants, China will likely become the controlling power in the South China Sea, as we came to be the predominant power in the Western Hemisphere.

What we are witnessing in Crimea, across the Middle East, in the South China Sea, on the Korean peninsula, are nations more willing than we to sacrifice and take risks, because their interests there are far greater than ours.

What America needs is a new national consensus on what is vital to us and what is not, what we are willing to fight to defend and what we are not.

For this generation of Americans is not going to risk war, indefinitely, to sustain some Beltway elite’s idea of a “rules-based new world order.” After the Cold War, we entered a new world — and we need new red lines to replace the old.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

 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 Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What’s really behind the ‘War on Drugs’

The war on drugs is sham and a scam and federal agents, federal agencies are corrupted by it, as are states and municipalities and their LEOs. Meanwhile, U.S. prisons and cemeteries are overflowing with the victims.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsYep, the War on Drugs will never be “won” because it was not designed to be “won” — there is just too much pork in that there barrel. — jtl, 419

by Bob Livingston via The Bob Livingston Letter

There is perhaps no issue that misleads, confuses and bedevils concerned citizens of all political stripes than the so-called “War on Drugs.” The Republi-crat government oligarchy is well aware of this fact, and so it uses a trumped-up, false war on drugs to deceive the masses, to deceive and to wear out taxpayers, to paramilitarize and enlarge law enforcement and government, and to promote the two-party/left-right/conservative-liberal false paradigm.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The war on drugs is not a war by public officials against criminals at all, but a war for drugs. It is the way public officials profit from criminality, expand their kingdoms and overrule the rule of law and the Constitution. In my unending research into this conspiracy, I have learned that this kind of tyrannical control is possible only by mass deception. It is a total control over governmental and political processes to the detriment of the people in every category of the nation’s and local interests. It is raw power exercised by today’s single-party-dressed-as-two.

Combat Shooter's HandbookFalse, universal religion is the chief means of this mass deception, followed by the protection of particular elements to induce confusion, including drugs and the “war on drugs,” a controlled mass media to spread government propaganda, and politics-as-usual non-solutions.

Government strategy is to invade our privacy and freedom under the pretext of protecting us from terrorism, drug traffickers and all kinds of booger bears. Politicians-as-usual all protect and enlarge the government’s drug trade while pretending to do precisely the opposite. Such “opposite behavior” is the proof of a conspiracy against Americans.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewRepublican politicians, for example, profess pro-Christian, anti-big government ideals but join the Democrats in faith-destroying, socialist legislation to expand the welfare state. The “war on drugs” helps justify it. Democrats, for example, claim to protect the working man while joining Republicans and multinational mega-corporations to pass “free trade” legislation, thus destroying the middle class, farming families and the American industrial and agricultural sectors.

The war on drugs is used as justification for the passage of a host of liberty-stealing laws. A few among the many are these:

  • The federal government removed from circulation all bills above $100 and is moving stealthily toward eliminating cash altogether. In truth, this is not about fighting drug trafficking, but is about driving Americans into an economy in which all financial transactions are electronic transactions for tracking and taxing purposes.
  • Banks are required by law to file Suspicious Activity Reports on customers who engage in any “suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.” What does this mean? The law compels banks to report any transactions that have no “apparent lawful purpose or are not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage.” This, of course, is an entirely subjective judgment, and banks are apt to err on the side of caution (which means that they can be expected to report anything and everything that seems the slightest bit out of the ordinary).
  • Banks are required by law to provide the federal government with “Currency Transaction Report” (CTR) forms on customers who engage in transactions involving $10,000 or more. And those suspect individuals who have several such reports filed on them may be audited by the IRS or investigated for dealing drugs.
  • Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill that would put a ban on adding hidden compartments to vehicles in order to secure private property like guns, money or other valuables. And the law would empower LEOs to seize any vehicle so outfitted. The law also includes a two-year mandatory prison sentence and five years for subsequent offenses.
  • In Oklahoma it is against the law to fortify a home “for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer.” According to the statute, it is illegal to “construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed … to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt.”

The war on drugs has resulted in a rising militancy and militarized gestapo-like mindset among LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) from the local, small town street cop to the FBI to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

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)  Attorney General Jeff Session is a big fan of asset forfeiture, the process by which LEOs confiscate people’s money and property for their own personal use. Innocent civilians whose only crime is having in their possession more money that the LEOs think is warranted at the time, lose their cash, their cars and even their houses without ever being convicted — or even charged — with a crime; all under the auspices of the war on drugs.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualThe drug war corrupts the justice system. In 2013, workers at the Massachusetts crime lab were caught conspiring with prosecutors in that state by tampering with samples and intentionally forging signatures. As many as 40,000 cases may have had their evidence tainted. Chemist Annie Dookhan pleaded guilty to all 27 counts of altering drug evidence and obstructing justice that prosecutors had filed against her, was a crime lab chemist for nine years. Her tampered evidence has put thousands of innocent people behind bars, and thousands more have had their sentences lengthened based on her fake “evidence.”

Following Dookhan’s guilty plea, a second Massachusetts crime lab “chemist” was been fired after investigators determined she had fabricated her educational credentials. Kate Corbett worked alongside Dookhan and testified as a “chemistry expert” in dozens of court cases that led to convictions — even though her degree is in sociology. Defense attorneys argue that as many 180,000 Massachusetts drug cases may be tainted by the two women’s actions.

The federal government has been known to pick winners and losers in the Mexico’s drug war by allowing some cartels free reign to commit murder within the United States and transport multi-ton quantities of drugs across the U.S. border with impunity. These revelations come from emails hacked from the security firm Stratfor and released by WikiLeaks and from Federal court filings.

In the emails, a Mexican diplomat dubbed MX1 wrote that both Mexican and American authorities have been negotiating deals with the larger cartels, tolerating their cross-border trafficking and encouraging them to take out the smaller cartels in the belief that fewer cartels would be able to negotiate their differences peaceably. “They want the CARTELS to negotiate with EACH Other. The idea is that if they can do this, violence will drop and the governments will allow controlled drug trades,” the email stated.

Another leaked email from a federal law enforcement supervisor stated: “Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.”

In Federal court filings, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla (said to be the “logistics coordinator” for Sinaloa, a major Mexican cartel) claimed the U.S. government had offered his organization virtual immunity to import tons of drugs across the border. He also claimed that in exchange for information on rival cartels, the Sinaloa cartel was armed by federal agents and aided in avoiding Mexican authorities.

The “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal under President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder also armed drug cartels, and those weapons have been used in numerous crimes including the murder of American border agents and the robbery and murder of American citizens in the U.S.

The U.S. military, since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, has stood watch over Afghani poppy fields and turned a blind eye — when it wasn’t directly facilitating them — to the operations of Afghan drug traffickers. Afghanistan provides 90 percent of the world’s supply of opium poppy, making the U.S. government a co-conspirator in the rising U.S. opium epidemic along with the prescribing physicians and the legal U.S. drug cartel known as Big Pharma.

The CIA has a long history of trafficking in drugs to fund its operations.

The result of the war on drugs is that the U.S. has six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as does Australia, Canada, France Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population, 25 percent of its incarcerated people and half of the world’s academically qualified lawyers. Those lawyers consume about 10 percent of America’s gross domestic product.

There are about 2.3 million people populating America’s 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers and prisons in the U.S. territories. In the U.S., people go to jail about 11 million times each year. Another 7 million are on parole or probation.

There is no question that America is a prison nation, and the overwhelming majority of people in prisons are there for non-violent crimes — about 20 percent of them for drug crimes. One in three Americans will be arrested by the age of 23.

The faux war on drugs has ensnared millions of Americans for the non-crime of possessing parts of a plant.

The war on drugs is sham and a scam and federal agents, federal agencies are corrupted by it, as are states and municipalities and their LEOs. Meanwhile, U.S. prisons and cemeteries are overflowing with the victims.

The constant success of government criminality in this regard is so staggering that one can only conclude that the DOJ and its controllers in Congress and the White House are satanic. The United States of the Constitution is dead; “Long live the United States!,” cry the deceived masses and their rulers.

Dropping all pretense, the truth is that the government is at war with you. The criminal element is the excuse. Besides, the government and the criminal element are one. Otherwise, why would they protect criminals?

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll 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 The War on Drugs, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Mueller Probe, Political Bias, And Deep State Sabotage

News and commentary that will shatter your illusion of knowledge. NewsWithViews.com is updated daily with columns by writers such as Devvy Kidd, Kelleigh Nelson…

Source: Mueller Probe, Political Bias, And Deep State Sabotage

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsDecember 7, 1941 was the day the Marxist Franklin Deleno Roosevelt murdered some 2,300 Americans. — jtl, 419

Written by  James Perloff at The New American

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Combat Shooter's HandbookAlthough FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewBut privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”

Background to Betrayal

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) Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war’s end.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualDuring World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed “Magic.”

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war … coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.”

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of December.”

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack” on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This means war.”

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section, discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

*Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.” In our view, a government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship. Nonetheless, Stinnett’s position on FDR’s motives makes his exposé of FDR’s actions all the more compelling.

This article, slightly revised, originally appeared under the title “Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction” in the June 4, 2001 issue of The New American.

Photo at top: AP Images

Related articles:

Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

 

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 History, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment