Saturday, May 30, 2009
This may not rank among the quotes of the historical greats, but I'd like to think that this collection of words I spouted during one of my rants to my dad will help present an ideological solution to the disasters created by US foreign policy.
This phrase has two meanings:
First, the actual idea of a nation without a standing military was proposed and supported by the founding fathers. It is this very idea that is worth fighting for because it removes the temptation and the ability for the federal state to engage an imperial and global policy, as well as an oppressive feudal domestic system.
Second, a nation that commits to a policy where there is no standing army is a nation worth defending because of the freedom that will unquestionably come as a result of such principled standards. It is this freedom that its citizens will fight for in the event of an attack on its land. Note: The probability of an invasion will be greatly diminished because of the nation's non-interventionist policy - even if only defacto due to its lack of offensive army - and its desire to attend to freedom instead of meddling in other nations' affairs. This nation's citizens will gladly and without hesitation pick up a weapon to defend its land.
Friday, May 29, 2009
What if, instead of pushing the tab off on to future generations, the ACTUAL war expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?
What if the countries who foolishly continue to subsidize the US spending stopped buying up US debt and the ACTUAL war expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?
What if the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve did not have the printing press, and thus inflation, to fund our wars and the ACTUAL expense was deducted directly from each of our paychecks?
What if all politics were set aside and people actually had to vote with their wallets? Would you still support the government’s wars?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
See Grigg's blog here.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The discussion this past Saturday was about Memorial Day and how it is treated throughout the mainstream media. I called into the show earlier this evening to discuss.
Click here for the shortened clip of my conversation with the hosts Ian, Mark, and Nick.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Which is another way of saying "'libertarians' over at Reason are in support of trading one form of tyrrany for another".
See my previous postings here and here.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
I chuckled a bit as I was driving - not because of anything sinister or anything to do with the fallout that may arise because of the alleged missile capability. No, it was because of the manner in which the headline read and how we are supposed to be surprised that our military bases are NOW strategically in danger due to their geographical position relative to other "enemies". That's what happens when you police the world and occupy over 150 countries.
That's like going to the beach and being surprised to find sand.
On a map of Baghdad, the US Army's Forward Operating Base Falcon is clearly within city limits.
Except that Iraqi and American military officials have decided it's not. As the June 30 deadline for US soldiers to be out of Iraqi cities approaches, there are no plans to relocate the roughly 3,000 American troops who help maintain security in south Baghdad along what were the fault lines in the sectarian war.
"We and the Iraqis decided it wasn't in the city," says a US military official.
"We consider the security agreement a living document," says a senior US commander.
This kind of creative manuevering and backdooring is expected from the Neoconservatives/Republicans/Dick Cheney, but not from the "party of peace". Say it isn't so, Barack!
Where is the outrage from the supposed peace lovers? Where is the frontpage story on the Huffington Post? Could it be that the peace movement only acts when in its best interest, which is when a Republican is in office? Nary a word when the Dems are in control. What a lousy bunch of posers.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Congress voted last week 422-1 to award Arnold Palmer the Congressional Gold Medal for his lifelong achievement in the game of golf. The one dissent: Ron Paul.
Says Mr. Paul's spokeswoman: “It is certainly nothing personal against Mr. Palmer. In fact, Congressman Paul admires him greatly. Dr. Paul opposes using public monies for any and all of these gold medals given to private citizens, just on principle. Not to mention, it is unconstitutional to use taxpayer dollars in this way. He even suggested on the House Floor before he voted against Rosa Parks’s medal that if it meant so much to the Members of Congress, why not fund the award out of their own pockets? He pulled $100 out of his own wallet, but had no other takers. At a time like this when all budgets are stretched so thin, it seems especially inappropriate to lavish gifts like this on private citizens, as much as he may admire the individual.”
Yet another example of how Congress concerns itself with a matter that should be left up to the private sector and not waste tax dollars. And somehow along the way the story is turned by the shallow minded and uninformed sheeple that Ron Paul is some kind of hater of Arnold Palmer. Amazingly pathetic.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
To protect and to serve, right?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Here is a great article by Daniel Flynn that addresses the concerns I pointed out regarding the introduction of government into the drug business. Flynn argues that legalization and regulation would actually drive the price of marijuana higher, and concludes that decriminalization (the commonly-accepted definition, not mine) is the best (least worst) solution.
Black Dude wrote on March 21, "The State gains power very sneakily with small steps that continually build over time. The more fear they can create, the bigger steps they can take. I think that we're going to have to do the same thing to take that power back. We'll have to start with small, accumulating steps. The more educated the people become, the more willing they will be to take the bigger steps."
I don't believe that small steps against a tyrannical government is effective or approaches any favorable solution. Imagine if small steps were taken against King George in the 18th Century - do you really think that true independence could have been attained? To ask is to answer.
And before the rebuttal is given that they were dealing with a tyrannical monarchy whereas we are living in "fair" system of "democracy", check out Hans Hermann Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed (summarized here).
To conclude, Flynn has done a great job of categorically rejecting the notion of legalization but holds decriminalization as the de facto solution. The only real solution is to completely reject the involvement of the state into the drug (and all other) business altogether. Small steps will not be sufficient to save this fatally damaged ship, but an attainable goal is to save the life boats. To do so, one must first acknowledge that the ship is unsalvagable and allow for the life boats to be deployed.
I'd like to use this piece to open up a dialogue in the comments section with Jacob, Black Dude, and all others.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Many investors deposit their cash and enter into contract with foreign banking institutions because of privacy concerns. This does not make one a criminal but a wise and prudent protector of their assets with legitimate apprehension toward a tyrannical government [see: Gold Confiscation Act of 1933].
Sure, there those who use these financial institutions as tax havens. But with today's oppressive tax code, who can blame them?
The national coffers are depleted, the creditors are concerned about their investment, and the voluntary slaves are already overtaxed. But the empire must be financed and all measures must be utilized - including the presumption of guilt in the event of a financial institution refusing to "cooperate", instead opting to honor a pre-existing contract.
I only hope that these institutions have the chutzpah to stand up to the dictator and refuse to "cooperate".
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Red light cameras are installed to save lives, not extort money from the public, right?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Here's an example of why the government should not be in the business of providing emergency rescue services. When a 17-year-old high school senior called 911 as her father was having a seizure, the operator cursed at her and hung up - not once, but three time. Then, when she ran to the police department, she was arrested for "disorderly conduct" and "abusing 911."
This service should be provided by trained experts in the private sector, where they would have incentive to actually do their jobs, not by mindless armed bureaucrats who go unpunished unless the local media gets involved.
Click here for article and written transcript of video.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Initially I was going to draw parallels between church goers and the Republican party, but frankly, what's the point? It takes little intellectual capacity to link the Republican party to the Religious Right (see: the Moral Majority), and party affiliation is irrelevent in this particular application.
This data is a bit shocking when you consider the message that Jesus presented and then watch in awe as the hypocritical religious masses support the heinous act of torture. These are the modern day Pharisees that Jesus rebuked in the temple in the New Testament. What kind of garbage is being spewed from the pulpet?
Bush was elected (twice) because of the religious faction and one can confidently narrow the reason for support down to the predictable topics of abortion, gay marriage, morality, et al. What did Bush do in 8 years that helped to advance the pro-life movement? Yet in those same 8 years, how many lives were lost in the Middle East, both American and foreign? How can these people be so short-sided and inconsistent?
[By the way, Democrats, how is that whole Iraq pull-out coming along? Where is the peace movement now that the evil Bush is out of power?]
I guess the only way to protect the "suspected terrorists" from the "loving" church goers is to put them inside a womb.
[See Lawrence Vance's article.]
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Although innocuous on its surface, the nationalistic idea that one must be unconditionally loyal to one's country evokes the kind of jingoistic spirit reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt and echoed by the likes of Wilson, FDR, and most recently Bush and Obama. Dissent is the crippling enemy of any state which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and is thus combated through countless avenues -- including national "holidays".
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built."
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice."
On this Loyalty Day, remember to be loyal to the spirit of liberty and repudiate the idea that it is interchangable with loyalty to country. Do not lose your individuality and self sovereignty.