Not Buying Any Government Today, Thanks

I’m tired of hearing this nonsense about how great Guv has been for the last eight years. Sorry, but this is the same Guv that has been in control for over a couple hundred years now and they’ve done nothing but pauperize huge swathes of the nation that used to have economic stability. Tax this, tax that, pass this law, sign BS trade treaties over here, jail people for smoking weed, and on and on it goes. We have more people per capita in prison than the Soviets had socked away in gulags and you jokers want to tell me we’re so great?

Source: Not Buying Any Government Today, Thanks

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not Buying Any Government Today, Thanks

I’m tired of hearing this nonsense about how great Guv has been for the last eight years. Sorry, but this is the same Guv that has been in control for over a couple hundred years now and they’ve done nothing but pauperize huge swathes of the nation that used to have economic stability. Tax this, tax that, pass this law, sign BS trade treaties over here, jail people for smoking weed, and on and on it goes. We have more people per capita in prison than the Soviets had socked away in gulags and you jokers want to tell me we’re so great?

Source: Not Buying Any Government Today, Thanks

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inequality Doesn’t Create Poverty

These taxes, we are told, will put an end to the poverty-causing inequality that now is a global crisis. But there’s a problem for Oxfam in this data. The report never actually demonstrates that inequality causes poverty, or how it does it.

They who say all men are equal speak an undoubted truth, if they mean that all have an equal right to liberty; to their property, and to their protection of the laws.  But they are mistaken if they think men are equal in their station and employments, since they are not so by their talents. (Voltaire)

by Ryan McMaken via Mises Wire

Oxfam, the leftwing NGO devoted to poverty relief has released a new report blaming poverty in wealth inequality. In other words, its central claim is that the existence of very wealthy people creates poverty.

The report is largely just an extended op-ed that asserts that the existence of some very wealthy people is the cause of poverty in the world. Notable buzzwords and phrases include “trickle down,” “obscene levels of inequality,” and “neoliberalism.”

The “solution” to the alleged problem, which should surprise no one, is a list of taxes that should be either introduced or raised significantly, including higher income taxes, “a tax on financial transactions,” a “global wealth tax,” and a so-called “anonymous wealth tax.”

These taxes, we are told, will put an end to the poverty-causing inequality that now is a global crisis.

But there’s a problem for Oxfam in this data. The report never actually demonstrates that inequality causes poverty, or how it does it. It does claim that many wealthy people are getting richer faster than poor people. As Marketwatch sums up:

Oxfam said new data from its report “An Economy for the 99%,” shows that between 1988 and 2011, the incomes of the poorest 10% rose by just $3 a year, while incomes of the richest 1% increased 182 times that much. In 2015, the world’s richest 1% held on to their share of global wealth, owning vastly more than the other 99%, said the charity.

Even this statement is questionable, as Felix Salmon points out at Fusion. The way the report calculates wealth has a tenuous relationship with reality:

The result is that if you use Oxfam’s methodology, my niece, with 50 cents in pocket money, has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the world’s population combined. As do I, and as do you, most likely, assuming your net worth is positive. You don’t need to find eight super-wealthy billionaires to arrive at a shocking wealth statistic; you can take just about anybody.

Economist Mateusz Machaj adds at mises.org:

[I]f you put 30 dollars into your bank account, does it mean that you caused extreme poverty for 10% of the world population? This is what Oxfam is implying in its biased pseudo-economic analysis.

But, let’s just a for minute accept Oxfam’s central claim that the rich are getting rich faster than the poor. This in itself tells us something. It used to be that we were told “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.”

Note, however that Oxfam does not claim this. They can’t claim this because the poor are not getting poorer.

In fact, the the global poor have more access to basic necessities and wealth than ever before.

Global Poverty Is In Decline

But, as this data shows, global poverty has been declining for decades:

Moreover, given that “extreme poverty” as defined by the World Bank no longer even exists in the wealthy “global north,” this is really a measure of poverty in places like South Asia and Africa and Latin America.

But what about more tangible issues such as hunger and starvation? Well, that’s been falling significantly as well in recent decades. According to data from the the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, we find:

In this case, I’ve included data for South Asia (which includes places like India and Bangladesh) and Sub-Saharan Africa for comparison. Note that in all cases, malnourishment is in decline.

On a related note, we might also look to access to clean water and sanitation. After all, water-borne disease is one of the worst afflictions still faced by people in the poorest parts of the world. Here too, there has been progress:

But, as any parent knows, infant mortality is one of the most noticeable and important measures of well-being. Fortunately, this is one of the areas where the most progress has been made, as we can see:

But merely avoiding death is never enough. How about education? Well, world literacy rates are rising:

The Oxfam report, of course, ignores all of this. When the Oxfam report says that certain groups are “worse off,” what they really mean is that people in those demographic or socio-economic groups tend to be improving their situation more slowly than people in other groups. “Worse off” most certainly does not mean “worse now compared to 20 years ago.”

Our Enemy, the Markets

But, Oxfam has identified who is at fault for the fact that many people aren’t getting rich as quickly as we’d like. The group they have identified is, not surprisingly, the “neoliberals.”

As we’ve noted here before, “neoliberal” is an amorphous term that has been applied to everyone from Janet Yellen to Ludwig von Mises. Neoliberalis should not be confused with advocates for free-markets. Nevertheless, some neoliberals do indeed engage in limited advocacy for markets. From the left’s perspective, however, the primary problem with the neoliberals is not their many deviations from free-market economics — a support for central banks chief among these deviations. The problem with neoliberals, we are told, is their limited pro-market rhetoric. Thus, we see time and time again that any reform that moves in the direction of less government regulation or more freedom in markets is denounced as “neoliberal.” “Neoliberal” is in many cases simply code for “libertarian.”

To its credit, the report spends a few short paragraphs on the problem of “crony capitalism,” noting that:

Since 1990, there has been a big increase in billionaire wealth that has been derived from industries with very close relationships to governments, such as construction and mining. This is particularly true in the developing world, but is also an important factor in the rich world.

The report neglects to note that this has been especially true in the wealthy West in the financial sector. The marriage between huge banks and central banks has been an enormous source of crony capitalism in the West and has helped to enrich the wealthiest through the money-creation mechanisms at central banks.

But, as we might expect, the problem of the wealthy using political power to enrich themselves is not solved by reducing the power of political institutions. No, when the wealthy abuse the power of the state, the solution is to make the state more powerful! How exactly this will then prevent from the wealthy from abusing the state’s even-greater power remains unanswered.

“Just raise taxes” is the moral of the Oxfam story. “You can trust us and our friends in government.”

There’s No Causal Relationship Between Inequality and Poverty

Ultimately, the Oxfam report is little more than a demand for higher taxes. It does not show how inequality causes poverty, and it resorts to abusing language by implying that people become “worse off” when someone else becomes better off faster.

Carefully ignoring the fact that the global spread of markets in recent decades has coincided with enormous declines in poverty, the report focuses on inequality, without ever demonstrating why it’s so bad.

This, however, is where arguments about inequality almost always end up: the fight against inequality becomes an end in itself because it cannot be shown that inequality is an obstacle to reducing poverty.

If every person in the world had access to clean, safe housing, clean food and water, basic health care, and reading materials for education, wouldn’t we consider this a great victory for mankind? After all, a dry room to sleep in and enough food to eat was regarded as something of a utopian fantasy in the 19th century in the West. Since then, the West, of course, has already far surpassed this and the rest of the world is moving in the same direction.

But, Oxfam would have you believe that these victories would mean nothing if there are rich people out there somewhere who own a yacht, or have a home theater system, or own a luxury car. Whether or not the poor are gaining access to basic necessities mean nothing to them so long as other people are buying luxuries.

Their “solution” is simply to redistribute wealth from the wealthiest to the poorest — after governments take their cut, of course.

But this solution assumes that wealth creation would continue at the same pace once massive new redistribution schemes are put in place. Would large corporations continue to employ as many people or pay dividends to as many investors — many of whom are hardly billionaires themselves — were the wealth of those organizations redistributed? That is hardly a given. Workers would almost certainly find themselves with fewer options.

Not surprisingly, the empirical data is clear that countries with more free trade, more wealth, and more freedom in markets are better places for the poor to live.

According to analysis from the Fraser Institute, we find that the lowest percentiles of earners make more in more economically free countries, and also possess a larger share of the wealth.

In more economically free countries, there is less poverty overall:

In more economically free countries, the poorest have more of the total share of wealth:

In more economically free countries, the poorest have more income:

If we seek to make further gains against poverty, the solution is obvious.

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

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

A Handbook for Ranch ManagersA Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

You might also be interested in the supplement to this Handbook: Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual.

Posted in Capitalism vs. Communism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

An extremely rare college professor

Would stricter gun laws reduce gun violence? Could gun control measures in places like Australia work in America? Nicholas Johnson, professor of Law at Fordham University, explains.  Donate today to PragerU: http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h

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

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

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I Guess I’m an Angry White Man

Who said the “whites without a college degree” are all male? Why is it always Angry White Men and never Angry White Women, when, in fact, a majority of white women voted for Trump? My theory is that it’s harder to make an Angry White Woman into a prehistoric reptile fighting its way back from near-extinction… For that matter, when Madonna stops in the middle of a concert to talk about the Angry White Men who voted for Trump as a way of “getting rid of female empowerment,” why doesn’t the next day’s headline read “Angry White Woman Rails Against Angry White Men Who Robbed Her of…uh…Never Mind”?

by Joe Bob Briggs at TAKI’s Magazine
photo credit: Bigstock
I Guess I’m an Angry White Man

JUPITER, Fla.—The plastic remote on my Sunbeam Electric Heated Fleece Blanket went haywire last night and made me oversleep, so I spent the day in my spaghetti-strap T-shirt and my favorite pair of wind pants from the Adidas outlet store out on Interstate 95 binge-watching the Death Wish series because I couldn’t remember which movie had the scene where Charles Bronson blows away Laurence Fishburne with a perfect American Sniper-style long-distance kill shot that goes through the giant boom box Laurence is holding on his shoulder and into the lowlife gangbanger’s skull.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

It turned out to be in Death Wish II, but by the time I found it I was in the grip of Angry White Man Syndrome and so I had to watch all the way through to the vastly underrated Death Wish V: The Face of Death because I had fond memories of the cyanide-laced-cannoli scene.

Combat Shooter's Handbook 

That’s what we Angry White Men do.

When we’re not beating up our wives and girlfriends or killing Meskin illegals with our concealed-carry Glocks purchased at the Tactical Knife and Gun Wholesale Megamarket in Lumberton, North Carolina, we’re pretty much leading normal lives hanging around the Waffle House so the process server can’t find us and extradite us to southern Alabama to face charges on the 47 months of back child-support payments we never paid because we “just forgot, Your Honor.”

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteI actually didn’t realize I was an Angry White Man until I finished reading the 397 articles written since the election that start out, “Donald Trump is the product of hatred, misogyny, nativism, bigotry, and resentment emanating from angry white men lamenting the loss of their factory jobs to China.”

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits The only factory I ever worked at was Phil Hargett’s bus-bench factory in Tullahoma, Tennessee, but I always thought the reason they went out of business was that Phil sold ads on the back of the benches to the Mons Venus All Nude Strip Club in Tampa, causing the Tampa City Council to cancel his contract. Knowing that China stole the municipal-bus-bench business from us makes me even more angry, since it probly makes me ineligible for unemployment checks.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 Angry White Man theory is based on the fact that “whites without a college degree”—apparently this is something that pollsters keep track of—voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a margin of 39 percent. This one statistic has been repeated over and over to bolster the phrase “angry white men,” first used by Bill Clinton as a way of explaining the 1994 midterm elections—and used again this year to explain his wife’s loss, indicating Bill really is stuck in the past.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)  If you knew about the Angry White Men in 1994, Bill, why didn’t you warn Hillary?

But more to the point, if you keep calling people like me Angry White Men, we eventually become…Angry Goldurn White Men!

So let’s get etymological on this puppy:

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Numero Uno: What media Sanhedrin decided that “absence of a college degree” equals bigotry, anger, hatred, misogyny, blah blah blah? In a world full of worthless college degrees that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, why is the decision not to seek a degree placed in a category indicating “Uh-oh, Neanderthal ahead!”? I can think of any number of reasons people would not seek a college degree, including (a) they’ve already got the job they want (Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates), (b) they want to be an entrepreneur (Steve Jobs), (c) they need to get started in their field while they’re young (Oprah Winfrey), (d) they’re talented but don’t do well in an academic setting (F. Scott Fitzgerald, Al Pacino), (e) they got expelled from school for reasons that have nothing to do with their potential (Ted Turner, John Lennon), (f) they want to do humanitarian things that are more important than school (Walt Disney, Abraham Lincoln), or (g) they are self-educated in the fields they consider important (Richard Branson, Michael Dell).

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Numero Two-o: Who said the “whites without a college degree” are all male? Why is it always Angry White Men and never Angry White Women, when, in fact, a majority of white women voted for Trump? My theory is that it’s harder to make an Angry White Woman into a prehistoric reptile fighting its way back from near-extinction. It’s much easier to summon up the image of Kathy Bates’ husband in Dolores Claiborne—a bitter drunk child-molesting wife beater who (remember this part?) hates his job on a fishing boat—instead of using, say, Charlize Theron in Monster, a white woman who executes white men for a living. For that matter, when Madonna stops in the middle of a concert to talk about the Angry White Men who voted for Trump as a way of “getting rid of female empowerment,” why doesn’t the next day’s headline read “Angry White Woman Rails Against Angry White Men Who Robbed Her of…uh…Never Mind”?

Numero Three-o: Why is anger as a voting incentive limited to white males? Don’t black men get angry? When Louis Farrakhan holds a rally, why doesn’t Yahoo News say “Angry Black Men Gather in Chicago”? Why aren’t there any Angry Latino Men or Angry Chinese Men?

Numero Four-o: More specifically, how do you explain the fact that the Angry White Men who voted for Trump in 2016 are the same white men who voted for Obama in 2008? When they vote for Obama they’re not angry, but when they vote for Trump it can only be because they’re enraged hicks? Gogebic County in Michigan is 92 percent white and hadn’t voted for a Republican since 1972—until this election. The counties in southwestern Wisconsin, all heavily Democratic, went for Trump after a strong Obama vote in 2008 and 2012. Eastern Iowa, Democratic since 1988, went for Trump. Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which is frequently used as the very definition of “working-class,” went for Republicans for the first time since 1988. Why are all these people classified as “angry” now, but in 2008, when they were angry at George Bush, they were just “voting for change”? Could it be, just perhaps, maybe, they feel betrayed by the Democratic Party? If we’re gonna call them angry, let’s define what they’re angry about.

Numero Five-o: Why is it assumed that being opposed to the current immigration policy equals (a) hatred of foreigners, and (b) fear of multiculturalism? Southern white men don’t care that there are Italian neighborhoods in New York, Polish neighborhoods in Chicago, West African neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., or Turkish neighborhoods in Los Angeles. They get the whole melting-pot thing, which is about 180 years old at this point. If they’re angry, it’s because they believe that people like Hillary Clinton exclude them from the melting pot by constantly talking about aggrieved blacks, aspirational Latinos, and overlooked Asians, but if they celebrate their Scots-Irish heritage at the Jerry Lawler rassling match at Mid-South Coliseum or evangelical rallies at Thomas Road Baptist Church, then they’re not regarded as part of the multicultural tossed salad, they’re just pale-skinned yahoos who are probably racists, if not white supremacists.

Numero Six-o: Why are the Angry White Men classified as reactionary when the small towns of the South and Midwest have been shown to be overwhelmingly in favor of the two largest socialist programs in the history of the country—Social Security and Medicare? Their opinion of unemployment checks is mixed—they dislike the concept, but accept it in practice when their family members get laid off. Most of them are not crazy about the Tea Party or the more extreme wing of the evangelical movement, but they’re not bothered by it. Like climate change, it’s just not a priority. Obnoxious things that Donald Trump said in 2005 on a Hollywood movie set are not a priority. These people are neither Republicans nor Democrats, liberals nor conservatives—they’re “leave me alone and do your job” voters. A lot of times these people are demonized for just not caring about something you’re supposed to care about. It’s assumed they hate things that they just don’t ever allow into their family circles in the first place.

So if we’re gonna use the word “angry” as an epithet, let’s use it where it’s most appropriate. Let’s use it for the intelligentsia, the media pundits, the various movie stars who feel an urgent need to tweet their political opinions. I’ve previously talked about the New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, who has apparently become so twisted with rage that he can’t write about anything except Trump. Recent columns include “No, Trump, We Can’t Just Get Along,” “Trump: Making America White Again,” “Trump’s Agents of Idiocracy,” “Patriotic Opposition to Donald Trump,” and “Trump: Madman of the Year.” The first few columns he wrote, back in May, were fairly cogent, but now the man is out of control. Charles’ friends need to do an intervention and suggest he do a column on, say, farm policy, lest his monomaniacal fixation lead to a clinical condition, the way guys who start a bodybuilding program get strung out on protein powder and PowerBars.

Charles is an Angry Black Man, but David Remnick, the very white editor of The New Yorker, also went berserk in print, calling the election a “sickening event” and a “tragedy for the American republic” that was caused by “xenophobia” and “white supremacy,” “a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.” Normally a master of the subtle nuance, Remnick went full-tilt apocalyptic with his postelection analysis, including the Angry White Men of Europe alongside the ones in this country. And he did it for a reason. “This is surely,” he said, “the way fascism can begin.”

For those of you who aren’t keeping up, The New Yorker was founded in the ’20s as a humor magazine but hasn’t said anything humorous for at least twenty years now. Still, even by its own standards of moral seriousness, the Remnick outburst was evidence of the angriest white man I’ve encountered in a while—and I’ve been in some Deep South dive bars.

Toni Morrison, winner of both the Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Prize for her novels, went so far as to say that the election was motivated entirely by white men who are fearful of black people and immigrants, tying Trump voters directly to lynch mobs and psychotic racist terrorists. “On Election Day,” she wrote, “how eagerly so many white voters—both the poorly educated and the well educated—embraced the shame and fear sowed by Donald Trump.” In other words, they voted for Trump as a way to disguise their true motives—getting rid of minorities and foreigners.

And then there was Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s communications director, who used a meeting of campaign strategists from both camps at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government to rail incoherently against the Trump campaign, going so far as to accuse her counterparts of directly going after the white-supremacist vote. She later doubled down on her accusations, essentially claiming that the Angry White Men—which, again, she should have known about because Bill invented the term—were summoned to a Klan rally by “dog whistles” in the subtext of Trump speeches.

So there you have it—an Angry Black Man, an Angry White Man, an Angry Black Woman, and an Angry White Woman—all convinced that Angry White Men in the swing states rose up like villagers with torches and lynched the rightful heir to the presidency. I could cite a hundred other examples, and they’re all angrier than the angry men they write about. They’re essentially saying that the 63 million people who voted for Trump are all misguided bigots, but especially the white males.

The only word to describe it is “entitlement.” They feel entitled by their college degree. Why do we even allow white males with no college degree to vote at all? They feel entitled by their superior sense of fairness. They don’t believe a car mechanic in Pascagoula, the hometown of Jennifer Palmieri, is equal to a Syrian refugee or a Mexican immigrant when it comes time to listen to needs and grievances. They’re disdainful of the Electoral College because it gives power to small states—just as the Founding Fathers intended, assuring Delaware and Rhode Island that they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the enormous populations of Virginia and New York. But mostly they’re convinced that they know the future of America, and they don’t think these insurance salesmen and Realtors in West Texas should be interfering with it. They are not democrats in any sense of the word. They are geniocrats. They believe the world should be run by intellectuals and artists. The fact that it’s not has made them tone-deaf, like Hillary, and very, very angry.

 

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 Racism and Race Baiters, Radical Environmentalism, Radical Feminism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Al Duncan — Will The Globalists Stop Trump Before He’s Sworn In?

Therefore, they will do everything within their power to halt the actual swearing in of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, even at the risk of starting a civil war, and if need be, his assassination.

Source: Al Duncan — Will The Globalists Stop Trump Before He’s Sworn In?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE ANGRY MAN

When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement. The day is coming.

Yep, and it can’t be too soon in getting here. — jtl, 419

via Free North Carolina

For all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the group that may well have decided the election has come down to the demographic of “The Angry Man.”

The Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.

He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of appointed judges and political winds.

The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.

The Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” “safe spaces” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.

His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or any of a hundred others. What does matter, is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.

The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant, so that you can keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry Man is the backbone of this country.

He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed when people exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.

The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he finances doesn’t. Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.

The Angry Man has now reached his limit.  The “Game of Liberals” is over. When a social justice agitator goes on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter, safe spaces or any other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement. The day is coming.

But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for the inevitable coming fight. He knows that this fight will be a live or die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not going to lose because he is unwilling to lose and he will never give up until he has achieved total victory.

Obama calls him a Clinger
Hillary calls him Deplorable
Bill calls him Redneck
BLM calls him a Racist
Feminists call him Sexist
ISIS calls him an Infidel
Donald Trump calls him an American

 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 Flyover School of Guerill Warfare, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

When Judged by the Content of His Character

by Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Introduction

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

Justification: Why this essay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Materials and Methods

Any reader tempted to charge that I relied only on biased, “hater” or “right wing” sources, should consider:

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

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

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

Phony from the beginning

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

Hypocrisy

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

Cloaked in Secrecy

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

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

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

Plagiarism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Womanizing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King was a Marxist with Communist Party Connections and Affiliations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Recommended Solution

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

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

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

Trump vs. the Deep State

This past week’s display of the deep state’s grab for power… should remind all thinking Americans that the monster police state apparatus created by President George W. Bush is the greatest threat to our Republic.
The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe so-called “intelligence” (an oxymoron) community needs a drastic overhaul. We seem to be repeating  Gorbachev’s experience with his Russian “establishment” trying (but failing) to overthrow him. They are after old Donald in much the same way– jtl, 419
Combat Shooter's Handbook  As President-elect Donald Trump fights off fierce assaults by the massed national security apparatus, Democrats, the neocon Praetorian Guard, and a host of other political foes, I am feeling a sharp sense of déjà vu.Trump claimed that these attacks were like ‘living in Nazi Germany.’ Not so. The president-elect could have found a much better analogy: Moscow in August 1991.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute I was in Moscow, Central Asia and the Caucasus covering the Soviet Union’s last days and meeting with senior KGB leaders. What a dramatic and exciting time it was.  In fact, on my first night in Moscow a Russian friend and I, fired from drinking potent Georgian moonshine, managed to wake up the then director of KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, at two am by playing very loud music under his apartment. He kept stamping on the floor. My Russian-Georgian friend said, ‘just ignore the old fool.’

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewTwo years later, another old Soviet fool, KGB chief Vladimir Kryuchkov, tried to overthrow the reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev. A so-called ‘gang of eight’ of senior Communist Party officials, intelligence bigwigs, and military men secretly formed to overthrow party leader Gorbachev.

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)    Reformist Gorbachev was trying to remake the Communist Party, end its brutal policies, stop the stalemated war in Afghanistan, and allow restive nationalities, like the Baltic peoples, to edge away from the USSR. Gorby also wanted to cut way back on military spending – then almost 40% of GDP – that was bankrupting the Soviet Union. He sought good, peaceful relations with the West.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual These policies enraged Moscow’s security agencies, its hardline Communist elite (‘nomenklatura’) and vast military industrial complex. Gorby’s proposed budget cuts would have put many of them out of business. So they decided to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev to save their own skins. The coup utterly failed and its drunken, bungling leaders jailed.

We are observing something similar today in Washington, hence my sense of déjà vu. Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that spend over $70 billion annually, not including ‘black’ programs, on who knows what? Tapping communications and assassinating assorted Muslims from the air no doubt.

Trump has called for an ‘even-handed’ approach to the question of Palestine, enraging neocons who fear Israel’s headlock on Congress and the White House may be loosened. The neocon press, like the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and Washington Post, have been baying for Trump’s blood.  Not since World War II has the media so dramatically dropped its mask of faux impartiality to reveal it true political agenda.

Adding to his list of foes, Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude to Russia. The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump.

They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile.   Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club.  Of course, Russia’s spooks probe US electronic communications. That’s their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone’s commo, including leaders of allied states.  It’s called electronic intelligence (ELINT). War at the Top of the … Eric Margolis

But don’t blame the wicked Moscovites for revealing how Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Committee rigged the primaries in her favor against Sen. Bernie Sanders. That cat was well out of the bag already.

It’s not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America’s democracy, it’s the nation’s neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America’s media landscape. Sure it puts out government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.  At least RT offers a fresher version.

Watching our intelligence chiefs and Sen. McCain trying to blacken Trump’s name by means of a sleazy, unverified report about golden showers in a Moscow hotel, is particularly ignoble.

It’s also a laugh. Every one who went to Moscow during the Cold War knew about the bugged hotel rooms and KGB temptresses (known as ‘swallows’ -after the birds) who would knock on your door at night and give you the old Lenin love mambo while hidden camera whirled away.  I asked for 8×10 glossies to be sent to my friends. But sadly for me, the swallows never came though I did meet some lovely long-legged creatures at the Bolshoi Ballet. So-called honey traps were part of the fun of the cold war.

Humor aside, it’s dismaying to hear senior US intelligence officials who faked ‘evidence’ that led to the invasion of Iraq and used torture and assassination attacking Donald Trump. Of course, their jobs are at risk. They should be.  The CIA, in particular, has evolved from a pure intelligence gathering agency into a state-sanctioned Murder Inc that liquidates real and imagined enemies abroad. The KGB used to do the same thing – but more efficiently.

Our intelligence agencies are a vital component of national security – which has become our new state religion. But in true bureaucratic form (see Parkinson’s Laws) they have become bloated, redundant and self-perpetuating.  They need a tough Trump diet and to be booted out of politics. This past week’s display of the deep state’s grab for power – a sort of re-run of one of my favorite films, ‘Seven Days in May’ – should remind all thinking Americans that the monster police state apparatus created by President George W. Bush is the greatest threat to our Republic.

The Best of Eric Margolis

 

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 Intelligence Agencies, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

She’s Baack

If she does not go to prison, the contention that there is one set of rules for them (the ruling class) and another, completely different, set for the rest of us (the productive class) will be affirmed. — jtl, 419

Source: She’s Baack

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment