Mass shootings will never negate the need for gun rights

The inborn right to self defense and the ability of the people to maintain individual liberties in the face of tyranny supersedes all other arguments on gun rights. In fact, nothing else matters.

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)I suspect that you guys are as tried as I am of hearing the same old wore out arguments over and over again. It seems that there is some sort of “fear” out there of recognizing the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment.  This article is as close to it as I have yet to see but it still doesn’t come right out and say it:

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and very little to do with  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) a 250 pound intruder crawling into your window at 3 AM with rape on his mind. The original intent was (and to lots of us still is) to protect ourselves against tyrannical rulers–you know, the kind of people who run the uS government.  — jtl, 419

 

via Personal Liberty

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)Though the media often attempts to twist the gun rights debate into a web of complexity, gun rights is in fact a rather simple issue — either you believe that people have an inherent right to self defense, or you don’t. All other arguments are a peripheral distraction.

Firearms are a powerful epoch changing development. Not because they Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfitsnecessarily make killing “easier;” killing was always easy for certain groups of people throughout history, including governments and organized thugs. Instead, guns changed the world because for the first time in thousands of years the common man or woman could realistically stop a more powerful and more skilled attacker. Firearms are a miraculous equalizer in a world otherwise dominated and enslaved by everyday psychopaths.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View The Founding Fathers understood this dynamic very well. Despite arguments from the extreme left falsely insinuating that the founders are essentially barbarians from a defunct era that were too stupid to understand future developments and technology, the fact is that they always knew the core philosophical justification for an armed citizenry was always the most important matter at hand. Today’s debates try to muddle meaningful discourse by swamping the public in the minutia of background checks, etc. But the following quotes from the early days of the Republic outline what we should all really be talking about:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

The inborn right to self defense and the ability of the people to maintain individual liberties in the face of tyranny supersedes all other arguments on gun rights. In fact, nothing else matters. This key point is so unassailable that anti-gun lobbyists have in most cases given up trying to defeat it. Instead of trying to confiscate firearms outright (which is their ultimate goal), they attempt to chip away at gun rights a piece at a time through endless flurries of legislation. This legislation is usually implemented in the wake of a tragedy involving firearms, for gun grabbers never let a good crisis go to waste. Exploiting the deaths of innocent people to further an ideological agenda is a common strategy for them.

This leads us to the recent mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. The narrative being constructed around this event is the same as usual — that stronger “gun control and background checks” are needed to prevent such things from ever happening again.

Of course, Nikolas Cruz, the alleged perpetrator of the shooting, obtained his firearms legally and by passing existing background checks. Being that these background checks have been highly effective in stopping the vast majority of potential criminals from purchasing firearms through legal channels, one wonders what more can be done to make these checks somehow “foolproof.”

Around 1.5 million 4473 forms (background checks) have been rejected by the ATF in the two decades since more stringent background checks were instituted. As many as 160,000 forms are denied each year for multiple reasons, including mental health reasons.

So, the question is, did background checks fail in the case of Nikolas Cruz? And would any suggested amendments to current 4473 methods have made any difference whatsoever in stopping Cruz from purchasing a weapon? The answer is no. No suggested changes to ATF background checks would have made a difference. But there are stop-gaps to preventing mass shootings other than the ATF.

The FBI, for example, had been warned on multiple occasions about Cruz, including his open threats to commit a school shooting. Yet, the FBI did nothing.

Could the FBI have prevented the killings in Parkland by following up repeated warnings on Nikolas Cruz? I would say yes, it is possible they could have investigated Cruz’s threats, verified them and prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a violent crime, or at the very least, they could have frightened him away from the idea.

Was the Parkland shooting then a failure of background checks or a failure of the FBI? And, if it was a failure of the FBI, then shouldn’t anti-gun advocates focus on revamping the FBI instead of pushing the same background check and gun show “loophole” rhetoric they always do?

They aren’t interested in instituting changes at the FBI because this could help solve the problem, and they do not care about solving the problem, they only care about pursuing their ultimate goal of deconstructing the 2nd Amendment for all time.

Gun control advocates will conjure up a host of arguments for diminishing gun rights, but just like the background check issue and Nikolas Cruz, most of them are nonsensical.

They’ll make the claim that guns for self defense are fine, but that high capacity military grade weapons were never protected under the Constitution. “The founding fathers were talking about single shot muskets when they wrote that…” is the commonly regurgitated propaganda meme. This is false. High capacity “machine guns” (like the Puckle gun and the Girandoni rifle) and even artillery were actually common during the time of the founders and were indeed protected under the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the 2nd Amendment applies to all firearms under common military usage regardless of the era.

They’ll claim that high capacity “assault weapons” are not needed and that low capacity firearms are more practical for self defense. They obviously are ignoring the circumstances surrounding any given self defense scenario. What if you are facing off with multiple assailants? What if those assailants are mass shooters themselves and obtained their weapons on the black market as the ISIS terrorist in Paris did in 2015? What if the assailant is a tyrannical government? Who is to say what capacity is “practical” in those situations?

They’ll claim that tougher gun laws and even confiscation will prevent mass shootings in the future, yet multiple nations (including France) have suffered horrific mass shootings despite having far more Orwellian gun laws than the U.S. Criminals and terrorists do not follow laws. Laws are words on paper backed up by perceived consequences that only law abiding people care about.

The vast majority of successful mass shooting take place in “gun free zones,” places where average law abiding citizens are left unarmed and easy prey.

So, what is the solution that gun grabbers don’t want to talk about? What could have stopped the shooting in Parkland? What is the one thing that the mainstream media actively seeks to avoid any dialogue about?

The solution is simple — abolish all gun free zones. If teachers at the high school in Parkland had been armed the day Nikolas Cruz showed up with the intent to murder, then the entire event could have gone far differently. Instead of acting helplessly as human shields against a spray of bullets, teachers and coaches could have been shooting back, actually stopping the threat instead of just slowing it down for a few seconds. Or, knowing that he might be immediately shot and killed before accomplishing his attack, Cruz may have abandoned the attempt altogether. There is no way to calculate how many crimes and mass shootings have been prevented exactly because private gun ownership acted as a deterrent.

Most gun grabbers are oblivious to this kind of logic because they are blinded by ideological biases. Some of them, however, understand the truth of this completely, and they don’t care. They are not in the business of saving lives; they are in the business of exploiting death. They want something entirely different from what they claim they want. They are not interested in life, they are interested in control.

— Brandon Smith

 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

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

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

Advertisements
Posted in Gun Control, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The History Of Mass Shootings That Needs To Be Heard Before People Demand More Gun Control

The War on the family unit, including values, principles and morals, the government intrusion into the education/indoctrination of our children, the massive unrestrained immigration beginning in 1965,  rapid expansion of government to control every aspect of citizens’ lives, the government’s propensity to satisfy big corporations instead of upholding the Constitution and protecting individual God-given unalienable rights, and the application of the law unequally contributed heavily to the growing problems of individuals today… Couple this with the government’s marriage to the pharmaceutical industry…
The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAnd I will add: The government’s non-stop violation of people’s rights, the revolting cronyism, the endless lies and scandals, the unfathomable economic waste, the police state, the imperialistic militarism, the vast labyrinth of regulations across thousands of agencies, mass surveillance, bankster bailouts…the list goes on and on.
Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteA coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Feminists, Gays, Government Workers, Union Members, Environmental Extremists, The Media,   Hollywood , uninformed young people, the “forever needy,” the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other “fellow travelers” have ended Norman Rockwell’s America. — jtl, 419
Combat Shooter's HandbookYesterday, the united States suffered another mass shooting incident in a school in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 students.  Right on cue, anti-constitutionalists called for the government to implement a solution in the form of gun control.  Activist actors, like Michael Keaton, used social media to blame the shooting on the “weak disgusting” NRA and Republicans, as well as five other shootings occurring since Columbine High School in 1999At a candlelight vigil in Parkland for the shooting victims at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, chants of “no more gun” broke out.  The Associated Press declared the suspected shooter, Nikolas Cruz, belonged to a “white nationalist group” when no evidence exists to support such a claim.  Moreover, a report claimed the FBI received a warning about Cruz in September 2017 when a comment on a YouTube video, using the name “Nikolas Cruz,” stated, “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.”

Does a pattern emerge here similar to other mass shootings and/or bombings since 1999?  Yes, it does.  The outline above makes it clear.  Unfortunately, many citizens are not getting it.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewOne clear point in the majority of these incidences is the federal law enforcement agency known as the FBI had warning, yet dropped the ball in its investigations.

Now, many would like to focus on the FBI dropping the ball because of the “politicization” and bias exhibited by high-ranking FBI officials against constitutionalists, Donald Trump, individual God-given unalienable rights, Christians, patriots, and a plethora of other “labels.”

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) But, some citizens already know where the federal and some state governments stand when it comes to the Second Amendment, meaning the inaction of the FBI is no surprise.

Moreover, each time an incident like this occurs, some people, government officials, celebrity activists, and some in the lamestream enemedia call for government to provide a solution in the form of violating individual God-given unalienable rights – no surprise there either.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualSo, if we assume the underlying problem in mass shootings is firearms, the assumed solution is gun control or gun confiscation by the government – a government that failed to address a threat about which it received warning.

But, the assumption the underlying problem in mass shootings is firearms is incorrect and downright false.

It does serve an agenda – confiscation of guns means government and anti-constitutionalists have full control of the people to implement any injustice seen fit to serve its own needs.

It’s called subjugation that leads to democide.

As a society, are we comfortable blaming inanimate objects for the actions of an individual?  Anti-constitutionalists are but only when it involves firearms.  There is no call for vehicle confiscation when an individual driving drunk kills another individual in a car accident.  The individual is held responsible.  What about killings involving knives?  No one calls for knife control or confiscation.  The reason given for not blaming cars, knives or any other inanimate object, excluding firearms, for another’s death is usually cars and knives are not instruments of mass murder – these objects don’t murder multiple individuals in a short period of time and don’t instill the fear in many like firearms do.

Society has a very short memory.  How long have firearms been in this republic?  Firearms have been in this republic since before this land was a republic.  How long have mass shootings involving firearms been occurring, outside of the mafia wars during the Capone era?  According to mysanantonio.com, the first occurred in 1949 when Army veteran Howard Unruh killed 13 people while walking in his neighborhood in Camden, New Jersey.  This was shortly after World War II.  It took until 1966, 17 years, for the second incident to occur at the University of Texas in Austin.  The third incident occurred 18 years later in 1984, with the fourth incident happening in 1986.  Looking at the timeline, these mass shooting started occurring more frequently with Columbine in 1999.  So, can we really conclude that firearms are the issue when history shows the united States has only recently experienced an uptick in mass shootings involving firearms?  Anti-constitutionalists and politicians would like for the public to believe it is because of firearms;  however, it isn’t.

Howard Unruh suffered from paranoid schizophrenia according to the report.  No motive was established for Charles Whitman for the 1966 Texas Tower shootings at the University of Texas, but officials suspected mental illness.  James Oliver Huberty, responsible for the 1984 McDonald’s mass shooting in San Ysidro, California, expressed to his wife he suspected he had a mental problem.Pat Sherrill, the post office worker who killed co-workers in Edmond, Oklahoma, was described as “crazy Pat” because he exhibited strange behaviors and was often angry and depressed.  Sherril was a Vietnam War Veteran that a psychiatrist suspected of having “factitious post traumatic stress disorder.”  Luby’s cafeteria perpetrator, George Hennard, was found to have drugs and alcohol in his system when he killed 23 people and injured 20 others in Killeen, Texas.  Hennard committed suicide after his murderous spree.  Psychiatrists postulated that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine mass shooting, suffered from some type of mental illness.

Starting to see a pattern here?  While some of these perpetrators’ motives are unclear or not established by law enforcement officials, clearly, the problem is not the inanimate firearm.  Yet, this information on motives of past perpetrators, carried in newspapers and reports that anyone can verify on the internet, has been hidden from the public by the lamestream enemedia today and many citizens refuse to do their own research to determine where the problems lie that lead to these incidences.

Beginning in 2009 through to the present, incidences of mass shootings began occurring every year with multiple incidences in some years.  For the majority of those years, Democrat Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah occupied the White House, Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, and federal officials in various departments that fanatically support Democrats, particularly Hillary Clinton, as well as Democrats in both chambers of Congress, and some Republicans have worked to thwart the presidency of Donald J. Trump.   Anyone see another pattern occurring?

Let’s not forget the total war on traditional values and society that began with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s  occupation of the White House and his “Great Society” program.  Johnson,  a power hungry fanatical Democrat, championed big government and the “nanny” state.

For a good take on part of the problem that occurs with the indoctrination of our children in the school system, read Bradlee Dean’s article on Freedom Outpost, “Warning Went Unheeded, Again! Tragedy In Florida:  A Letter from a Student …..”  And, to further outline how society has been altered that is leading to continual problems, read “Tucker:  Psychotropic Drugs, Social Alienation, Broken Families, War on Men More Relevant Than Gun Control” at Infowars.com.

If firearms were the problem, mass shootings would have been occurring since this republic ratified the Constitution.  Yet, that has not been the case.  It seems to have started after World War II, and then experienced a lull until the mid 60s, lulled again until the incidences in the 80s, quieted until the 90s, and exploded during the Hussein Soetoro era.

The problem is society has changed, not for the better in some cases, and government has morphed into the “nanny police” state with an illegitimate, lawless 44th president who fomented much division, creating patriots out of criminals and criminals out of patriots.

The War on the family unit, including values, principles and morals, the government intrusion into the education/indoctrination of our children, the massive unrestrained immigration beginning in 1965,  rapid expansion of government to control every aspect of citizens’ lives, the government’s propensity to satisfy big corporations instead of upholding the Constitution and protecting individual God-given unalienable rights, and the application of the law unequally contributed heavily to the growing problems of individuals today.

Couple this with the government’s marriage to the pharmaceutical industry in order to use a pill for everything from lack of appetite to paranoid schizophrenia has caused just as many more problems due to medication side effects than has been solved through “living by chemicals.”

It didn’t help either that president number 44 created more problems and increased the impact exponentially.

Instead of families taking responsibility for the mentally ill in their midst, many call for government to develop a solution through misidentification of the problem.  In other words, government should implement some additional forms of gun control, leading to gun confiscation, to stop mass shootings while firearms are not the problem or the cause of the problem.

Moreover, government cannot solve the problems of increasing mental health issues when it plays a large role in the creation of those issues.

It behooves government, particularly those in it, to focus the people’s attention to a non-issue, firearms, when the policies and legislation it implements causes the major problems in society.

Nothing government does will address the rising criminal element in our republic.  Criminals will find a way to break the law regardless.

In fact, it is an advantage to government to limit law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional means and use criminals to advance an agenda.

Until the government noose is loosened from around the necks of the citizens and the “nanny police state” abolished, anti-constitutionalists and government will continue the “look, squirrel” method of distraction to prevent focus on who is causing the problem and what exactly that problem is.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualPlanned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

Posted in Gun Control, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How to Desocialize

“…all the following points could, and should, be instituted immediately and all at once.”

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)Compared to Murray Rothbard, Donald Trump is a pussyfied light weight when it comes to Swamp Draining. — jtl, 419

by Murray N. Rothbard

The following points of desocialization must necessarily be written or read sequentially, but they need not be carried out in that manner: all the following points could, and should, be instituted immediately and all at once.

Legalize the Black Market

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)  The first two planks are implicit in the previous part of this paper. One, is to legalize the black market, that is to make all markets free and legal. That means that the private property of all those engaging in such markets must, along with everyone else, be made secure from government depredation, secure as a right of ownership. It means also that all goods and services hitherto illegal are now to be legal, whether they are legal in the West or not, and that all transactions are to be engaged in freely, that is, that prices are to be set voluntarily by the exchanging parties. Thus, all government price control is to be abolished forthwith.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)If such genuine prices for real transactions are to be higher than pseudo-“prices” set by the government for non-existent transactions, then so be it. Consumer griping should simply be ignored; any consumers who still prefer the previous regime of fixed prices for non-existent goods will, of course, be free to boycott the new prices and try to find cheaper sources of supply elsewhere. My hunch, however, is that consumers will adjust soon enough to these one-shot changes, especially since unprecedented abundance of consumer goods will quickly pour forth onto the markets.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsBy “legalizing,” by the way, I mean simply abolishing a previous outlaw status; I do not propose to engage in semantic exercises trying to distinguish between “legalizing” and “decriminalizing.”

Drastically Lower All Taxes

Another implication of our previous analysis is that taxation should be cut drastically. There is, in the literature on taxation, far too much discussion about which types of taxes are to be imposed, and who is to pay them and why, and not nearly enough on the height or amount of taxes to be levied. If the tax rate is low enough, then the form or principles of tax distribution really makes very little difference.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute To put it starkly, if all tax rates are kept below one percent, then it really does not matter much economically whether the taxes are on incomes, sales, excises, property, or capital gains. It is important instead to focus on how much of the social product is to be siphoned off to the unproductive maw of government, and to keep that burden ultra-minimal.

Combat Shooter's HandbookWhile the form of taxation would not then matter economically, it would still matter politically. An income tax, for example, however low, would still maintain an oppressive system of secret police ready and willing to investigate everyone’s income and spending and hence his entire life. Economists’ opinion to the contrary, there is no tax or system of taxes that could be neutral to the market.3

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewWhatever taxation that might exist after desocialization should, however, be as close to neutral as possible. This would mean, in addition to very low rates and amounts, that the taxation be as unobtrusive and harmless as possible, and imitate the market as closely as it can. Such imitation might include the voluntary sale of goods and services at a price, or setting a price for participating in voting. The sale of goods or services by the government would, of course, be drastically limited in our desocialized system, because of the enormous scope of privatization of government activities. Privatization will be treated below.

Abolish the Government’s Ability to Create Money

A Handbook for Ranch Managers  Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualThere are three parts to any government’s ability to generate revenue: taxation, the creation of new money, and the sale of goods or services.4 There can be no genuine free market or desocialization so long as government is permitted to counterfeit money, that is create new money, whether it be paper tickets or bank deposits, out of thin air. Such money creation functions as a hidden and insidious form of taxation and expropriation of the property and resources of producers. Ending counterfeiting means getting the government out of the money business, which in turn implies eliminating both government paper money and central banking. It also means denationalizing currency units, such as the ruble, forint, zloty, etc., and returning them to private market hands.

Denationalizing currency can only be achieved by redefining paper currencies in terms of units of weight of a market metal, preferably gold. When the central banks are liquidated, they could disgorge their gold hoards; as their last act on earth they could redeem all their paper tickets at the redefined weight in gold coins.

While, given the will to desocialize, this monetary denationalizing process is not as complex or difficult as it may first seem, it might indeed take longer than the one day required for the other parts of our plan.5 There could then be transitional steps of a few days’ length: that is, the ruble or forint could be allowed to fluctuate freely and be convertible at market exchange rates into other currencies.

It would still be imperative to take the money-creating power out of the hands of the national government; a possible way of doing that, and a second transitional step, would be to make the ruble convertible into harder currencies, such as the dollar, at some fixed rate. Pending return to a pure gold standard and liquidation of the central bank, it would also be important to curb the government’s power to create money by freezing permanently all central bank activities including open market operations, loans, and note issues. It need hardly be added that a law or edict limiting or freezing the government itself is not an act of intervention into the economy or society. Quite the contrary.

Just as black markets and all private markets would be set free, so too private credit institutions, for the lending of savings or the channeling of the savings of others, would be set free to develop.

Fire the Bureaucracy

A question may have occurred to the reader: If taxation is to be drastically lowered, and the government is to be deprived of its power to print or create money, then how is the government going to finance its expenditures and operations?

The answer is: It wouldn’t have to, because there would be precious little left for government to do. (This will be explained further in the discussion of privatization below.)

The socialist economy is a command economy, staffed and run by a gigantic bureaucracy. That bureaucracy would immediately be fired, its members set free at long last to find productive jobs, and develop whatever productive abilities they might have, in the now rapidly expanding and flourishing private sector.

This brings us to a fascinating problem which, while resting long in the hearts and minds of the oppressed subjects of socialism, has now unexpectedly become a live political issue. What is to be done with and to the top Communist party cadre, to the nomenklatura, to the vast apparatus of the once all-powerful secret police? Should justice at last be meted out to them by a series of state-crime trials, followed by proper and condign punishment? Or should bygones be bygones, a general amnesty be declared, and ex-KGB men hired as private guards or detectives? I confess an ambivalence on this issue, in weighing the competing claims of justice and of social peace. Fortunately, the decision can be left to the peoples of the former Soviet Union and of Eastern Europe. There is not much that an economist, even a free-market economist, can say to resolve this issue.

Privatize or Abolish Government Operations

This brings us to the final, but scarcely the least important, plank of our proposed desocialization platform: privatizing government operations. Since theoretically all, or in practice most, production in socialist countries has been in the hands of the State, the most important desideratum, the crucial route for attaining a system of private property and free market, must be to privatize government operations.

But simply to say “privatize” is not enough. In the first place, there are many government operations, especially in socialist states, that we don’t want to privatize, but rather to abolish completely. For example, we would not, as libertarians and desocializers, wish to privatize concentration camps, or the Gulag, or the KGB. God forbid that we should ever have an efficient supply of concentration-camp or secret police “services”!

“We would not, as libertarians and desocializers, wish to privatize concentration camps, or the Gulag, or the KGB.”

Here is a point that needs to be underlined. The basic assumption of national income and GNP analysis is that all government operations are productive, that they contribute their expenses to the national output and the common weal. But if we truly believe in freedom and private property, we must conclude that many of these operations are not social “services” at all but disservices to the economy and society, “bads” rather than “goods.”

This means that desocialization must involve the abolition, not the privatization, of such operations as (in addition to concentration camps and secret police facilities) all regulatory commissions, central banks, income tax bureaus, and, of course, all the bureaus administering those functions that are going to be privatized.6

Principles of Privatization

Genuine goods and services, then, are to be privatized. How is this to be accomplished? In the first place, private competition with previous government monopolies is to be free and unhampered. This would legalize not only the black market, but all competition with existing government operations. But what about the massive accumulation of government firms and capital assets themselves? How are they to be privatized?

Several possible routes have been suggested, but they can be grouped into three basic types. One is egalitarian handouts. Every Soviet or Polish citizen receives in the mail one day an aliquot share of ownership of various previously state-owned properties. Thus, if the XYZ steel works is to be privately owned, then, if there are 300 million shares of XYZ steel company issues, and 300 million inhabitants, each citizen receives one share, which immediately becomes transferable or exchangeable at will. That this system would be impossibly unwieldy is evident. The number of people would be too much and shares too few to allow every person to have a share, and there would be shares of innumerably large numbers and varieties that would quickly descend upon the heads of the average citizen.

Much of this chaos would be eliminated in the suggestion of Czech finance minister Vaclav Klaus, who proposes that each citizen receive basic certificates, which could be exchanged for a certain number or variety of shares of ownership of various companies on the market. But even under the Klaus plan, there are grave philosophical problems with this solution. It would enshrine the principle of government handouts, and egalitarian handouts at that, to undeserving citizens. Thus would an unfortunate principle form the very base of a brand new system of libertarian property rights.

It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: “all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!” This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by “mixing one’s labor with the soil” or with other unowned resources.

Desocialization is a process of depriving the government of its existing “ownership” or control, and devolving it upon private individuals. In a sense, abolishing government ownership of assets puts them immediately and implicitly into an unowned status, out of which previous homesteading can quickly convert them into private ownership. The homestead principle asserts that these assets are to devolve, not upon the general abstract public as in the handout principle, but upon those who have actually worked upon these resources: that is, their respective workers, peasants, and managers. Of course, these rights are to be genuinely private; that is, land to individual peasants, while capital goods or factories go to workers in the form of private, negotiable shares. Ownership is not to be granted to collectives or cooperatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralized and chaotic syndicalist form.

It should go without saying that these ownership shares, to be truly private property, must be transferable and exchangeable at will by their holders. Many current plans in the socialist countries envision “shares” which must be held by the worker or peasant and, for a term of years, could only be sold back to the government. This clearly violates the very point of desocialization. Other suggested plans impose severe restrictions upon the transfer of ownership to foreigners. Once again, genuine privatization requires complete private property, including sale to foreigners.

There is, furthermore, nothing wrong with “selling the country” to foreigners. In fact, the more that foreigners purchase “the country” the better, for it would mean rapid injections of foreign capital, and therefore more rapid prosperity and economic growth in the impoverished socialist bloc.

A problem immediately arises in granting shares to workers in the factories, a problem akin to the question what is to be done with the Communist cadres and the KGB: Should the managing nomenklatura be cut in on the shares of ownership?

In advising the Soviets in an address in Moscow in early 1990, the economist Paul Craig Roberts observed that the Soviet people could either cut the throats of the nomenklatura or cut them in on shares of ownership; for the sake of social peace and smooth transition to a free economy, he recommended the latter. As I wrote above, I would not be that quick to thwart the demands of justice; but I would like to point out again a third possible route: not doing either one, and freeing the nomenklatura to find productive jobs in the private sector. The philosophic point in contention is to what extent, if at all, the managers’ activities in the old Soviet economy were productive, and therefore participant in homesteading-labor, and to what extent they were crippling and counter-productive, and therefore deserving of nothing better than a curt dismissal.7

A third commonly suggested route to privatization deserves to be rejected out of hand: that the government sell all its assets to the public at auction, to the highest bidder. One grave flaw in this approach is that since the government owns virtually all the assets, where would the public get the money to purchase them, except at a very low price that would be tantamount to free distribution?

But another, even more important flaw hasn’t been sufficiently stressed: why does the government deserve to own the revenue from the sale of these assets? After all, one of the main reasons for desocialization is that the government does not deserve to own the productive assets of the country. But if it does not deserve to own the assets, why in the world does it deserve to own their monetary value? And we do not even consider the question: What is the government supposed to do with the funds after they have been received?8

A fourth principle of privatization should not be neglected; indeed, it should take priority. Unfortunately, by the nature of the case this fourth route cannot be made into a general principle. That would be for the government to return all stolen, confiscated property to its original owners, or to their heirs. While this can be done for many parcels of land, which are fixed in land area, or for particular jewels, in most cases, especially capital goods, there are no identifiable original owners to whom to restore property.9 In the nature of the case, finding original landowners is easier in Eastern Europe than in the Soviet Union, since far less time has elapsed since the original theft. In the case of capital goods built by the State, there are no owners to identify. The reason why this principle should take priority wherever it applies is because property rights imply above all restoring stolen property to original owners. Or to put it another way: an asset becomes philosophically unowned, and therefore available to be homesteaded, only where an original owner, if one had existed, cannot be found.

There is one nagging remaining problem: How large should the newly private firms be? Every industry in socialistic countries is generally locked into a monopoly firm, so that if each firm is privatized into an equivalent-sized firm, the size of each will be far larger than the optimum on the free market. A fundamental problem, of course, is that there is no way for anyone in a socialized economy to figure out what the optimum size or number of firms is going to be under freedom.

In a sense, of course, mistakes made in the shift to freedom will tend to iron themselves out after a free market is established, with tendencies to break up or to consolidate in the direction of optimum size and number. On the other hand, we must not make the mistake of blithely assuming that the costs or inefficiencies of this process may be disregarded. It would be preferable to come as close as possible to the optimum in the initial privatization.

Perhaps each plant, or each group of plants in an area, may be initially privatized as a separate firm. It goes without saying that a very important aspect of a free market and of this optimizing process is to allow the market complete freedom to work: e.g., to merge, combine, or dissolve firms as it proves profitable.

Conclusion

The dimensions of the proffered Rothbard Plan for desocialization should now be clear:

  1. Enormous and drastic reductions in taxes, government employment, and government spending.
  2. Complete privatization of government assets: where possible to return them to the original expropriated owners or their heirs; failing that, granting shares to productive workers and peasants who had worked on these assets.
  3. Honoring complete and secure property rights for all owners of private property. Since full property rights imply the complete freedom to make exchanges and transfer property, there must be no government interference in such exchanges.
  4. Depriving the government of the power to create new money, best done by a fundamental reform that at one and the same time liquidates the central bank and uses its gold to redeem its notes and deposits at a newly defined unit of gold weight of existing currencies.

All this could and should be done in one day, although the monetary reform could be done in steps taking a few days.

One point we have not specified: precisely how low should taxes or government employment or spending be set, and how complete should be the privatization? The best answer is that of the great Jean-Baptiste Say, who should be known for many other things than Say’s Law: “The best scheme of [public] finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest.”10 In short, that government is best that spends and taxes and employs the least, and privatizes the most.

A final point: I have been criticized by libertarian colleagues for proposals of this sort because they involve action by government. Isn’t it inconsistent and statist for a libertarian to advocate any government action whatever? This seems to me a silly argument. If a thief has stolen someone’s property, it is scarcely upholding “robber-action” to advocate that the robber disgorge his stolen property and return it to its owners. In a socialist state, the government has arrogated to itself virtually all property and power of the country. Desocialization, and a move to a free society, necessarily involves the action of that government’s surrendering its property to its private subjects, and freeing those individuals from the government’s network of controls. In a deep sense, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene. This is an act which can be applauded by any lover of freedom, act of government though it may be.

Excerpted from How and How Not to Desocialize, which appeared in The Review of Austrian Economics 6:1 (1992). It is available in PDF.
n earlier version was delivered at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, at a panel on “The Downfall of Communism,” at San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1991.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

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

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

Posted in Anarcho-Capitalism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Public School Control Now!

When was the last time you heard of a mass execution of students in a private school? The next time will be the first.

When did anyone hear of a dozen or more corpses lying on the floor of a home-school co-op?

The facts are inescapable. Students in public schools are at risk. Terrible risk. Unacceptable risk. There is no excuse for this any longer. None. The statistics are clear. Students get gunned down only in public schools

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View I can’t count the number of times I’ve said this but I’m going to say it again. Any parent who would place a child in one of these child prisons (aka public schools) is guilty of child abuse. Gary North has the solution.

by Gary North via Gary North’s Specific Answers

 

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe murder of 17 innocent high school students in Parkland, Florida reminds us that public schools are dangerous. Too dangerous for children.

Yet there are pro-public school ideologues who refuse to face the facts. They shut their eyes to reality. They spout their slogan: “Public schools don’t kill public school students. Killers kill public school students.” We have heard this for 50 years. Yet the killers are always one of these: (1) enrolled public school students, (2) public school graduates, or (3) expelled public school students. It’s time to turn a deaf ear on the refrain about public schools not killing public school students.

Combat Shooter's Handbook When was the last time you heard of a mass execution of students in a private school? The next time will be the first.

When did anyone hear of a dozen or more corpses lying on the floor of a homeschool co-op?

The facts are inescapable. Students in public schools are at risk. Terrible risk. Unacceptable risk. There is no excuse for this any longer. None. The statistics are clear. Students get gunned down only in public schools.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteYet defenders of public schools never cease spouting their slogans about a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded education. They claim that this is guaranteed by the Constitution’s general welfare clause. This is preposterous. There were no taxpayer-funded day schools in 1788, not even a military academy. There wasn’t even a school at West Point. It was a fort. West Point was where Benedict Arnold had been in charge.

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) We need to organize . . . now. We need to go to the voters . . . now. We need to tell them what they already know but refuse to say in public: it is time to ban public schools once and for all. No more excuses. No more gradualism. Gradualism kills! In every town, every city, every county, every state, and in Congress, our voices must be heard. “Shut them down! All of them!”

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualThere should be a school building buy-back program. Any school board that is willing to turn in its schools to the local police department should be paid. The empty schools can be then sold to private schools or even turned into business complexes. The police department should be allowed to keep the profits. We want our men in blue behind this.

County schools can be sold by the local sheriff’s office. Same arrangement. “Support your local sheriff. Turn in your schools.”

What will the students do? They can stay home and sign up for the Khan Academy. It’s online. It’s free. There would soon be a market for similar programs. Churches can create them. Retired teachers can create them. Service organizations can create them. If Salman Khan can do it, others can do it. There is a working model. This isn’t rocket science.

What about the children of mothers who work outside the home? No problem! A city or county can pay profit-seeking charter schools to enroll students. Tax support involves coercion, but it’s better to have private charter schools with armed guards than what we have now. There have been no mass shootings in charter schools. There have not been any gang-related murders, either.

What about today’s student-to-teacher ratio of 16 students per teacher. Double it to where it was in my day. Each student will sit at a carrel that touches a wall. The carrels will be in a U-formation. Each student will use a cheap Chromebook computer. The student will wear headphones to listen to online lectures and audio-visual presentations. A teacher will walk around to monitor the students from behind. The students will not know if the teacher is monitoring them. There will be few behavior problems.

What if a student gets stuck? He will raise his hand. The teacher will come over and ask what’s wrong. The student will say: “I don’t understand this.” The teacher will say: “Google it. That’s how you will learn everything as soon as you get out of school. Get a head start.”

“But,” you may say, “if that’s all a teacher had to do, then a low-paid worker could do the job. The high school could hire two or three $100,000-a-year teachers for one-time emergency instruction sessions, and the rest would be paid whatever a starting teacher is paid today.” Wrong. A teacher would be paid no more than 70% of what a starting teacher is paid today. There would be lots of applicants with B.A. degrees in education. They would be trained in college mainly in Googling.

What about hoodlums and gang members? Expel them.

What about disruptive students? Expel them.

What about teachers’ union members? Expel them. (OK, I’m just kidding. No charter school would hire them in the first place.)

Academic performance will improve. U.S. News and World Report ranks the best academic high schools in the USA. The top three schools in America are run by the same charter school company in Arizona: BASIS. So is the number-five school. The ranking is here. I am sure BASIS can meet the demand.

If BASIS doesn’t want to set up schools in high-crime neighborhoods, then local entrepreneurs can do it. Cities can set up voucher programs. With no school buildings to heat, cool, and repair, no teachers’ union to placate, and no liability insurance to buy, taxes can be lowered.

I see a market for private security services for charter schools. “We pack. Kids learn.” They can hire ex-football coaches. I can see the recruiting brochure. “You’re big. You’re loud. You’re ready.”

This program is practical. We must close the public schools forever . . . for the sake of the children.

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Posted in Public Schools, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Did Lincoln’s Theological Views Reflect His Political Actions?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsI’ll bet your mandatory government propaganda camp counselor (aka your public school teacher) never told you that. Indeed, the War of Yankee Aggression is the most lied about part of American history.

Listen up boys and girls. Dishonest Abe was NOT a humble rail spliter from Illinois. He was a racist corporate lawyer that lusted after Continental Empire. — jtl, 419

by Al Benson Jr. via revisedhistory

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe title of this article is a legitimate question–not only for Lincoln, but for the rest of us as well. Do our political actions reflect our theology? If you look today at some of these Democrats and RINO’s that hate Trump and will do or say anything to hurt his agenda, true or not, (and most of the time it isn’t) you have to ask if what they are doing reflects their theology–and if it does–then what does it say about the god they serve?

Combat Shooter's HandbookSimilar questions were not always asked about Abraham Lincoln because back then most people didn’t equate a man’s theological perspective with what he did politically. Then, as today, they should have. There is more connection there than most people realize.

I’ve dealt with Mr. Lincoln’s religious views in the past, but not for awhile, so it might not hurt to go back and refresh our memories about them. Ward H. Lamon wrote a book, published in 1872–The Life of Abraham Lincoln: from his birth to his inauguation as president. Lamon probably knew Lincoln as well as anyone. And Mr. Lamon quoted, in his book, another man who knew Lincoln as well as anyone, his law partner for years, William H. Herndon. Herndon said of Lincoln: “As to Mr. Lincoln’s religious views, he was, in short, an infidel-atheist. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor the Son of God–was a fatalist, denied the freedom of the will. Mr. Lincoln told me a thousand times, that he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God, as the Christian world contends.”

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewWith a world view like that, how do you think he would deal with his political adversaries? Does the word “treacherously” come to mind?

Lew Rockwell wrote an article back in May of 2000 called The Genesis of the Civil War in which he made some interesting observations. Mr. Rockwell took pains to note that the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s was not really a “civil war” as a civil war is one where two opposing groups are fighting for control of the same country–and that was never the South’s objective. The North wanted total control if it all–the South just wanted to separate and go its own way. Mr. Rockwell deals with that by saying: “But why would the South want to secede? If the original 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)American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing  their production through high prices and public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.  In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the ‘tariff of abominations.’  Thirty years later, with the South paying for 87% of federal tarff revenue while having their livelihoods being threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to slave status, with the federal government as its master.”  Do you think no one in the North realized this? The average man may not have, but the Northern politicians and political thinkers did. What do you suppose their theological world view was? Three guesses!

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualAnd obviously Mr. Lincoln understood this. He was no dummy and, as a lobbyist for Northern railroads he would have known how this system worked. When someone asked him at one point why he did not just let the South go, his reply was “What then will become of my tariff?” So Lincoln realized the South was getting shafted–and that was okay with him, but if they seceded then he wouldn’t be getting their tariff money anymore and the North couldn’t continue to stiff them anymore and so Lincoln had to prevent that. In other words, legalized theft of Southern resources had to continue so Northern industrial interests could benefit. Whose theological persuasion do you suppose that benefited?

Lincoln made it clear his main intent was to get that Southern tariff money–no matter what. He said “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists…” There was no proof Lincoln ever declared war to abolish slavery, it was always to “preserve the Union.” One might well ask,  For who?

Of course if Lincoln did not believe in the Bible and the truth about Jesus Christ, that means that he served another god who had an opposing theology to that found in the Scriptures. Do you think Lincoln realized all this. Commentary from his era would lead us to believe that, to some extent, he did.

Unfortunately for the North, the concept of legalized theft via the tariff, was reflected in their culture, whether they realized it or not, and some did. The rise of Unitarianism in the North and after that, the spread of socialism there, reflected a Northern theology that was justifiably repugnant to orthodox Christians in the South. Over the years, I have mentioned the theological implications of the War of Northern Aggression. Most don’t want to hear it. I have gotten reactions ranging from a stopping of the ears to outright laughter–and some of this from Christians.

But, the theological implications of that War will have to be dealt with, one way or another because, in the final analysis, the theological implications of that War will prove to be more important than the supposed slavery issue. And Lincoln’s theological world view is part and parcel of it all.

 

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 Uncategorized, War of Yankee Aggression | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

How Easy Money Is Rotting America from the Inside-Out

How much of our gleaming new infrastructure will fall into disrepair?

Combat Shooter's HandbookIn case you haven’t noticed, we are looking at the Mother of All Federal Reserve induced bubbles. — jtl, 419

The Federal Reserve has been the main cause of business cycles in America since 1913. For several decades, it has tried to hide the consequences of its policies by enabling easy credit during each recession. As Jonathan Newman wrote yesterday, pouring trillions of dollars into the financial sector obscures the external signs of the recession such as low asset prices and high unemployment and promotes economic malinvestment.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute This malinvestment creates the conditions that cause the next recession. Some of the consequences of the Fed’s policies, such as stock market and housing bubbles can be directly attributed to its policies. In other cases, the artificially low interest rates and other “easy money” policies foster an “infrastructure rot” that erodes the efficiency of the American economy, the standard of living of consumers, and eats away at American infrastructure. These effects are difficult to trace back to the Fed’s policies, so let’s concretize some examples to understand how Federal Reserve policies affect America.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsAt the city level, low interest rates allow cities to fund new public projects such as parks and bridges. While this may seem fine and dandy, all infrastructure projects have a maintenance cost. It’s not sufficient to build a park. One must also have the money to maintain it every year. If there is not enough revenue to pay for maintenance, the park will literally rot until the playgrounds fall apart, the lawns are overgrown, the lights fail, and the park becomes too dangerous for families to play in.

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 same thing will happen to streets, bridges, and plumbing. This is one of the ways urban decay happens: easy money policies fund unsustainable urban infrastructure projects which make politicians look good, but end up crumbling a few years or decades later. The Flint water crisis happened in large part because the Federal government funded infrastructure projects that were not sustainable by the incomes of the people of Michigan.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) Easy money from the Fed also rots the guts of American corporations. New money goes to the most politically-connected businesses first, and funds projects that would not be possible in a free market. Because private investors haven’t actually saved enough to see the projects through to completion, and consumers don’t value the product enough to cover production costs, the companies getting free money from the government either fail or receive endless bailouts. For example, easy money encouraged unsustainable commitments like high union wages and pensions, forcing US automakers to sell cars for prices that consumers could not pay given their actual savings rate. When sales dipped in 2009, the government was forced to bail out GM, Chrysler, and Ford in 2009.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)While small businesses are the last to get access to the Fed’s easy money taps, big banks received over $700 billion in TARP bailouts and even more selling U.S. Treasury bonds to the Fed under the QE program. Such subsidies signal to banks that their primary customer is the government, not consumers. As a result, financial services have stagnated, and banks have fought rather than embraced genuine innovations like the blockchain.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThe 2009 crisis made banks cautious of making mortgages to people who clearly could not afford them. But the Fed kept giving away free money and enabled a new phenomenon: zero-interest auto loans. While this may seem like a good deal for consumers, the Fed’s credit expansion has created an auto-credit bubble worth 9.2% of all household debt. Consumers are buying and leasing cars that they would not normally be able to afford.

Instead of being taught to save, millennials are learning to have a negative savings rate (acquiring more debt than assets) and trust their future entirely to the government. If a recession happens, millions of people will suddenly find that they are unable to keep their cars and lack any emergency savings. When millions of unwanted cars are dumped back onto the market, automakers will again be unable to keep up with their inflated liabilities, requiring another bailout.

Perhaps one of the most destructive products of easy money has been the War On Terror. The U.S. has spent about $5 trillion on this seemingly endless war, and most of the money has not come from higher taxes, but from selling bonds to institutions like pensions funds, and especially foreign countries such as China and Japan. American citizens have gained nothing of value, while our government has been spreading death, destruction, and revolution abroad.

While the national economy has gotten away with federal deficits and a $20 trillion dollar debt for decades, this trend is only sustainable as long as the rest of the world keeps lending the U.S. money. When they decide to stop funding our wars and financial irresponsibility, Americans will suddenly be faced with paying trillions of dollars in liabilities. This overdue correction will likely come with dramatic reductions to Americans’ standard of living.

My point in writing this is to help you visualize the destructive effect of the U.S. government’s easy money policies from an abstract harm to the practical harm: collapsing bridges, kids poisoned from lead plumbing, millions of cars rotting in junkyards, scandalous bank services fees, bombs falling on innocent people all over the world, and widespread poverty once the easy-credit party ends.

 

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 Federal Reserve Bank, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Do Not Speak to the Feds, Mr. Trump!

I have written about federal criminal law for more than a decade and have concluded that the term “honest federal agent” is an oxymoron. Federal agents, from FBI investigators to federal prosecutors, lie with impunity…It is in their DNA. Time after time, we have seen cases in which the feds lie and face no personal sanctions. Judges usually look the other way…

I’ll say it again. The only 5 words you ever say to any dimwitted costumed thug (aka cop of any kind) are: “I want my “bleeping” lawyer. — jtl, 419

by William L. Anderson via LewRockwell.com

In the late 1980s, as federal prosecutors in Manhattan (where Rudy Giuliani was the U.S. Attorney) were leaking information to the media about the alleged misdeeds of investment banker Michael Milken, the Milken team asked to meet with federal officials. Milken and his lawyers believed that what Milken was doing was legal but perhaps misunderstood, and their stated purpose for meeting was to help “clear up” any misconceptions that federal agents and the media, which already had received illegal leaks from prosecutors about grand jury testimony, might have had.After the meeting began, however, Milken’s team quickly realized that the feds were not there to discuss the fine lines and regulation of large-scale finance, but rather to charge Milken with as many crimes as they could. Because leaking grand jury information to the media is a federal crime, Giuliani’s prosecutors already had broken the law, so if any real criminals were in that conference room, they were employed by the U.S. Government.

We know how things turned out. The feds went after Milken’s father (who was in his 90s at the time) and Milken’s brother, letting Michael Milken know that they would find a way to throw both of them into prison (which would be a death sentence for the elder Milken) unless Michael Milken pleaded guilty. Faced with what really was a hostage situation, Michael Milken threw himself at the mercy of the court and ultimately went to prison for a couple of years. As one of the U.S. attorneys in the case bragged a few years later in a speech to law students at Rutgers University, the feds had criminalized what at worst were technical violations of ubiquitous securities regulations, violations that in previous years had not been considered crimes at all.

About 15 years later, Martha Stewart, who was being accused of insider trading regarding sale of some of her stock, met with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to explain her side and to deny she was involved in illegal stock trading. The feds already knew she was not guilty of insider trading and never charged her with such. Instead, they charged her with lying to the FBI during the meeting, her “lies” consisting of denying she had not done what the feds already knew she had not done. Stewart also went to prison.

Today, we have the FBI “investigating” the charges that the Donald Trump campaign and Russian operatives colluded in order to defraud American voters and put The Donald into the White House. The investigation of a special prosecutor, led by former FBI chief Robert Mueller, wants to interview Trump and Trump has said he wants to meet with the Mueller team. Former federal prosecutor and now legal blogger Ken White tells Trump not to meet with Mueller and his agents, and I fully agree.

I have written about federal criminal law for more than a decade and have concluded that the term “honest federal agent” is an oxymoron. Federal agents, from FBI investigators to federal prosecutors, lie with impunity, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has written. It is in their DNA. Time after time, we have seen cases in which the feds lie and face no personal sanctions. Judges usually look the other way, although in the recent trial of Cliven Bundy in Nevada, a federal judge who previously had given the feds everything they wanted shut down the proceedings and dismissed charges because she had experienced her fill of having prosecutors and FBI agents lie to her and everyone else.

For whatever misconduct and deceitful behavior we have seen in the past from the FBI and federal prosecutors, we know now that at least some FBI agents tried to swing the election from Trump to Hillary Clinton, and that the FBI worked covertly with the Clinton campaign to wiretap Trump operatives. Furthermore, it is clear from the FBI memos recently uncovered that while FBI agents knew Clinton had broken the law regarding use of a private email server, they were loath to charge her with anything because they feared such an outcome would swing the election to Donald Trump, something they were determined to avoid at any cost.

Given this background of FBI misconduct, President Trump would be utterly foolish to meet with FBI officials who certainly are out to drive him from office – and have the legal tools to succeed. Explains Ken White:

The president is no mere witness. He is at least a subject, and likely a target, of the special counsel’s investigation. In federal criminal parlance, a witness is someone not suspected of wrongdoing who has useful information, a subject is someone suspected of wrongdoing who may well be charged if the evidence supports it, and a target is someone whose indictment is actively sought as a purpose of the investigation. When the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not mere information-gathering or fact-finding or “clearing a few things up.” Their goal is the hunt. (Emphasis mine)

White further writes:

When special counsels or FBI agents ask questions of one of these powerful people, they are not fact-finding. They’ve already done their homework. They’ve already gathered facts—almost certainly many more facts than the interviewee knows. They are asking questions the answers to which they can already prove, hoping that the interviewee will tell a provable lie, and thus commit a crime, or at least lock themselves into a feckless story that ties their hands later. The law that makes it a crime to lie to federal investigators does not require the lie to fool the investigators for a nanosecond. A lie must be “material” to be criminal, but that only means that the lie is the kind of statement that could conceivably influence the government, not one that actually did. The FBI can roll up with irrefutable proof of something, ask the target a question hoping for a lie, collect the lie they wanted, and reap a felony conviction.

He continues:

Just as there are abyssal downsides for a target or subject to submit to a government interview, there are very rarely upsides. If you are the subject or target of a federal investigation, you’re not going to talk them out of it. They have the receipts already. Nothing you say, in and of itself, will end the investigation. You cannot “just clear a few things up.” You cannot impress them with your honesty. If they decide they don’t have a case, they will decide this based on other evidence—other witnesses, documents, and so forth—and not on your denials. Moreover, there’s nothing you can say in an interview that your attorney can’t convey to investigators informally. If some key fact will exonerate you, your attorneys can tell them without exposing you to charges.

To put it another way, federal agents are not interested in the truth unless it is their truth. As Milken and his attorneys found out, the feds were not honest brokers and were not interested in investigating to see if Milken had broken securities laws. Instead, the feds already had decided that they were going to throw Milken into prison, and that they just needed to find a legal avenue to meet their goal.

It is the rare modern federal investigator that looks to do anything but satisfy a pre-determined narrative. Because so much of federal criminal law is malleable and can be interpreted in a way that turns even legal actions into crimes, federal agents have a tremendous amount of power. Like Stalin’s notorious head of the secret police, Lavrentiy Beria who bragged, “Find me the man, and I will find you the crime,” if FBI agents and federal prosecutors want to charge someone with a crime, they easily can do so and if their target is unpopular with political, academic, and media elites, they face no scrutiny no matter how specious the charges.

Last year, I wrote that by hiring Andrew Weissman as his lead prosecutor despite Weissman having had to resign from the Enron prosecution because of dishonesty, Mueller was sending a clear signal that his was a win-at-all-costs investigation:

One should recall that the Enron prosecution was characterized by prosecutorial misconduct throughout the case, including subornation of perjury, lying to the judge and jurors (not to mention the public), and withholding exculpatory evidence. That Mueller would reach into that prosecutorial cesspool and pull out the one prosecutor who was deemed even too dishonest for that probe says clearly that Mueller is not going to allow truth to seep into his prosecution.

What do we know? We know that Robert Mueller and his crew despise Trump and would like nothing more than to drive him and everyone associated with him from the Oval Office. We also know that the FBI and federal prosecutors can charge just about anyone they choose with federal crimes that have lengthy prison sentences.

Ken White is correct. It would do Trump no good to meet with Mueller and his crew. To a person, they are not interested in what happened, but only what they want everyone to believe as to what happened. If Trump were to meet with them, he almost certainly would be accused of lying to the FBI no matter what he told the agents, and he easily could then be impeached, removed from office, and then charged with federal crimes. That is what Mueller and the media, political, and academic elites want to happen, and Trump can do nothing about it except do that thing he often finds most difficult to do: keep his mouth shut.

The Best of William L. Anderson

 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 Government Corruption, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

American communism

These planks are all supported by the major political parties and their politicians.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsYep, not a dime’s worth. We are all slaves. Read on and you will become a believer before you finish the article.

There are only two things that we absolutely must do: 1) Openly admit to ourselves and all who will listen that we live in a communist country and 2) Quit being polite to the enemy. — jtl, 419

by Bob Livingston via Bob Livingston Alerts

How can human liberty turn into slavery without the people’s knowledge? Gradualism is the key.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAnything can be accomplished with gradualism, so there is no need for absolute military conquest. Whether it takes 50 years or 100, the elites don’t care. They’re patient. So how do they do it?

  • Change the monetary system to fiat, i.e., paper money. This replaces wealth with fiat and transfers it to the State via inflation and depreciation of the currency.
  • Have a graduated income tax.
  • Create wars.
  • Keep race stirred up with class warfare.
  • Destroy the family — put the wife to work.
  • Promote homosexuality. Glorify it along with any variants such as unisex and/or transgenderism in order to promote all types of perversion.
  • Create government schools under the name of free public education. Dumb the people down so they can’t think.
  • Promote “brotherly love” — altruism.
  • Denigrate women.
  • Hold and maintain all the historic free-sounding names like constitution, privacy rights, private property, American flag, voting rights, democracy, elected representatives, free press, etc. while perverting the institutions themselves.
  • Use very elite and refined propaganda to sway the public on all issues.
  • Keep the public ignorant on gold (real money). Erase it from memory.
  • Control guns and weaponry. Cultivate the public to fear guns by promoting the idea that guns are dangerous. Inflate gun accidents and gun incidents on nationwide media. Sensationalize the negative.
  • Keep the trusted gang (the deep state) in power no matter who is president.
  • Manipulate government statistics — inflation, jobs, money supply.
  • Promote peace and manufacture arms for export. Be the world’s number one arms manufacturer and exporter of terrorism.
  • Harass people with “foreign bank accounts” while having the largest tax haven in the world with and through U.S. banks within the U.S.
  • Enslave the world with fiat called euphemistically a “reserve currency.” Don’t allow the gold standard anywhere in the world.
  • Call land ownership “private property” but have perpetual and increasing property taxes.
  • Confuse the terms liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, fascist, democrat, republican and especially democracy.

One of the greatest deceptions of all

Combat Shooter's HandbookPersuade the public that there is a “national debt” and “deficit spending.” This ruse implies legitimate accounting. The public must not know and must never know that a fiat system implies default from its inception. How, my friends, can there be debt when everybody knows that fiat is created to infinity at no cost? Do we really think the Pentagon “lost” trillions of dollars? This is a false premise promoted by the media. The money was not lost. It was spent on exactly what the elites and the deep state desired it to be spent on without the public’s knowledge. The money is simply disappeared with accounting.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThe same applies to banking. A bank grants “loans” to you to buy a home or some other large ticket item and calls it your debt, but is it? The bank just created the account out of nothing. It does not even need to have an equal amount of money in its coffers to make the loan. It cost the bank nothing, but the bank calls it your debt or your mortgage and you believe that you have debt. The bank invests in you without risk. If you are unable to pay your mortgage the bank forecloses. It has taken hold of real property under the guise of the consumer having defaulted on the loan without putting a dime of its own money at risk. The banks and quasi-governmental institutes like Fannie Mae own a majority of the houses and land and this is economic freedom?

Gradualism and deception

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)No dear reader, with the above accomplished the American system is quietly and imperceptibly converted to communism.

The American system over the last 100 years has, through gradualism, become benevolent totalitarianism. It is a seductive system of psychological warfare coupled with a highly oppressive legal and financial system that essentially puts the people in an economic and political straitjacket while keeping them believing that they are free.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualFollowing are the 10 planks of communism. See if you recognize any — or all — of these in America today:

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Private property rights are almost nonexistent today. You don’t own your property if it can be confiscated for non-payment of tribute to the king, or if a government agency like the Environmental Protection Agency can arbitrarily tell you what you can and can’t do with it.)
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Accomplished via the American tax system. Enforced via the Gestapo-like Internal Revenue Service.)
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Accomplished via the estate tax.)
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (Accomplished via rendition and drug laws allowing law enforcement to confiscate property if it is suspected of being used in the trade or manufacture of drugs — often without evidence.)
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Accomplished via the Federal Reserve, which is not Federal and doesn’t hold “reserves.”)
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (Accomplished via the Federal Communications Commission and the regulated airline industry, Amtrak, public transportation and the regulated auto industry. Further attempts being made to seize more power through control of the Internet.)
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil, generally in accordance with a common plan. (Accomplished through price controls on the utilities via their government-supported monopolies and subsidies tax policies that benefit favored industries or penalize those out of favor.)
  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Industrial armies accomplished through regulations favoring/subsidizing unions.)
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (In progress via Agenda 21, “sustainable development” communities, etc.)
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Accomplished via the public indoctrination system called public education under the control of the Federal government, child labor laws which are, in fact, anti-work laws.)

These planks are all supported by the major political parties and their politicians.

Is this freedom under a republic? Or is this something else?

I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating: communism = socialism = fascism = democracy. The labels are important to the global elite only insofar as they deceive the masses.

We cannot escape this creeping American communism until our intellect overpowers spiritual and political deception. Eventually we get the great revelation that politics and organized religion are more alike than they are different. This is the master key and the essential ingredient. This is the key to understanding.

 

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 Cultural Marxism, Slavery, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The Great Obamassiah–With More Delusion To Cover His Six!

There is more to come. Provided the Democrats and the RINO’s can’t find some way to conceal it from the public. They are less than ecstatic that even this much has been revealed. Had Madame President succeeded Obamassiah to the presidency this rottenness would have been covered up for yet more decades–and all this from a man who promised us all  the “most transparent administration” in history. Just goes to show you that when you elect a cultural Marxist with Muslim proclivities   to be president you get the exact opposite of what he promised you. That’s something we all need to remember. Maybe instead of calling him Obamassiah we should call him Obamaliar!

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)There is something else that is conspicuously being ignored–the role of the FED and how it could bring Trump down. As I have always said, give me control of ANY nations money and I will rule, I don’t care how many laws you make.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsYou don’t suppose that the reason we have been seeing stock market gyrations all week is that the FED is beginning to decrease the money supply–the opposite of Quantitative Easing? 

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewOld Trump is really going to have to pull something out of his ass if he intends to buck the wrath of the Federal Reserve. And, to Sara Sanders question: Yes, Sara, there are lots and lots of people out there who hate trump worse than they love America.  — jtl, 419

by Al Benson Jr. via revisedhistory

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Many of you, like me over the past several years, probably grew increasingly tired of seeing Comrade Obama’s grinning mug on the “news” as he poked his all-knowing finger in our faces while condescendingly talking down to us about our ignorance and his omnipotence.

In my ignorance I actually dared to hope that now that Trump was going to be president I would not have to endure Obama’s grinning visage anymore. Silly of me. I should have known better and when I read about his (and George Soros’) plan to move into new digs within spitting distance of the White House I realized how foolish I had been. Obama, like the Clintons, wasn’t going anywhere. They had all been making plans to be on hand for the taking down of Donald Trump and the country. They mean to make us pay dearly for daring to vote for someone other than “Madame President.”

One Jewish journalist actually said at one point “We thought he (Obama) would be the messiah.” Having rejected her true Messiah she was now more than willing to accept Comrade Obama as His replacement.

Only problem is, the true Messiah (John 14:6) does not lie, whereas Obamassiah has been famous for that. Anyone remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” or “I’m not after your guns”? Those were two of his real biggies, but they were far from being alone. Unable to stop what has probably been a lifetime habit, he stated, during a Fox News” interview that “I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line. I guarantee it. I guarantee there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period.” These remarks were reported on https://constitution.com for February 8th, and probably other places as well. However, in the same article, it was also stated that: “Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama ‘wants to know everything we are doing’.” If Obama wasn’t interfering (or guiding the investigation) why did he have to know what these people were doing? And the fact he wanted to know indicates he knew something was going on–and he did nothing to stop it.

Another interesting thing that doesn’t generally get talked about and brought out is that Carter Page, who was supposedly part of the Trump campaign and who was supposedly colluding with the Russians, actually worked for the FBI. If that is so, then why was he working with the Russians? Double agent? In this case I don’t think so. If Page is in that position, has worked for the FBI, is he there to make Trump look bad? If so, what does that tell you?

I’ve read several articles in the past week that noted Obamassiah’s continued curiosity about what the FBI was doing in the phony Russian collusion delusion. Undoubtedly he needs to keep abreast of current developments so he will know what prevarications to dribble out there regarding his involvement.

The congressional committees  of Devin Nunes and Charles Grassley  have done yeoman duty in dredging through the Swamp and providing the public with some information as to how deep-seated the corruption in the Swamp really is. I’ve seen some commentary from the Political Elite about the fact that Mr. Nunes previously ran a dairy farm, which seems to provoke some condescention  among them. All that means is that Mr. Nunes has done honest work in his life, probably something many of them can’t say.

There is more to come. Provided the Democrats and the RINO’s can’t find some way to conceal it from the public. They are less than ecstatic that even this much has been revealed. Had Madame President succeeded Obamassiah to the presidency this rottenness would have been covered up for yet more decades–and all this from a man who promised us all  the “most transparent administration” in history. Just goes to show you that when you elect a cultural Marxist with Muslim proclivities   to be president you get the exact opposite of what he promised you. That’s something we all need to remember. Maybe instead of calling him Obamassiah we should call him Obamaliar!

 

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

 

Posted in Government Corruption, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

It Can Happen Here

If you call a bookstore in Florence from a telephone in New Jersey, the government’s computers will be alerted. A federal agent will download the digital copy of your conversation, even though it was only about ordering a book. Then that communication may be used to justify surveillance of you whenever you talk to anyone else, in the U.S. or in any foreign country…This is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is often fruitless. And we know it can happen to anyone.

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)I am reminded of a cold winter day back in the mid 1970s. I was working for a construction company. We (the boss and I and several others) were sitting in the company office and the conversation had turned to politics. 

Being a hard charging know it all in my late 20s, I made a brilliant statement something to the effect of: “Aw, nothing like that could ever happen in America.” The boss looked me in the eye and said, “Boy, I wouldn’t be too sure about that.” And now, 40 some years later, I think about that a lot. — jtl, 419

By Andrew P. Napolitano via LewRockwell.com

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)  We remain embroiled in a debate over the nature and extent of our own government’s spying on us. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 1978 as a response to the unlawful government spying of the Watergate era, was a lawful means for the government to engage in foreign surveillance on U.S. soil, but it has morphed into unchecked government spying on ordinary Americans.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The journey that domestic spying has taken in 40 years has been one long steady march of massive increase in size and scope. The federal government now employs more than 60,000 people to spy on all Americans, including the White House, the Pentagon, the federal courts and one another. As well, the National Security Agency and the intelligence arm of the FBI have 24/7 access to the computers of all telecoms and computer service providers in the U.S. And certain politicians have access to whatever the NSA and the FBI possess.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsLast week, we witnessed a new turn as politicians engaged in cherry-picking snippets from classified raw intelligence data that support their political cases — pro-Trump and anti-Trump.

Raw intelligence data consists of digital versions of telephone conversations and copies of text messages, emails and other communications, as well as fiber-optic internet traffic (legal, medical and banking records, for example) and secret testimony and briefings intended only for the eyes and ears of those who possess a security clearance.

The surveillance state is now here.

The Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee fired the first salvo by releasing a memo derived from classified raw intelligence, which they claimed would show a conspiracy in the Obama Department of Justice, including the FBI, to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and pass along the fruits of that spying to the Democrats. The issue they chose to highlight is the DOJ application to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge for surveillance on Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump who once boasted that he also advised the Kremlin.

The memo’s authors wrote about intelligence data they did not personally see; they selectively extracted and purported to summarize raw intelligence data but quoted none of it verbatim; they intentionally sat on their conclusions that the feds regularly have abused FISA authorities throughout the congressional debate to expand FISA; and a principal drafter of the memo — Rep. Trey Gowdy — advises that the raw data he saw and the memo he wrote have nothing to do with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the president.

The Republican memo also reveals that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that accuses Trump of pre-presidential money laundering and grossly inappropriate personal behavior but has many parts that have not been publicly verified, was a “longtime FBI source,” and a summary of his work was part of the DOJ’s application for continued surveillance of Page.

That quoted phrase is today a major headache for the DOJ, as the American and British governments, which regularly share intelligence and occasionally spy for each other, have agreed not to recruit the services of each other’s agents. But the FBI obviously recruited Steele. If Steele was an FBI asset while still a British spy — if he was spying for the FBI and MI6 at the same time — he may be exposed to a criminal prosecution in Britain.

The Democrats on the committee have written their own memo, which the committee voted unanimously to release. It will be up to the president to permit or bar its full or partial release. The Democrats claim that their memo will show that the DOJ was candid and truthful when it sought a FISA surveillance warrant on Page and that the application for the renewal included far more than Steele’s tainted work.

Why should anyone care about these political games?

The loss of liberty rarely comes about overnight or in one stroke. In a democracy, that loss is normally a slow process, often pushed along by well-intentioned folks who do not even realize until it is too late that they have created a monster. FISA is a monster. It began as a means of surveilling foreign agents in the U.S., and today it is used for surveilling any American at any time.

If you call a bookstore in Florence from a telephone in New Jersey, the government’s computers will be alerted. A federal agent will download the digital copy of your conversation, even though it was only about ordering a book. Then that communication may be used to justify surveillance of you whenever you talk to anyone else, in the U.S. or in any foreign country.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, and it is often fruitless. And we know it can happen to anyone.

The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. That amendment prohibits warrantless searches and requires probable cause of crime as the sole trigger for judges to sign search warrants. FISA only requires probable cause relating to a foreign agent on one end of a phone call — a far lower standard — to trigger a warrant. The government has convinced the FISC that it should grant warrants based on probable cause of talking to someone who has ever spoken to a foreign person, whether an agent of a foreign government or an innocent foreign bookseller.

That judicially created standard is so far afield from the Fourth Amendment as to render it legally erroneous and profoundly unconstitutional. Yet the FISA expansion that the president signed into law last month — after the debate during which House Intelligence Committee Republicans intentionally remained mute about their allegations of FISA abuses — purports to make this Stasi-like level of surveillance lawful.

The political use of intelligence data makes the owner of the data a serious threat to personal liberty, and it renders his instruments monstrous.

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

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

Posted in Surveillance State, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment