The tipping point for Revolution

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.

• W. Somerset Maugham, in Strictly Personal, ch. 31 (1941)

The tipping point will come when:


1.  A critical mass of the American people realize they're screwed financially, and suffering is all they have to look forward to.   Their salaries contract, each dollar saved or earned buys less. Their retirement accounts, if they have them at all, are halved.   Every day more of us know this is true...


And,


2.  For every tax dollar paid there is no net benefit--they pay for debts incurred by others, against the taxpayer's will. Government services are scaled back or end altogether.  Every day more of us know this is true...


And,


3.  Enough people realize that their financial ruin has largely to mostly been secondary to the central bankers and the government in which they had so much faith...this will be the contribution of the Austrian School of economics plus the free Internet.  Every day more of us know that this is true...


My awareness of my economic peril is what turned me from a neocon into a libertarian and continues to turn me into whatever I am becoming...I evolve as the circumstances dictate.

Quote of the Day 12/29

Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit and security of the people, nation or community; whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal.

George Mason

Wikileaks/Assange: Glenn Greenwald "owns" Bush's NSA, and the CNN host

Quote of the day 12/28

All attempts to coerce the living will of human beings into the service of something they do not want must fail.


Ludwig Von Mises

Austrians 1, Keynesians 0

The trouble with "mainstream" media

I want to address the following generalizations in an article about libertarianism in the New York magazine, entitled "The Trouble with Liberty", by Christopher Beam:

"Libertarian minarchy is an elegant idea in the abstract. But the moment you get specific, the foundation starts to crumble. Say we started from scratch and created a society in which government covered only the bare essentials of an army, police, and a courts system. I’m a farmer, and I want to sell my crops. In Libertopia, I can sell them in exchange for money. Where does the money come from? Easy, a private bank. Who prints the money? Well, for that we’d need a central bank—otherwise you’d have a thousand banks with a thousand different types of currency. (Some libertarians advocate this.) Okay, fine, we’ll create a central bank. But there’s another problem: Some people don’t have jobs. So we create charities to feed and clothe them. What if there isn’t enough charity money to help them? Well, we don’t want them to start stealing, so we’d better create a welfare system to cover their basic necessities. We’d need education, of course, so a few entrepreneurs would start private schools. Some would be excellent. Others would be mediocre. The poorest students would receive vouchers that allowed them to attend school. Where would those vouchers come from? Charity. Again, what if that doesn’t suffice? Perhaps the government would have to set up a school or two after all.


And so on. There are reasons our current society evolved out of a libertarian document like the Constitution. The Federal Reserve was created after the panic of 1907 to help the government reduce economic uncertainty. The Civil Rights Act was necessary because “states’ rights” had become a cover for unconstitutional practices. The welfare system evolved because private charity didn’t suffice. Challenges to the libertopian vision yield two responses: One is that an economy free from regulation will grow so quickly that it will lift everyone out of poverty. The second is that if somehow a poor person is still poor, charity will take care of them. If there is not enough charity, their families will take care of them. If they have no families to take care of them—well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.


Of course, we’ll never get there. And that’s the point. Libertarians can espouse minarchy all they want, since they’ll never have to prove it works."

The article purports to describe the spectrum of libertarianism, but spends plenty of time taking potshots at Rand and Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, the free state project, and proponents of ocean-going communities. The article glosses over Von Mises and Lew Rockwell, barely mentioning them. He either thinks libertarians are ridiculous, or wants his readers to think so. Never does he engage the libertarians in a dialogue or try to understand the economic underpinnings of their arguments. He quotes libertarians to conveniently fit them into the author's derisive themes.


The author is ignorant of, or purposefully hides historical and economic facts. The Federal Reserve was created with mandates it has long ignored. It was founded to protect the bank and corporatist elements represented at it's founding at Jekyll Island. They wanted stability after their losses of 1907.


The civil rights act, which I'm sure was written by public school educated individuals who were economically ignorant, who thought they trying to right a wrong, was not aimed at fighting unconstitutional practices protected by states rights, it was an act to win voter loyalty among segments of the population that benefit from the legislation, or at least perceive that they benefit. 


 The Civil Rights act certainly is a blow aimed at states rights and local control. One of the latest blows against the original intent of States' Rights in the Constitution as understood by the ratifying conventions since the end of the War for Southern Independence:  We can't have uppity locales going their own way against the supreme government in Washington! Don't you know the "civil" war was fought over that and you lost?  Guess we better remind you!  Oh, you made local laws protecting your own hold on power and property based on your racial attitudes? Shame on you! Don't you know the supreme government in Washington now has a monopoly on passing laws to consolidate and grow their power!?  Don't you know you were supposed to roll over and play dead when you came home after Appomattox, found yourself politically disenfranchised, and your former slaves given political power over you? Don't you know you're supposed to be as stupid and ignorant as the charicatures of you drawn in the northern cartoons? Shame on you for not realizing that, too!


The welfare system evolved because private charity didn't suffice. I love this one. People don't have jobs for innumerable reasons. They are ill-suited for a position, they are incompetent, they are laid off because of economic circumstance. Feel free to think of a million more reasons. Private charity didn't cover the need. Neither does the system under welfare. Under welfare, someone else is stripped of their earned wages through taxation (ultimately by force, if they wont pay their taxes), because the government knows better than you how to spend your money. Remember that, and you'll be half way to loving big brother. At least under a system of private charity without welfare, I could keep more money, and decide how much I want to give, and which charities match my priorities, and which utilise my money most appropriately and efficiently.


In describing what he calls libertopia, the author jumps around between creating a mythical ideal Libertarian minarchical world, and then throws out the idea of private money, then dismissing private money, goes back to central banking, and slowly recreates the state we live in now, as if history has a inevitable evolution from primitive to advanced.  This is essentially a Marxist theory grounded in an early interpretation of Darwinism.  This paragraph is ridiculous under scrutiny, not to mention even on face value.

So, big surprise from an elitist urban dinosaur rag like the new yorker, the piece ain't complimentary towards libertarians. It is a smear piece written to show just enough information to seem authoritative with regard to the subject matter, while not writing at all about the effect and influence of the giants of modern Libertarian theory: Ludwig Von Mises, Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, et al. 

The Austrian School theories of economics arise out of the study of individual human action, called praxeology.  If you want to get an idea of the complexity of Murray Rothbard's take on praxeology, I dare you to read this. This was not a simplistic approach to studying human action.  Mises and Rothbard were true geniuses, and the strength of their theories continues to be shown in the articles on mises.org.   The theories of government arise out of the economic theories.

The predictive power of the Austrian school has been bourne out: Von Mises predicted the Great Depression, and his ideological offspring predicted the effects of Keynesian and socialist economics: the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble, the crash of 2008, and are likely to be dead on in the prediction of what TARP, QE2, etc., will do: kill chances of recovery by draining capital from the productive segment of the country, will destroy the dollar, and lead to hyperinflation in the United States.

We can take the country back. We have to.

But we have a lot to do.


Karl Deninnger of market-ticker.org hits a home run on Christmas with this post.


"...Our tripartite system of checks and balances was utterly trashed in days gone by, with two of the most-egregious examples being FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court and the introduction and passage of the 17th Amendment, which instantly and permanently eviscerated the 10th Amendment - part of the grand bargain by the colonies for the adoption of The Constitution in the first place.
Indeed, if one looks back through the outrages of Federal Government expansion, you'll find they pretty much began with the 17th Amendment, and the reason is clear: Its passage removed the ability of The States to block federal legislation.
Yet that fundamental construct - a modest and weak federal government and a comparatively strong set of state governments, is exactly what all those in our nation signed up for roughly 235 years ago.  The Constitution is in fact a contract - but like all contracts, it is only as good as the willingness of the parties to enforce it.
Liberals of all stripes talk incessantly about "The living Constitution."  That, of course, is a crock.  The Constitution is a set of black letters arranged on a very-dead tree.  Yet it is not inflexible - the means to amend it to suit the needs of the day is embedded within.  For better or worse that path was allowed, and in some cases, such as the 17th Amendment, I argue we so amended it foolishly, in the heat of political "wedge issue" arguments that in fact date back to the founding of politics itself.  Yet when a liberal wants something he can't have under The Constitution he typically ignores the constraint - such as those who argue that the black letter language of The Second Amendment means that only "The National Guard" has the right to bear arms never mind that The Constitution was drawn when "The National Guard" was comprised of every able-bodied man, keeping and bearing his own arms suitable for military purpose (which most-certainly include rifles and handguns), whether organized into military units or keeping their own homes and land safe from potential - and actual - marauders.  Such a force comprised of all citizens willing to bear their own arms in what we now call The United States in fact dates back more than 370 years, to the 1630s!  In 1903 the "organized" role of the National Guard was subsumed into the Army Reserve force, where it remains.  But the original militia envisioned by the founders did not (of course) disappear - it remains in the form of every citizen willing and able to bear arms in defense of the nation, of the state, and of him or herself.  It's just inconvenient to acknowledge that fact when you've got a particular agenda you want to pursue - like Statist or even Marxist control of the people.  How soon we forget that one of Hitler's first acts was to disarm the population, and that this almost-certainly made possible mass-murder of Jews and dissidents.  In short, The Left keeps some damn strange bedfellows."

Jury Nullification? How about Jury Pool nullification?

The citizens in Missoula Montana staged a mini revolt against the prosecutor, and the court dropped a case because they couldn't seat an entire jury:


----------------------------------------

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week.

Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.

They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.

No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.

In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.

“I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess.

And he didn’t.

During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Thursday.

On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom.

“Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.

“A mutiny,” said Paul.

“Bizarre,” the defense attorney called it.

In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said he’s never seen anything like it.


----------------------------------

The rest of the article, including more information about the defendant than the jury was aware, is here.

Now, you can look at this two ways.  It turns out the defendant is a dirtbag with multiple convictions and issues, and should be "out of circulation."  But the legal system has become very selective about what information reaches the juror's ears.  It wasn't always like that.  In this case, the jury pool acted on what it knew about the defendant, which was minimal.

Based on this minimal information, they rebelled, deciding that justice was not being pursued, and announced their refusal to consider a conviction in such a case.

Why is this a good thing?  In the era of the founders, since the people were sovereign, and the judges were servants of the people, juries would hear all evidence and legal argument, and judge not just guilt or innocence, or that a case was proven or not proven, but whether or not the law itself was just.

A wikipedia article on jury nullification states:

Standard jury trial practice in the USA during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U.S., in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions."^[18] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury.

The power of the judiciary today is much more powerful than 200 years ago.  Moreover, the citizens are much more passive.  They trust the judges.  They doubt themselves.  This must end.  I hope and believe that the citizenry will feel more empowered by the success of the Tea Party, and the continual spread of information through the free internet.  Montana is known for it's libertarian streak.  This should act as an example to other individuals.

Reassertion of the power of jury nullification is reassertion of one of the rights that would be covered by the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

"A person who doubts himself is like a man who would enlist in the ranks of his enemies and bear arms against himself."

— Alexandre Dumas

TSA security is a facade without substance

It is either about more government control, lulling the public by the perception that something is being done on their behalf, or more government control.  Probably more government control...

In the news story below, a pilot films the lax security for the airport crews and employees.  Security seems to be tight to the traveller, but behind the scenes it is a joke. 

What would/could a determined enemy do?  Whatever they want, apparently. 

But al Qaida or other enemy of the United States can get the US goverment to spend millions reacting to shadows now-- just by internet chatter.  They dont need to attack anything...they "live rent free in the heads" of the administration.  (to use an expression from Sipsey Street)

Meanwhile, our personal freedom continues to erode, and the federal government grows at our expense...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/pilot-hasseled-tsa-uncovering-security-breaches-major-airport/story?id=12470082

Traveling today

I left a love note for the TSA in my checked bag that says:

My desire to travel freely in my own country does not

Imply consent to search my belongings,

Despite unconstitutional laws which may give you the power to do so.

Since I cannot do anything otherwise, I write this reminder to whomever may read it if/when my bag is opened when I am not present.

If you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, you should read what the Constitution says, and understand the clear meaning and intent of the words.

On a second page is the following:

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution,

Of certain rights,

Shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Lets see if I get in trouble for reminding them of their oath.  Let you know.

Executive Order, instrument of tyranny

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-prepares-executive-order-indefinite-detention


We already know that the President can order the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.


How would you like indefinite imprisonment for certain classifications or prisoners.


Give the Feds an inch (by passive acceptance of emergency powers during a crisis--like what we did with the Patriot Act) and they will take a mile. A precedent has been set, and the power is never, ever relinquished, only expanded. We're screwed.

With the stroke of a pen, the president can "legally" kill a citizen deemed an enemy.

...to keep you safe, you know...

How long before they declare original intent constitutionalists as enemies and apply these principles to us? 


Totalitarian shifts occur in dribs and drabs, just like this.  Do you doubt it?

Clear Brian aitken

How about a pardon and an apology to Brian aitken for violation of his 2nd amendment rights?

If I am not mistaken, he now has a record as a convicted felon, as his sentence was commuted, but his conviction has not been expunged?

Let's hear some indignity in the Constitutionalist/IIIper/2A/RKBA crowds out there!

Governor Christie seems like a good guy, he needs some motivation. We need a new action day to make calls to his office.

Quote of the Day 12/22

Wishful thinking I guess, but this was part of the Southern perspective on Secession at the time:


The New Orleans Bee, January 10, 1861, said:

"Among the advocates of secession it is safe to say there are many thousands who believe that the decided position assumed by the South is the only practicable means left of bringing the free States to a recognition of our rights and of their constitutional obligations. It is thought that when once the act of separation will have been consummated by a large segment of the South, the North will be thoroughly convinced of its past errors; that an overpowering popular reaction will occur; that Black Republicanism will be overthrown, and that the people of the free States will, with one accord, invite the South to reconstruct the Union upon a satisfactory basis of immutable constitutional guarantee."

Chris Christie frees Brian Aitken

Text of Commutation of Sentence:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHRIS CHRISTIE, Governor of the State of New Jersey by virtue of the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution of New Jersey and the statutes of this State, do hereby grant to the said Brian D. Aitken, a commutation of the aforesaid sentence to time served, and satisfied on December 20,2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Brian D. Aitken's release from the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections be effected as soon as administratively possible, or within a reasonable period to allow for release processing pursuant to customary policy and procedure.

(insert rebel yell here)...;-)

Ayn Rand on Liberty vs. Socialism

Quote of the Day 12/21

"The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates."

— Alexandre Dumas (The Count of Monte Cristo)

Original Intent: Do the States or the Federal Government have ultimate authority?

In a book entitled A Brief Enquiry into the Nature of the Federal Government, written in 1840, Abel P. Upshur, a lawyer, judge, Virginia state politician, (who would become the 15th Secretary of State under Tyler, be one of the primary movers in bringing Texas into the Union, and 13th Secretary of the Navy), refutes the National Theory of the nature of the Federal government, as expounded by Daniel Webster and Joseph Story, who claimed that the Federal government was created as a national entity by a unified single people, not as an agent for the States and the people.

(Boldface statements below reflect my comments on the preceding sentence(s)):

--------------------------------------------------

The Federal Government is the creature of the States.

Creature = Creation...Thirteen independent Sovereign states, through State Ratifying conventions, each independently voted to create the Federal government with the Constitution.  Historical fact.  There was no national referendum.

It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties.

Each of the ratifying States was a party to a contract/compact/agreement that we call the Constitution.  The States and the people existed before the Federal government.  The Federal government was not a party to its own creation.

It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution.

The thirteen original States made a new thing, the Federal government, to act as their agent, and delegated to it very specific tasks/powers.  Specifically, the numbered, listed, limited powers of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent?

That is:  Can the Federal government (logically) be the decider of just how much power it has?  No!  It could not be limited in its power.    Madison, Jefferson and others of their generation, federalists and anti-federalists, knew that each State had to independently decide if a law passed by Congress (i.e. Federal legislators), or decided at the level of the Supreme Court (i.e. Federal judiciary) or order at the Presidential/Cabinet level (i.e. Federal executive) conformed to the State's interpretation of the Constitution.  This was expounded in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.  This concept was invoked by northern and southern states before and after the War for Southern Independence, and is a resurgent concept today.

A State was a party to the compact known as the Constitution;  the federal agency was not.  Each State was equal in legal stature to each other State.  No one state could decide whether a law was Constitutional for another State;  each retained it's Sovereignty by the Tenth Amendment.  The Federal Supremacy clause in the Constitution could only logically apply to Constitutional Laws related to the Enumerated Powers of Article I Section 8.  Any question of constitutionality was therefore decided by a State legislature or judiciary, not by the Federal government.

To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred.

The Federal government has to make its laws within the confines of its delegated powers.  Only in this can the Federal government stay within it's delegated mandate from the States which created it.

If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason.

If the Federal executive, judiciary, or legislature could decide what it's own limits were, what would you get?  A gigantic central power that continually grows in leaps and bounds outside its original intent.  

You get the monstrosity that we have today.  You have a government teetering on the brink of a totalitarian shift.  We are the frog put in the pot when the water was lukewarm, but now it is approaching a boiling point.  The people are starting to get uncomfortable...

 If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people.

Kinda like what we got now???

If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also.
This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable.

Isn't it though?  Judge Upshur saw our future from 1840!  Imagine that!  Why do you think the court historians that glorify Supreme Federal power bury this viewpoint?  It completely undermines the federal stance about the extent of its own powers.

If the [Federal] judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are.

Try more, and more, and more, until you get the most nonsensical garbage, like invoking the Interstate Commerce clause to control what a farmer grows on his own land for his own personal consumption (Wickard vs. Filburn), or forcing (call it mandating if you want) you to buy health insurance, or controlling what you eat, or controlling a private business like GM, or propping up a private bank that deserved to fail, all with your money.  

A = A.  Tyranny plain and simple.  Cruel unjust use of power.

Etymology of Tyranny:

tyranny

late 14c., "cruel or unjust use of power," from O.Fr. tyrannie (13c.), from L.L. tyrannia "tyranny," from Gk. tyrannia "rule of a tyrant," from tyrannos "master" 

Stop Global Warming!

Welcome to England

Son of Union veterans defends secession and nullification

...while a Son of Confederate veterans condemns secession and tows the party line in the New York Times.

Charles Burris' Defense of Secession.



Shame on Edward Ball.  Focusing on the war being caused over the morality of slavery is a post war Marxist distortion (classist and racist analysis), and while individuals who fought for the Union may have felt that way, it was not the contemporary view.  His 12 ancestors who fought for the confederacy might take issue with him, if they were able.

University Prof calls UVA honors student a traitor after she calls US government a tyranny

Anti-Nullification Professor to Student: You’re a Traitor

Posted by Thomas Woods on December 20, 2010 10:39 AM

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently held a very interesting debate at the University of Virginia on state nullification, between Allen Guelzo of Eastern University and Donald Livingston of Emory University.  You can watch it or listen to it.  Unfortunately, you won’t be able to see the question period, when things got very interesting.  A person in attendance wrote to tell me what happened:

Eventually a female student raised a question: the American colonists said they were defending the rights of Englishmen against usurpations of Parliament. She asked couldn’t it happen that the central government could become oppressive in the same way and that the States could step forth as the colonial governments had done to check the tyranny? Guelzo paused for a long time and asked whether she thought the central government was a tyranny. She rephrased the question. He persisted twice, and demanded that she answer. She did, and said she thought it was a tyranny. The audience clapped! After which a long silence. Guelzo said, after some other words, that she was a “traitor.” [Another person whose recollection was sent to me recalls that he said, before calling her a traitor, "There was a man not too long ago with a similar response and his name was Benedict Arnold."] One of her teachers, the Dean of Honors Students, jumped up to protest, and was physically restrained. A gentleman in the audience said, “Professor, that was a cheap shot.” Others protested. The moderator, a professor of international law, had to call for order.
This was a confirming instance of my darkest thoughts about nationalist ideologues. Guelzo was a Lincolnian Jacobin who would have had no problem leading war against civilians, including the honors student at UVA.'

 From today's blog at LewRockwell.com.

Commemorate the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession

December 20, 1860.

Glenn Greenwald is starting to sound like Alex Jones

One of the hallmarks of an authoritarian government is its fixation on hiding everything it does behind a wall of secrecy while simultaneously monitoring, invading and collecting files on everything its citizenry does.  Based on the Francis Bacon aphorism that "knowledge is power," this is the extreme imbalance that renders the ruling class omnipotent and citizens powerless.

In The Washington Post today, Dana Priest and William Arkin continue their "Top Secret America" series by describing how America's vast and growing Surveillance State now encompasses state and local law enforcement agencies, collecting and storing always-growing amounts of information about even the most innocuous activities undertaken by citizens suspected of no wrongdoing.

Read the rest here.  

The Left and the Right are waking up to the fact that we are experiencing a transition into a totalitarian government.

Iceland recovery supports Austrian School Economic Theory

The government did not bail out it's failing banks.  The recovery was painful but relatively quick.  The people of Iceland did not bear the brunt of the debts incurred by private institutions, as the Keynesians and Socialists have insisted upon in Europe and the United States.

Here is Daniel Hannan, blogging in The Telegraph.

Imprudent granting of credit is bound to prove just as ruinous to a bank as to any other merchant.

Ludwig von Mises.

Tool kit of resistance

From the Tenth Amendment Center:

Introduction

The Tenth Amendment Center’s numerous national, state and local web sites have written voluminously about the principles of ’98, when the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions laid down a framework for nullification and interposition by the states. Additionally, we have often referenced Thomas Woods’ Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Barrels upon barrels of physical and virtual ink have been spent justifying the idea that was, once upon a time, common knowledge. Augustine of Hippo said,

“an unjust law is no law at all”.

And John Locke said,

“”Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience”

Quote of the Day 12/20

V: Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration - whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday - I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
 
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now orders are being shouted into telephones and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
 
Cruelty and injustice...intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
 
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
 
Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words - they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek...then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament. And together, we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever, be forgot!

V for Vendetta

American-style conservative rhetoric in Brussels

The uber-eloquent Daniel Hannan, Member of European Parliament, UK Conservative Party:





What worked for our country in 1776 will work in 2010, anywhere in the world as long as men are free to reason.