The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, March 14, 2009

The Groundwork Has Already Been Laid for Martial Law

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

NO AUTISM In Never-Vaccinated Children

This is an email thread, published on a website ( between two doctors.

From Alan Cantwell MD
From Philip Rudnick PhD

Dear Drs. Eisenstein and Bradstreet:


In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never- vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois' relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst's medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have a fairly large practice," Eisenstein told us. "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. "We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."

Now that you've told us what you "think", when will you collect the facts and publish the results?


" Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, a Florida family practitioner with ties to families who homeschool their children for religious reasons, told Age of Autism he has proposed such a study in that group. "I said I know I can tap into this community and find you large numbers of unvaccinated homeschooled," said Bradstreet, "and we can do simple prevalence and incidence studies in them, and my gut reaction is that you're going to see no autism in this group.""

Now that you've told us what you "can" do, when will you do it and publish the results?

Sincerely yours,

Philip Rudnick, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Chemistry
West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Dan Olmsted
"A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?" ---Dan Olmsted

[Dan Olmsted did the research the vaccine industry and media refused to do and found little or no autism in the unvaccinated Amish and Homefirst Medical Services children.]

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Crash Course: Ch. 10 - Inflation (Pt. 2) & Chapter 11 - How Much is a Trillion? by Chris Martenson

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Government Sets Us Up for the Next Bust

by John Stossel

If an athlete injures himself and suffers great pain, we recognize the shortsightedness of giving him painkillers to keep him going. The pain might be masked, but at the risk of greater injury later.

That’s a good analogy for the inflationary policies now pursued by Washington. These policies may temporarily “stimulate the economy,” but they also disguise and aggravate the underlying problems. We will all pay a serious price.

Policy makers have thrown caution to the wind. Twelve-digit dollar figures are tossed about casually. Late last year, after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson changed course—yet again—and announced that the Federal Reserve would commit $800 billion more in “new loans and debt purchases,” the New York Times reported, “Fed and Treasury officials made it clear that the sky was the limit.”

The total federal commitment as of that date was over $7 trillion.

The Fed had given up trying to make it easier for banks to lend to each other. Now, the Times reported, it “is directly subsidizing lower mortgage rates . . . doing so by printing unprecedented amounts of money, which would eventually create inflationary pressures if it were to continue unabated.”

No kidding.

When we hear that the U.S. Treasury is doing this or the Federal Reserve is doing that, we should remember that these agencies are run by mere mortals, and as such, they cannot know how to “fix” something as complex as an economy. But they certainly are capable of wrecking one.

That’s what their inflationary policies will do.

Read the rest here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Friday, March 13, 2009

U.S. Taxpayers: The Few. The Proud. The Unprofitable.

by The Mogambo Guru

I keep looking at the $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt in the last 12 months, due to the Congress deficit-spending and the Federal Reserve creating the monstrous amounts of money and credit so that somebody could end up buying all that Treasury debt, and then I keep looking at the measly 100 million private-sector jobs that can show a profit by their labors, and thus the only ones who can pay taxes out of profits, instead of being government jobs or taxpayers-paid jobs that can’t and don’t.

So I keep punching those numbers into my calculator and I must keep screwing it all up because it comes out to the government spending $15,000 for everybody that has a profit-making job! And this was all before the “economic stimulus” package passed by Congress! Yikes!

At least when I am drunk, I can understand why I don’t understand how this could work out, but I am stone-cold sober right now and I STILL don’t understand how in the hell all of those people can each possibly MAKE another $15,000 in profit for themselves and their employers! This is insane! This is beyond insane!

At this point, I am raving and hysterical, and although I am screaming at the top of my lungs in outrage, I am actually saying, “And it goes up to $50,000 each in the next year! We’re soooOOooo freaking dooOOOooomed!”

Actually, it reminds me of that time when I was desperately experimenting with my medications and various intoxicants in varying commingled amounts to try and stop being in Mogambo Panic Mode (MPM) about what the Federal Reserve and the Congress are doing to us, and then maybe I could get some sleep, blissful, peaceful sleep, or at least stop my trigger finger from shaking so damned much.

Unfortunately all of the permutations of dosage eventually had the same two results; for one, I get weirder and weirder, and for two, I am still outraged at the stupidity and despicability of the Federal Reserve in creating so much money and credit so that the traitorous, corrupt Congress could spend so much money to change the economy into a bloated, misshapen, cancerous, government-centric piece of corrupt socialist trash, bit by bit, year after year, and now (in case you are new around here and haven’t heard me bellowing that we’re freaking doomed), the federal government is going to deficit-spend upwards of $2 trillion next year! On top of the $3 trillion it is already budgeted to spend!

Spontaneously, I shout, “You should be buying gold, silver and oil with both of your greedy, grasping hands because we are – in case you ain’t heard – freaking doomed!” just to bring everybody up to speed.

Well, nobody is impressed with my rude outburst, and says, “some perspective is in order. If we use $2.5 trillion as the estimated deficit that means we’re adding $6.85 billion per day to the National Debt” which, when I divide by the 100 million private-sector workers in the country, comes to each one of them carrying another $65.86 a day in debt! Unbelievable!

Of course, this sets me off again, but before I can work myself into a Real Screaming Frenzy (RSF), they note that things have been worse, as, “Government debt as a percentage of GDP was 122% during World War II, versus only 78% today” which kind of calmed me down since we obviously survived that ordeal.

So I was just about to use that happy factoid as a handy excuse to celebrate by ducking out early and maybe grabbing a burger and brew, when they ominously go on “When government debt reaches 110% of GDP next year, will we be in better or worse position as a nation than we were in 1945 as the only remaining power in the world?”

There are many things that scare me in this world, but none is more horrendous than the short extrapolation that came out a few years after government debt went from 78% of GDP in one year to 100% the next.

Fortunately, nothing is more soothing than the security of gold, time-tested for over 4,000 years and going strong!

Whee! This investing stuff is easy!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The welfare state scam illustrated

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

America's biggest problem is big government

by Dr. Gary Wolfram

It is clear that members of the Democratically-controlled Congress and President Barack Obama have either not read or have choosen to ignore the 10th amendment to the United State constitution.

That’s the amendment that reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In his recent address to the joint session of Congress, Obama, cheered on enthusiastically by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, declared how the federal government will become more fully involved in the financial industry, the auto industry, the health care industry, the energy industry, higher education, and K-12 education among other things.

This speech reflects an attitude of a federal government that is unbounded in its powers and responsibilities. It is consistent with the so-called stimulus package that contains a vast array of federal government intrusions into the private sector and what are properly the responsibilities of state government .

It is telling that the president quoted a letter from a student in South Carolina who asked him and Congress to fix her school. This letter reflects on an educational system that has taught our children that the federal government is the place to seek solutions to the problems of local K-12 education.

That the President would offer up this letter as something which we should all agree with shows us that we have moved far from the Founders and their insight that a federal system is the best way to protect individual liberty.

Aside from the constitutional issue, the speech ignored what Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pointed out decades ago--that centrally planned states cannot overcome the problem that information is decentralized.

A central planner cannot possibly know the relative value to 300 million consumers of resources used in the production of windmills versus airplane parts, or gasoline versus diesel fuel. This is a primary reason why socialist economies are beset by poverty. Markets, on the other hand, through their reliance on the price system, are enormously efficient at producing wealth for the masses.

My seventh-grade son, while listening to the President’s speech blurted out: “This is central planning.” His reaction was entirely accurate. The administration has plans for nearly every aspect of our life: What kinds of cars we drive, how much tuition will be at our colleges and universities, what kind of health care we will get, how we will produce and consume energy.

Nothing seems to be beyond the reach of the planners. The result of this planning will be a society that is poorer economically, but perhaps more importantly, less free. The result of Individuals acting according to their own plans will not result in the societal outcome that the planners desire.

If we are free to choose, we will not drive the type of cars Pelosi would like us to drive, or choose the type of health care that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have us choose, or choose the type of education that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, would like us to choose.

Ludwig von Mises in 1927 warned about the coming Depression and Second World War. He did not warn that it was poor monetary policy, or high taxes, or too much government spending that would lead us into what he called “an approaching catastrophe in the world economy.”

Rather it was the adoption in the West of a philosophy skeptical of market capitalism and enamored with government planning. The greatest threat to our society is not credit default swaps or mortgage-backed securities. It is the loss of our understanding of limited government, individual liberty, and the economic system which creates a prosperous and free society.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Homeland Offense

by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Americans have become so inured to the sight of federal troops fighting fires, rescuing flood victims from rooftops, and engaging in drug interdiction on the border that few eyebrows were raised when news broke that 20,000 active-duty infantry would soon be deployed on American soil for so-called homeland defense.

But critics say this development – announced by U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in October – is unprecedented and further evidence of a military mission-creep into domestic affairs, particularly in areas for which the National Guard and Reserves are already suited.

“I don’t get it. I don’t understand why they are further encumbering active-duty brigades with this kind of mission,” says Winslow Wheeler, author of America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress and one of Washington’s few civilian experts on the Pentagon’s Byzantine budget. “It sounds like someone is expanding his empire.”

Pentagon officials say that having a permanent, ready-reaction force capable of responding to a catastrophic event – natural or manmade – is a sensible and necessary outgrowth of post-9/11 national security. But the move has constitutional experts, civil libertarians, and retired and active military scratching their heads. Politicians are now demanding answers, wondering how close the military is to violating the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 federal law passed after Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from conducting domestic law enforcement.

Read the rest at this link.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Are You a Brainless Obeyer?

by Don Cooper

I went to eat lunch with my 10-year-old daughter at school the other day and afterwards, the principle came up to me and, with a stern voice and face, informed me that my daughter would be literally kicked out of school the following week if I didn’t provide her with proof of our address.

You see we had moved recently and the school board requires proof of a student’s home address for zoning purposes.

This task had slipped my and my wife’s mind and I told the principle that we would go home straightaway and get a copy of our lease and a utility bill and bring it by.

I also mentioned that I thought it was kind of absurd to threaten, and even worse to actually do it, to kick a child out of school for something so trivial. A simple phone call to remind us would have sufficed.

And then, that’s when it happened. That’s when the principle of the elementary school uttered the most popular copout in the history of civilized society: "I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them."

I have to admit: I didn’t hear the principle say "I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them." But rather I heard: I’m a mindless cretin who lacks the ability for reasonable thought so regardless of how absurd something might be I’ll do it anyway because that’s what I was told to do."

That’s why I’d like to propose adding the human brain’s frontal lobe to the list of useless tissue that should be removed at birth since they are no longer of any vital use to humans:

* Tonsils
* Adenoids
* Spleen
* Gallbladder
* One kidney
* Thyroid
* Prostate
* Appendix
* Frontal Lobe

I’d start with the cops. They are the poster children for the phrase: I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them. Of course when a cop says it I hear: I’m an undereducated cowboy who, if not for working for the state, would have no real skills to market and would most likely be in prison myself so I do what I’m told.

Then I’d move on to the customer service representatives at banks. The ones that look at you with that blank, robotic stare and talk in circles as you try to explain to them that you don’t think it’s fair that they charged you a fee for going over the credit limit on your card since the reason you went over your credit limit is because of a fee that they charged your card with. Some monthly maintenance fee or cash advance fee or "we want to undeservedly take more of your money" fee.

I kid you not: a customer service representative once told me when I asked what the "over the credit limit" fee was, that it is a charge the bank assesses you when you go over your credit limit.

Then when I asked why they charge such a fee, he replied: "because it’s in your terms of agreement."

When I asked why such a clause is in the terms of agreement he replied: "because we cannot legally charge you a fee that is not in the terms of agreement."

I put my head in a bottle of bourbon and have yet to come out.

This attitude of blind compliance and self-preservation at the expense of others is found at every level of society in America. It evokes for me a vision of soulless beings wandering aimlessly through life just doing what they are told until they can retire and then finally start living the good life. You know those 10–20 years out of your 70–80 years of life when you’re too old to do the really fun stuff anymore. But you do get to play a lot of cards, golf, bowling, shuffle board and be on a first name basis with the emergency services crews since they come to your trailer park at least twice a week when someone falls and breaks a hip or dies.

It echoes of a complete lack of self-reliance, self-esteem, confidence, intelligence, courage and free will. All the sorts of things it seems the people who built this country had.

But in the end, as you lay in a state-funded nursing home because your social security and Medicare are non-existent and the economy ate your retirement account; you won’t have control of your faculties but at least you’ll have peace of mind knowing that you always did what you were told.

You were a patriot. You never questioned authority. You never questioned the status quo. You supported the troops. And for that you left the world worse off.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:


Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Oath Keepers

Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT “just follow orders,” will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

"Not on Our Watch!"

Check out this great site/blog at this link:

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

ADL Keeps Showing True Colors

The Anti-Defamation League (aka "the Israeli or ELSE" lobby) has announced a new list of anti-semitic "extremists" that you should watch out for. Who are they?

None other than... ya, you guessed it, those evil Constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Presidential candidate 2004) and anti-IRS tax protesters Joe Banister and Tommy Cryer. Among others, of course.

The whole list is based on the upcoming "Three Pillars of Tyranny" conference to be held in Pensacola, Florida later this month.

The event is listed alongside other events in Florida, the others being "racist, right-wing, white supremacist" gatherings. This even is listed as a: "Right-wing extremist conference focusing on government conspiracies. Among invited speakers are Joe Banister, Tommy Cryer, Pat Shannan, Dave Von Kleist, Jack McLamb, Greg Dixon, Ted Gunderson, and Michael Badnarik."

So what's the real motive of the ADL? To target racists, or to target everyone who isn't complicit with the governmental authority of

I think I can tell. How about you?

Read more about it at

Guess I'll have to keep an eye on their site, since I'm sure to be listed next since I didn't cow-tow to their final word on who's "racist" and "anti-semitic" and who's not. Plus I made the mistake of saying "Israel" in a "bad" way on my site, that might also make me "anti-semitic." For anyone who hasn't already seen through this race-baiting b.s. that groups like the ADL pull, I pity your shallow minds.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

The Economic Meltdown's Minority Roots

By "minority," I don't mean racial minority, I mean the extreme minority of states suffering heavy housing foreclosure rates and sub-prime mortgage losses. When you see the map below and how concentrated the problem with these loans really is, you'll ask yourself two questions:



The answers to those questions are obvious: you're paying because the PLAN was always to make you pay--the loans were made so that the system would fail and we would all get screwed over by the bankers and elitists who plan to own everything--including your house, which you've been paying for without problems.

Because what's going to happen is the economy is going to get WORSE as they keep throwing more and more money at it--killing what little value the dollar has left. This will mean that those with current mortgages who are paying them just fine will find it harder and harder to keep up with their payments as their dollars buy less and less of the other necessities (like food, heat, gasoline). That's assuming you still have an income when all this melts.

Ya, so you can blame California and Florida for taking the dive so the rest of us can get drug down into the murky waters of the Banker Elites with them.

Image source: RealtyTrac

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Hitler's Economics

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide…. Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

Read the rest by clicking here.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

FPIP: Too Many Overseas Bases

by David Vine, Foreign Policy In Focus

In the midst of an economic crisis that’s getting scarier by the day, it’s time to ask whether the nation can really afford some 1,000 military bases overseas. For those unfamiliar with the issue, you read that number correctly. One thousand. One thousand U.S. military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, DC, representing the largest collection of bases in world history.

Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, but this notoriously unreliable number omits all our bases in Iraq (likely over 100) and Afghanistan (80 and counting), among many other well-known and secretive bases. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — just to name a few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.

Unlike domestic bases, which set off local alarms when threatened by closure, our collection of overseas bases is particularly galling because almost all our taxpayer money leaves the United States (much goes to enriching private base contractors like corruption-plagued former Halliburton subsidiary KBR). One part of the massive Ramstein airbase near Landstuhl, Germany, has an estimated value of $3.3 billion. Just think how local communities could use that kind of money to make investments in schools, hospitals, jobs, and infrastructure.

Even the Bush administration saw the wastefulness of our overseas basing network. In 2004, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to close more than one-third of the nation’s overseas installations, moving 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians back to the United States. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, then commander of U.S. forces in Europe, called for closing 20% of our bases in Europe. According to Rumsfeld’s estimates, we could save at least $12 billion by closing 200 to 300 bases alone. While the closures were derailed by claims that closing bases could cost us in the short term, even if this is true, it’s no reason to continue our profligate ways in the longer term.

Costs Far Exceeding Dollars and Cents
Unfortunately, the financial costs of our overseas bases are only part of the problem. Other costs to people at home and abroad are just as devastating. Military families suffer painful dislocations as troops stationed overseas separate from loved ones or uproot their families through frequent moves around the world. While some foreign governments like U.S. bases for their perceived economic benefits, many locals living near the bases suffer environmental and health damage from military toxins and pollution, disrupted economic, social, and cultural systems, military accidents, and increased prostitution and crime.

In undemocratic nations like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Saudi Arabia, our bases support governments responsible for repression and human rights abuses. In too many recurring cases, soldiers have raped, assaulted, or killed locals, most prominently of late in South Korea, Okinawa, and Italy. The forced expulsion of the entire Chagossian people to create our secretive base on British Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is another extreme but not so aberrant example.

Bases abroad have become a major and unacknowledged “face” of the United States, frequently damaging the nation’s reputation, engendering grievances and anger, and generally creating antagonistic rather than cooperative relationships between the United States and others. Most dangerously, as we have seen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign bases create breeding grounds for radicalism, anti-Americanism, and attacks on the United States, reducing, rather than improving, our national security.

Proponents of maintaining the overseas base status quo will argue, however, that our foreign bases are critical to national and global security. A closer examination shows that overseas bases have often heightened military tensions and discouraged diplomatic solutions to international conflicts. Rather than stabilizing dangerous regions, our overseas bases have often increased global militarization, enlarging security threats faced by other nations who respond by boosting military spending (and in cases like China and Russia, foreign base acquisition) in an escalating spiral. Overseas bases actually make war more likely, not less.

The Benefits of Fewer Bases
This isn’t a call for isolationism or a protectionism that would prevent us from spending money overseas. As the Obama administration and others have recognized, we must recommit to cooperative forms of engagement with the rest of the world that rely on diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties rather than military means. In addition to freeing money to meet critical human needs at home and abroad, fewer overseas bases would help rebuild our military into a less overstretched, defensive force committed to defending the nation’s territory from attack.

In these difficult economic times, the Obama administration and Congress should initiate a major reassessment of our 1,000 overseas bases. Now is the time to ask if, as a nation and a world, we can really afford the 1,000 bases that are pushing the nation deeper into debt and making the United States and the planet less secure? With so many needs facing our nation, it’s unconscionable to have 1,000 overseas bases. It’s time to begin closing them.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

General George S. Patton was assassinated

by Tim Shipman in Washington, Telegraph (UK)

The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.

The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had suffered serious injuries in a car crash in Manheim, he was thought to be recovering and was on the verge of flying home.

But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General "Wild Bill" Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname "Old Blood and Guts".

His book, "Target Patton", contains interviews with Mr Bazata, who died in 1999, and extracts from his diaries, detailing how he staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton's Cadillac and then shot the general with a low-velocity projectile, which broke his neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch.

Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general.

Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph that when he spoke to Mr Bazata: "He was struggling with himself, all these killings he had done. He confessed to me that he had caused the accident, that he was ordered to do so by Wild Bill Donovan.

"Donovan told him: 'We've got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he's out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.' I believe Douglas Bazata. He's a sterling guy."

Mr Bazata led an extraordinary life. He was a member of the Jedburghs, the elite unit who parachuted into France to help organise the Resistance in the run up to D-Day in 1944. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times over for his efforts.

After the war he became a celebrated artist who enjoyed the patronage of Princess Grace of Monaco and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

He was friends with Salvador Dali, who painted a portrait of Bazata as Don Quixote.

He ended his career as an aide to President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign.

Mr Wilcox also tracked down and interviewed Stephen Skubik, an officer in the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the US Army, who said he learnt that Patton was on Stalin's death list. Skubik repeatedly alerted Donovan, who simply had him sent back to the US.

"You have two strong witnesses here," Mr Wilcox said. "The evidence is that the Russians finished the job."

The scenario sounds far fetched but Mr Wilcox has assembled a compelling case that US officials had something to hide. At least five documents relating to the car accident have been removed from US archives.

The driver of the truck was whisked away to London before he could be questioned and no autopsy was performed on Patton's body.

With the help of a Cadillac expert from Detroit, Mr Wilcox has proved that the car on display in the Patton museum at Fort Knox is not the one Patton was driving.

"That is a cover-up," Mr Wilcox said.

George Patton, a dynamic controversialist who wore ivory-handled revolvers on each hip and was the subject of an Oscar winning film starring George C. Scott, commanded the US 3rd Army, which cut a swathe through France after D-Day.

But his ambition to get to Berlin before Soviet forces was thwarted by supreme allied commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave Patton's petrol supplies to the more cautious British General Bernard Montgomery.

Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge.

In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.

Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph: "Patton was going to resign from the Army. He wanted to go to war with the Russians. The administration thought he was nuts.

"He also knew secrets of the war which would have ruined careers.

I don't think Dwight Eisenhower would ever have been elected president if Patton had lived to say the things he wanted to say." Mr Wilcox added: "I think there's enough evidence here that if I were to go to a grand jury I could probably get an indictment, but perhaps not a conviction."

Charles Province, President of the George S. Patton Historical Society, said he hopes the book will lead to definitive proof of the plot being uncovered. He said: "There were a lot of people who were pretty damn glad that Patton died. He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there."

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, March 09, 2009

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

From ABC News (so use a grain of salt)

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

There are so many flaws to this theory Holder gives that I'm not even sure it's worth going into it. I guess any "crisis" is worth exploiting to get your globalist agenda moved forward, though. I won't bother saying anything more other than "assault weapons" are FULLY FUCKING AUTOMATIC you nitwits. Those are already "banned" under the anti-2nd Amendment laws covering "Class II" and "Class III" weapons.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Two Checks on Tyranny

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was twofold: first, to ensure that certain fundamental rights were protected from federal infringement and, second, to ensure that the American people were expressly guaranteed certain procedural rights in federal criminal prosecutions. While all of the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights – as well as those that were not enumerated – are critically important to a free society, it is worth noting that two rights – one fundamental and one procedural – are intended to provide the citizenry with a means to resist federal tyranny should such ever befall our land.

These two rights are the right to keep and bear arms and the right to trial by jury. The gun right is found in the Second Amendment and the jury right is contained in the Sixth Amendment.

We begin with the basic underlying assumption of the Bill of the Rights, which is that the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people is the federal government. Not terrorists. Not communists. Not Muslims. Not drug dealers. Not immigrants. The federal government is the greatest threat to the American people.

After all, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out whom the crafters were addressing with the Bill of Rights. They were confronting the president and the Congress, along with everyone else in the executive and legislative branches. The reason that the First Amendment, for example, expressly names Congress is simple: the crafters of the First Amendment understood that in the absence of express protection, members of Congress would do what government officials do in other lands – punish citizens for criticizing government officials.

The reason for expressly prohibiting government officials from making gun ownership illegal and for guaranteeing trial by jury was to ensure that the American people could resist, violently or peacefully, the imposition of tyranny by the president, the Congress, or both. Implicit in protecting the exercise of such rights was the assumption that tyranny could conceivably come to the United States.

Tyranny and gun control

There are those who argue that the right to keep and bear arms has to do with hunting and self-defense against robbers and burglars. While guns are an important part of those activities, they are not the primary reason the Second Amendment was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The main reason for the Second Amendment is one that government officials are usually uncomfortable talking about: the right and the ability of the citizenry to forcibly resist government officials, including those in the FBI, the CIA, the military, and the police, who are carrying out tyrannical orders of their superiors.

This important rationale for the right to keep and bear arms – the ability to resist tyranny – was pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent Washington, D.C., gun-ban case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court stated,

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary – an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

The Court was, of course, referring to tyranny at the hands of the federal government – and to the right and ability of the American people to employ violence against government officials in the event of such tyranny. The point is that if the worst happens, the American people have an option that people in many other countries don’t have – the option of meeting force with force. In the absence of gun ownership, Americans would have but one option: submit and obey. Submission and obedience were the only options that most German Jews had in Nazi Germany. Weapons would have provided them with another option.

One of the best expositions on the critical importance of the right to keep and bear arms was given by Judge Alex Kozinski, a federal appellate judge in the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Recall the scene early in the movie Braveheart in which the Scottish bride was required to submit to the British law requiring her to have sexual relations with a British lord on her wedding night. Since the Scots lacked the means to resist British troops enforcing the law, the husband and his wife had but one choice – obey and submit. Swords and shields would have provided another option.

The right to keep and bear arms is essentially an insurance policy. Like many insurance policies, people will probably never have to make a claim on it. But if the worst happens, it’s nice to know that one has the insurance.

Jury nullification

The right of trial by jury, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, provides the American people with a nonviolent means to resist tyranny. Trial by jury provides the citizenry with the means to acquit people who are prosecuted by U.S. officials for violating tyrannical laws.

In federal criminal prosecutions, the accused is guaranteed the option of having a group of ordinary citizens decide his guilt or innocence. Those people are chosen at random from the community.

At the trial, the accused is presumed innocent and federal prosecutors have the burden of providing sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. The accused himself has the right to present evidence showing that he is not guilty of the offense.

After both sides have presented their evidence, the federal judge instructs the jury that its duty is simply to weigh the evidence and decide whether the accused is guilty. The judge’s duty, he explains, is to provide the jury with the applicable law in the case.

What federal judges (and, for that matter, state judges) never explain to the jury, however, is the full extent of its powers. Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. If the jury decides that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or tyrannical, the jurors can vote to acquit the accused and there is nothing the federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it.

Once the verdict of acquittal is announced, the judge must discharge the defendant, enabling him to immediately walk out of the courtroom a free man. The jury itself is discharged as well, and neither the prosecutors nor the judge can retaliate against the jurors. The jury verdict is final.

Many years ago, a man in my hometown of Laredo, Texas, was on trial in federal court for a drug offense. He took the witness stand and admitted having sold the drugs, explaining that his family had been in dire financial straits and that he deeply regretted his actions. The jury knew that if they convicted the man, the judge would surely send him to the penitentiary for a long time. They voted to acquit him.

When the verdict of acquittal was announced, the federal judge flew into a rage. He castigated the members of the jury, telling them that they were the dumbest group of people who had ever served as jurors in his court. He ordered that all 12 of them be removed from the jury list and barred from ever serving again in his court. But at the end of his tirade, he had but one choice: to discharge the defendant and the jury. All of them walked away in freedom. The jury’s verdict was final.

When our American ancestors demanded the inclusion of trial by jury in the Bill of Rights, they knew that judges or other federal officials could not be relied on to serve as ultimate checks against tyranny. They knew that when it came to interpreting laws, judges would be bound more by the rulings of the appellate courts than by their conscience.

Not so with ordinary citizens, however. If the citizenry believed that laws that were being enacted were tyrannical, immoral, or unjust, that sentiment could be quietly expressed by the refusal of juries to convict people of such offenses.

Consider, for example, the case of Hans and Sophie Scholl, a brother and sister who were attending college at the University of Munich during World War II. They secretly began publishing anti-government and anti-war pamphlets as part of an informal group called the White Rose. Since that was a serious crime under German law, the SS caught them and arrested them. They were immediately brought to trial before the “People’s Court,” a special court that Hitler established because of his dissatisfaction with a verdict that had been issued in a terrorism case by a duly constituted court.

The Scholl trial was conducted before a panel of judges, and the verdict was never in doubt. As the investigators and judges pointed out, the law is the law and people are expected to obey it. And the nation was at war, after all. Since Hans and Sophie admitted to having violated the law, the judges felt that they were doing their legal (and patriotic) duty by convicting them and sentencing them to death.

Now, imagine that trial by jury had been a guaranteed right under the German system. A jury of ordinary German citizens, rather than a panel of appointed judges, would have been deciding the fate of the Scholl siblings. While it would be entirely possible that the jury would nonetheless have convicted them of publishing the pamphlets, at least the possibility would have existed that the jury, out of conscience, would have voted to acquit, on the ground that the law under which the Scholls were being prosecuted was tyrannical, immoral, and unjust.

Under the right of trial by jury, Hans and Sophie Scholl, along with jury, could have walked out of that German courtroom free people. With trial by tribunal, they never had a chance.

Some people have argued that trial by jury leads to anarchy, a rather silly suggestion, given that the right of jury nullification has existed since enactment of the Bill of Rights and yet the federal government is still in existence. Keep in mind that a jury verdict in a particular case does not serve as any type of precedent for other cases. It simply serves as a message that a particular jury in a particular case voted to acquit the accused.

Resistance to tyranny today

Are the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right of trial by jury still relevant today?

Well, consider how U.S. officials behave in the absence of constitutional restraints and a Bill of Rights. Don’t they engage in the conduct that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights expressly prohibit?

When U.S. personnel invade a foreign country, what’s the first thing they do? Confiscate guns and impose gun control. Why? To prevent the citizenry from violently resisting what is certain to follow – tyrannical measures. Moreover, when the United States occupies another country, notice that you never see it establish a judicial system that guarantees such things as trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, the presumption of innocence, or due process of law.

Consider, for example, how the U.S. military has conducted itself in Iraq, where the military operates without the constraints of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The military is holding some 20,000 people in jail indefinitely without charges. U.S. soldiers barge into people’s homes and search their personal effects without a warrant. Prisoners are tortured and sexually abused, as the Abu Ghraib photos documented. U.S. officials guide Iraqi officials into holding kangaroo trials whose outcome is preordained and where the defendant is denied important procedural guarantees, as in the trial of Saddam Hussein. Curfews are imposed. Gun control is implemented. The press is muzzled.

Or consider Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon’s infamous prison camp, where it has established what it considers to be a model “judicial” system for handling terrorism cases. Unlike proceedings in the United States, in the Gitmo proceedings the accused is denied trial by jury, defendants are presumed guilty, coerced confessions and evidence acquired by torture can be used to convict the accused, and there is no protection against self-incrimination. Cruel and unusual punishments, including torture and sex abuse, are permitted and even encouraged. In fact, the ultimate farce of the entire proceedings is that even if the accused is acquitted, a highly unlikely possibility, given that military personnel are serving as prosecutor, judge, and jury, the defendant can still be kept in custody for the rest of his life.

If it weren’t for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who doubts that the president, the Pentagon, and Congress would be doing the same things here in the United States? Those people look upon constitutional restrictions on their power with disdain and disgust. Why else, for example, did they establish their prison camp in Cuba, rather than in the United States, if not to escape the applicability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and any interference from the federal judiciary?

Freedom can never be taken for granted, especially in times of crises, real or contrived, and especially in an era when the president is executing signing statements to avoid congressional laws; entering into illegal partnerships with private businesses for the purpose of illegally spying on the citizenry; declaring war on foreign nations in violation of the Constitution; implementing an independent judicial system designed to easily secure criminal convictions; and claiming a wartime power to arrest, torture, sexually abuse, and indefinitely imprison Americans as enemy combatants, all with the support of Congress.

If the worst were to happen – if Americans were subjected to the sort of tyranny under which the Scots, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and other people have suffered, at least Americans have two means of resistance that most people in history have been denied. Thanks to the courage, wisdom, and foresight of our ancestors, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms and the right of trial by jury.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, March 08, 2009

New World Order for Dummies

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

FDIC warns US bank deposit insurance fund could tank

From: The Raw Story

The US government is warning banks that its deposit insurance fund could go broke this year as bank failures mount.

The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, in a letter to bank chief executives dated March 2, defended the FDIC's plan to raise fees on banks and assess an emergency fee to shore up the fund and maintain investor confidence.

Bair acknowledged the new fees, announced Friday, would put additional pressure on banks at time of financial crisis and a deepening recession, but insisted they were critical to keep the insurance fund solvent and protect.

"Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year," Bair wrote.

The FDIC chief said in the letter that the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions raised the prospects of "a large number" of bank failures through 2010.

"Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative," she wrote.

The FDIC last Friday announced it would impose a temporary emergency fee on lenders and raise its regular assessments to shore up the rapidly depleting deposit insurance fund that insures individual customer deposits up to 250,000 dollars.

A week ago the FDIC reported a sharp depletion of the deposit insurance fund in the fourth quarter due to actual and anticipated bank failures, to 19 billion dollars from 34.6 billion in the third quarter.

The FDIC said it had set aside an additional 22 billion dollars for estimated losses on failures anticipated in 2009.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

HR 875 The food police, criminalizing organic farming and the backyard gardener

From: Campaign For Liberty
HR 875 The food police, criminalizing organic farming and the backyard gardener, and violation of the 10th amendment

This bill is sitting in committee and I am not sure when it is going to hit the floor. One thing I do know is that very few of the Representatives have read it. As usual they will vote on this based on what someone else is saying. Urge your members to read the legislation and ask for opposition to this devastating legislation. Devastating for everyday folks but great for factory farming ops like Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson to name a few.

I have no doubt that this legislation was heavily influenced by lobbyists from huge food producers. This legislation is so broad based that technically someone with a little backyard garden could get fined and have their property siezed. It will effect anyone who produces food even if they do not sell but only consume it. It will literally put all independent farmers and food producers out of business due to the huge amounts of money it will take to conform to factory farming methods. If people choose to farm without industry standards such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers they will be subject to a vareity of harassment from this completely new agency that has never before existed. That's right, a whole new government agency is being created just to police food, for our own protection of course.

DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, READ THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOURSELF. The more people who read this legislation the more insight we are going to get and be able to share. Post your observations and insights below. Urge your members to read this legislation and to oppose the passage of this legislation.

Pay special attention to

* Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety.
* section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.

Red flags I found and I am sure there are more...........

* Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.
* There are many more but by the time I got this far in the legislation I was so alarmed that I wanted to bring someone's attention to it. (to the one person who reads my blog)

Didn't Stalin nationalize farming methods that enabled his administration to gain control over the food supply? Didn't Stalin use the food to control the people?

Last word...... Legislate religion and enforce gag orders on ministers on what can and can't be said in the pulpit, instituting regulations forcing people to rely soley on the government, control the money and the food. What is that called? It is on the tip of my tongue..........

I haven't read any of the Senate's version of the bill as I have been poring thru the House's version. Here is the link and I hope some of you can take a look and post your observations and insights below. One thing I am pretty sure of is that very few if any Senator's have actually read the legislation and when it comes up for a vote they will more than likely take someone else's word on how they should vote. The other thing I am pretty sure about is that the legislation was probably written by lobbyists and industry experts.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: