Tag Archives: government

FEDERAL JUDGE BANS OBAMA’S ‘INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS; CALLS NDAA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Seems everyone else knows it is unconstitutional except Barack.   With his long list of Executive Orders, Proclamations and Memorandums and Bills he has signed in on.  It looks like push will come to shove.   This is such a big deal to those of paying attention that state lawmakers in both Utah and Virginia have proposed legislation that would negate provisions of the NDAA on a local level.

Per RT

Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits  indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America’s own citizens.

Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.

“In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more,” said the judge.

Check out the full ARTY here.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

The horrible truth about democracy.

Gary Gibson is the managing editor for Whiskey and Gunpowder and he speaketh gospel.  

This is a newsletter I received this morning.  You know, waking up after after a peaceful sleep only to realize we are focked.  I encourage you to check out the above link for Whiskey and Gunpowder.  They focus on the crossroads of liberty, finance and moral philosophy and regard state intervention as the danger it is to healthy free markets.

Gary Gibson, somewhere between Orlando and Minneapolis…

“Government does not sell things,” a reader reminds us. “It provides them without charge — i.e. it raises no money through sales. Therefore it must raise money through another means: taxation.”

We’d argue that that is precisely the problem. The government has no profit and loss statement like business does to tell it when consumers want more of something and less of something else. The government is naked force that extracts money at gunpoint and throws it away on destructive activity like war and regulation.

The reader continues:

“Or do you think the government should bill citizens for its armed forces? How many of us would pay that bill? How about snow removal on the Interstate highways? Or law enforcement officers? These things are the foundation of a sustainable civilization, but they cannot be “sold” like a service or commodity produced by a private company. They must be paid for through mandatory collections from all citizens able to pay.”

Oh, we laughed at this one, good patron. Fix yourself a drink and settle in. We are going on a bit of a tear today…

We are told that the Russians used to ask, “If the state did not make the cars, who would?” (We don’t know how true that is, but it’s a cute anecdote that serves our point.)

This question reminds us of that limited, state-brainwashed thinking. If the government doesn’t provide something for “free” (nothing is for free…the costs are merely hidden), then no one would provide the service??

And we wouldn’t call a standing armed force the foundation of every civilization. Maybe if your civilization highly values warfare. A more peaceful civilization concerned with wealth creation as opposed to imperialism and wealth-stealing might decide that the armed forces were NOT in the list of foundation materials.

Law enforcement? We note that “laws” are often just well-armed prejudices. And when “law enforcement” replaces honest-to-God “peacekeeping” your civilization is in trouble.

We’d much rather foot the bill for private security that actually protects us….instead of paying half our income in part to fund thugs who enforce unjust laws.

That is to say, we don’t like it that money is stolen from us in order to pay the local gendarme to kidnap people for smoking a plant that “the law” says is bad. Or for

And the socialized road system sucks. It’s that simple. So many of our dear readers understand why socialized medicine sucks, but they can’t seem to get it through their heads that socialized roads must inherently be worse than privately run roads.

We don’t think there is a single thing governments provide that the markets couldn’t provide better. Unless you’re talking destruction. Unless you speak, that is, of war and welfare. Those two things turn capital into waste. So there the state surely excels!

Look at the top of the page. This is “The Free Market e-Letter”. Not “Kind of Free Market”…or “Free Market Except for Stuff Most People Have Been Brainwashed Into Thinking Can Only Exist Because of the State Thanks to Early Indoctrination”…

“THE Free Market e-Letter.”

Does this free market stuff start to look an awful lot like anarchism?

Absolutely, good patron! That’s why the term “anarcho-capitalist” has been coined. (Plus something had to distinguish market anarchism from that bloody socialist anarchism that refuses to see that socialism and communism require a state.)

We wish people had to pay for the military and police “protection” they get. Maybe then they’d get more actual protection instead of “extras” like illegal wars, wars of aggression, terrorist-creating foreign occupations, the drug empire-creating war on drugs, and cops aggressively harassing people for non-crimes like drug use.

If people actually had to pay — and if they could take their business to a competing provider — the monopoly providers of “protection” services couldn’t mutate into an empirical army abroad and a predatory cadre of abusive overseers at home.

“Anarchism? That won’t work. We need LAWS!”

Ah, yes. Laws. Like the little ones that criminalize personal actions that are nobody else’s business? The laws that extend the will over the majority into the living rooms and bedrooms of the minority?

How much “law” does there have to be anyway? The U.S. Code is up to some tens of thousand of pages.

How much “law” do you need beyond the common sense of don’t aggress against people or their stuff? Really?

And how is it to enforce this simple law on a commercial level? Would you do business with murderers, rapists and thieves? Hell, you don’t even need prisons! Conviction in private court could result in economic ostracization…which could be tantamount to a death sentence. It would surely mean poverty since a high standard of living is built upon division of labor, specialization and exchange. You know. A market economy.

You don’t even need violence and kidnapping and rape to punish violence, kidnapping and rape. That is, you don’t need taxpayer-funded prisons to punish crime. You just have to withhold voluntary economic interactions.

Private courts would demand that aggressors repay victims monetarily since they’d have no power to imprison. This is infinitely better than aggressors paying “society” while getting room and board in a rape-and-torture camp (prisons) funded by loot stolen from taxpayers.

For crimes for which there can be no real reparation (murder and rape), the aggressor would be forced to the margins of commercial society and languish there, capable of attaining only the lowliest, most grueling and dangerous labor. He’d be forced to pay his own way, instead being roomed and boarded with tax dollars. But his economic position would be fixed at the low end for the rest of his life.

Of course, there’d be a hell of a lot less crime in a truly free market anyway. Prices would be lower, employment would be more plentiful. People wouldn’t be made into criminals for enjoying their own pleasures that harm no one else’s person or property. Levels of wealth would more equal all around. (Capitalism does not create an entrenched class of rich people. The state does that. Just as it creates an entrenched class of welfare dependents.)

There is a cost to all this of course! People would be free to do things with their bodies and property that you might find objectionable. Economic freedom means prosperity…but it would also mean personal freedom that sets the busybody moralist’s teeth on edge.

That’s the horrible truth about democracy. It’s just mob rule. It’s the tyranny of the many against the few. It uses violence both to extract and redistribute money…and to enforce codes of conduct. It turns every man into a petty but politically sanctified bully and thief, living at the cost of his neighbor and making sure his neighbor personal life stays within very narrow bounds despite his neighbor’s preferences.

We rant about freedom from politics because politics gums up the ability for all of us — except the psychopath bullies who run for office — to enjoy our lives.

Politics also gums up the ability to generate wealth and raise standards of living sustainably (rather than just temporarily doling out what wealth exists to favored groups).

In response to our writing “Keynesianism is in a death spiral. So is populist socialism. So is fiat money fascism,” a Bar regular (and frequent dissident) writes:

“No argument there, but so is Predatory Capitalism (thank God). Any system built on injustice, exploitation, militarism and imperial wars eventually self-destructs.”

So now we get to play at words again, good patron. We have to define our terms. Predatory capitalism is state capitalism…but the minute the state gets involved, capitalism ceases to exist!

Capitalism is a free market phenomenon. A market is not free when it is enslaved by politicians. The market IS human action, free of regulators and money monopolists. Regulations and fiat currencies are the very tools of this enslavement.

The regulations are the offspring of entrenched corporatists and the state. The fiat currency is the abominable spawn of the state and a banking cartel. Where is the freedom in that? Where, we ask in earnest, is the capitalism?

Tagged , ,

US DOLLAR WILL BE REPLACED.

This morning’s entry comes from one of my favorite people who just explains it all so well; Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com and YES, the following quote is YOU being insulted you simple serf you.

The great frustration of being actively involved in the Liberty Movement is the fact that many people are rarely on the same page (or even the same book) during political and economic discussion.  Where we see the nature of the false left/right paradigm, they see “free democracy”.  Where we see a tidal wave of destructive debt, they see a “responsible government” printing and spending in order to protect our “best interests”.  Where we see totalitarianism, they see “safety”.  Where we see dollar devaluation, they see dollar strength and longevity.  Ultimately, because the average unaware citizen is stricken by the disease of normalcy bias and living within the doldrums of a statistical fantasy world, they simply have no point of reference by which to grasp the truth when exposed to it.  It’s like trying to explain the concept of ‘color’ to a man who has been blind since birth. 

And what is QE3 ?

Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional[1][2] monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when conventional monetary policy has become ineffective

Click the link below to begin understanding the crisis and a few questions answered:

Is The Dollar A Safe Haven?

The Dollar Dump Has Already Begun

What Will Replace The Dollar?

Read more of this arty HERE

 

Tagged , , , , , ,

ESCAPE FROM AMERICA.

Well, it appears two piece of shit Senators want to stop Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin from dodging taxes.  Saverin renouned his U.S. citizenship ahead of the company’s initial public offering and these ass clowns have now introduced legislation to punish him (and others) who leave the country to avoid paying large taxes.   Among the penalties would be a ban on reentering the United States for anyone that the Internal Revenue Service determined renounced citizenship to avoid paying taxes.

Are you kidding me ?  How much money do you want from the people ?  How much do you vultures think you deserve ?

“This is a great American success story gone wrong,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “Mr. Saverin wants to de-friend the United States just to avoid paying taxes, and we’re not going to let him get away with it.”

This is the exact politician that needs to simply get off my planet.   In another example of government raping, these two serf-herders (and Sen. Robert Casey (D-Penn.) are going to introduce the Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing the Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act, also know as the Ex-PATRIOT Act.

Any person with a net worth of $2 million or an average income-tax liability of at least $148,000 over the previous five years who renounces U.S. citizenship would be presumed by the Internal Revenue Service to have done so to avoid paying taxes.

Presumed by the IRS ?  Presumed ? You mean fucking allegedly?  Apparently in 2011, 1,780 people gave up their U.S. citizenship.  can we blame them ? Schumer is missing the big picture here.  Is this guy for real ? Why is he spinning it like it’s an insult to American people ? Good for Eduardo !  He made some mad bank while changing the culture.  This American has no problems with Eduardo renouncing his status as an American Citizen, especially when the Federal Government wants to steal $67 Million from him.

Homeboy already has paid a 15% Exit Fee.  Apparently that is not enough for Washington considering they helped out so much on making The Face what it is.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Arrival Of Peak Government

A must read.

This is a Reblog from ZEROHEDGE 

As I started reading this great article, a couple of paragraphs leaped off the page and into my noggin.  So I had to Reblog this one.

‎”Central government — the Central State — has been in the expansion mode for so long that the process of contracting government is completely alien to the nation, to those who work for the State, and to those who are dependent on the State.”

and

‎”The State’s prime directive is to cut the causal connection between risk and gain so that the State can retain the gain and transfer the risk to others. The separation of risk from gain is called moral hazard, and the key characteristic of moral hazard can be stated very simply: People who are exposed to risk and consequence act very differently than those who are not exposed to risk and consequence.”

The twin peaks of oil and government are causally linked: central government’s great era of expansion has been fueled by abundant, cheap liquid fuels. As economies powered by abundant cheap energy expanded, so did tax revenues.

Demographics also aided Central States’ expansion: as the population of working-age citizens grew, so did the work force and the taxes paid by workers and enterprises.

The third support of Central State expansion was debt, and more broadly, financialization, which includes debt, leverage, and institutionalized incentives for speculation and misallocation of capital. Not only have Central States benefited from the higher tax revenues generated by speculative bubbles, they now depend on debt to finance their annual spending. In the U.S., roughly one-third of Federal expenditures are borrowed every year. In Japan — which is further along on this timeline, relative to America — tax revenues barely cover social security payments and interest on central government debt; all other spending is funded with borrowed money.

The fourth dynamic of Central State expansion is the State’s ontological imperative to expand. The State has only one mode of being, expansion. It has no concept of, or mechanisms for, contraction.

Read this arty HERE.

Tagged ,

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY.

Ha ! Made you look !

I just got inspired having debating this topic on The Face.    This absurd argument on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry or not.  Of course they should be allowed.  In saying they cannot is taking away rights one person has and denying another of the same rights, in this case based on sexual orientation.  The argument I am seeing from a few people is they feel the Federal Government should step in and make this legal.  For reasons of validity I was told.   To make it real I was told.  I was then reminded of important events such as the Civil Rights Act and Women’s Rights.  And …

Those are great points.  I cannot imagine those issues even being issues if not for the Federal Government stepping in and deeming it so.  Or can I ?

Do you follow the constitution ?  Do you subscribe to to it ? I do.  The 10th Amendment clearly states:

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.

Reserved to the States, or to the people.  

Sophia Bush

Sophia Bush

I would do very bad things to Sophia.  Now, PER WIKI

Same-sex marriage in the United States is not recognized by the federal government, but such marriages are recognized by some individual states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act (passed overwhelmingly by the house and Senate), before Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Such licenses are granted by six states: ConnecticutIowaMassachusettsNew HampshireNew York, and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. …

In asking for the Federal Government to intervene is only asking for a major fucking headache.  It is not in the Constitution, it is not in the power of the Federal Government to even intervene.  But they did, and they do (just like they do with every other area of our lives).  I make the case for the Federal Government staying the fuck out of the equation and allowing the States to rule on it individually.

Massachusetts was the first state to make it legal until the FEDS stepped in and said, uh, yeah, er, No.   If the FEDS stayed out of the equation, it would be legal today in that state.  Period.  In that state, it would not even be an issue any longer but the FEDS keep us arguing about it, trampling over the Constitution and meddling where they have no business meddling.

On one hand, the FEDS could make it law, right ? Yay !  Finally !  Just like Civil Rights and Women’s Rights, if it is law, then it must be okay.   No.

On that hand you have thousands of people rejoicing, and now you have thousands more pissed off.  The Federal Government came in, and made something law a lot of people do not want.  Is this awesome only because it is what YOU want ?  When the next big issue comes along, something you may agree or disagree with and the LAW goes against your views on it, then what ?   Do you see the picture a little clearer now ?  With the Federal Government staying out of this (and everything else the 10th Amendment and our constitution says) it would already be legal in some states and progressively in others as time marches on.

With the government interfering, they are only slowing down what is inevitable.

Start thinking of these issues with a more abstract mind.  Freedom, Liberty, Constitutional Values and Limited Government.    I was once told the Consty was an outdated piece of paper that needed to be updated.   I disagree.  It is 234 years old.   On a timeline of history and governments that is a minor glitch on the radar.  It was written by men who fought for our Republic and had lived under tyranny.   Remember that.

Ron Paul 2012

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Advertisements