At a 1969 concert at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida Doors front man Jim Morrison shouted to his audience “You’re all a bunch of fuckin’ slaves!” Morrison was later arrested for his drunken vitriol and for allegedly exposing his genitals (which is now ironically required as a security measure at airports across the U.S.) This day Morrison’s drunken assessment of his audience seems to aptly be applied to Americans everywhere. Here’s the reason why. For those of you who don’t know or don’t care today is Tax Day (or as I like to call it Bend over and squeal Day). This is the day that we all do our patriotic duty and pay our tribute to the Empire so that we may enjoy it’s lavish protections and privileges. If you do not need nor wish to have these benefits showered upon you, well that’s too damn bad. You’re paying for them regardless. It’s the price for living in a democracy. Or as H.L. Menken eloquently phrased it “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” There are those who make the argument that the income tax is voluntary. This argument is absurd. As a practical exercise I dare anyone to simply not pay his or her income tax and then find out firsthand just how voluntary it really is. When a person is forced to give up the fruits of his or her own labor under the threat of imprisonment or even death, it’s difficult not to cede the argument that such a person is effectively a slave. There is nothing voluntary about an action that one must do under such coercion. As a matter of fact coercion is by definition the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner.

When we consider how much of our annual income we have to give up as tribute to our government to serve the so-called “greater good” one is forced to wonder how this money is being spent. After all, it’s bad enough to be robbed at gunpoint for all intents and purposes, but if the money being forcibly extracted from us were to be spent frivolously that would certainly add insult to injury. It’s a good thing our Federal government is staffed by persons whose integrity is above reproach. I’m certain these noblest of noble creatures would never squander precious monetary resources on something as wasteful and extravagant as junkets to Las Vegas, NV where they would throw lavish parties in expensive hotel rooms. I’m sure that sort of thing would never happen. Right?

Ok, maybe that was a bad example. I’m sure this is an isolated incident. After all, these are just a few bad apples. Some persons in the Federal government are noble self-sacrificing heroes who risk life and limb to protect our President and his staff. The men and women of the Secret Service are paid by our tax dollars to be the elite security professionals who would never act inappropriately in a foreign country.

Ok, that was another bad example. But at least our tax dollars are being spent on our brave men and women in uniform. These people represent the best America has to offer and we should be proud to be paying our fair share to help our military accomplish it’s mission to make America safer and freer.

Anyone feel like a schmuck yet? As taxpayers we’re being ripped off. Our tax dollars are either going to extravagant parties the likes of which are reminiscent of the reign of Emperor Caligula, or are going overseas to massacre women and children unfortunate enough to find themselves in the gun sights of unstable U.S. servicemen. Can anyone think of any program payed for by his or her appropriated tax dollars that cannot be done cheaper, better, and with more professional integrity if it were done as a voluntary exchange in a free market?

The GSA was certainly not accountable for the lavish Vegas parties, but I guarantee you the H.R. department of any privately owned company would not get away with such squander. The shareholders would simply not stand for it. Even if a privately held company were to mismanage it’s funds in such a way, it would go bankrupt (assuming it didn’t get a bailout check from Uncle Sam courtesy of your tax d0llars). There’s a reason Enron no longer exists. They got what they deserved. If only the GSA would suffer the same fate. But that’s just wishful thinking.

If agents from a firm like Pinkerton Security were to behave in a manner similar to the Secret Service agents visiting Columbia, they would be fired outright. Private companies have competition. And when you have competition your reputation is an important factor to maintaining a client base. Nobody wants to hire a security firm whose agents are known to behave in an untrustworthy and unprofessional manner. That will kill your business. No such accountability exists in government circles. The agents involved will probably be at the very most suspended without pay for a couple of weeks. Reputation does not matter when you’re the only game in town. 

Having a choice gives people the benefit of a selection of products and services. It even allows for the option of not partaking. This is the definition of freedom. Today in this year of 2012 is referred to by certain right-wing interest groups as Tax Freedom Day. This is clearly a misnomer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today reminds each of us how we are not free in the least. The words Tax and Freedom do not belong in the same sentence unless the word Abolishion is also included. Taxation in all of it’s forms is slavery. It is the taking by force what is rightfully yours so that your masters can enjoy the fruits of your labor. None of us would voluntarily pay to have GSA employees booze it up in Vegas. None of us would voluntarily pay Secret Service agents to hire Columbian whores for their own entertainment. None of us would voluntarily pay to have innocent people massacred in far away lands. We pay for these things because we really don’t have a choice. If we don’t pay, agents of our esteemed government will fine us, imprison us, and even kill us if we refuse to cooperate. Jim Morrison was right back in 1969. We’re all a bunch of fuckin’ slaves.

Parody is often the gateway to the truth

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” protests taking place these last couple of weeks. Those on the left have been embracing this movement as a stick-it-to-the-man anti-capitalist infusion of Marxist energy desperately needed by their ever fading and ever failing political ideology. Those on the far right see it as a congregation of unwashed hipster d-bags looking for even more government entitlements above and beyond the generous largesse they already receive. Up until recently, I’ve been on the fence about this movement. It cannot be denied that there is a fundamentally unscrupulous bond that exists between Washington D.C. and certain corporate interests on Wall Street. After all, the current treasury secretary as well as his predecessor were both high-ranking executives for Goldman Sachs and both of these secretaries helped orchestrate massive bailouts and “stimulus spending” largely to the benefit of that company. So it would seem that there should by a massive popular uprising against Goldman Sachs and other finance companies who gambled with their shareholder’s money, lost big and then received a fat bailout check courtesy of the U. S. taxpayer. However, that does not appear to be what is happening.

After a few days of the Occupy Wall Street, a loosely knit cabal of the event’s organizers have started to publicly state what the movement is really all about. After reading some of these statements, I am no longer on the fence regarding this movement. I am now convinced those who have planned this event and those who are participating in it are idiots. I’m sorry, but there is no way I can put this kindly. Instead of being a well-informed group with a coherent agenda and relevant legitimate grievances, they come across more as being whining upper-middle class white kids who want a stack of new entitlements paid for by the beleaguered American taxpayer. They aren’t opposed to government bailouts at all. They simply want bailouts for themselves. There are several examples which exemplify my point.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

A guaranteed living wage is a guarantee for rising unemployment. The minimum wage has been the cause for unemployment and underemployment for decades since it forces employers to cut back on their work force in order to preserve a reasonable profit margin. While these Marxist sycophants regard “profit” as a dirty word, it is the sole reason for businesses to exist. Entrepreneurs go into business to make a profit, just as the rest of us working people go to our jobs every day to earn a paycheck. The very notion of guaranteeing a living wage to the unemployed is absurd. The very definition of a wage according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “a payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis.” If there is no labor or no services, there can by definition be no wage. Besides, what wage would they propose for the unemployed. Demand number one suggests a living wage of $20 an hour. Most people work their asses off for far less. Why would anyone pay that much to someone for doing nothing? While a working person is usually paid for 40 hours every week, an unemployed person is not working 168 hours every week. Does this person get paid for all 168 hours of not working? Or will he only be paid for 40 hours of doing nothing and the other 128 hours are just pro-Bono.If everyone regardless of employment status were making $20 an hour, it would be a short matter of time before the cost of living increased dramatically in proportion to this. Despite the fact that most of the Occupy Wall Street protestors appear to be reasonably well-educated, they were never taught the simple lesson that you cannot get something for nothing.

Demand four: Free college education.

Far be it from me to defend the scam and racket that higher education has become but I still have to call this one out for being the nonsense that it is. Many of the Occupy Wall Street crowd have expressed dismay over outrageous college loans that they could never pay back after graduating. My only response to this is “What were they expecting?” It should come as no surprise that if you spend 4 years in a pricey educational institution getting a degree in Multicultural Studies, Sociology, or some other utterly useless degree that you will be hard-pressed to find a job that will pay enough to adequately offset that debt. Making a college education free will merely shift the expense and the responsibility away from the student and place it at the feet of the taxpayer yet again. This demand will accomplish nothing but create a culture of extended adolescence in America far worse than the one that already exists. If one takes a close look at the majority of these protestors, they appear to be both well-educated and unemployed. Why is this? In all likelihood most of them studied subjects in college that would not amount to any sort of marketable skill-set in the real world. Making a college education free would do nothing to help the employ-ability of these individuals. All this would do is further subsidize the useless Marx-worshiping faculties at the university level who teach in utter nonsense subjects with more taxpayer dollars. In short, this would devalue college education and create an even greater financial bleed on the nation. A far better demand would be to cut the fat from university programs to make a quality useful education more affordable. Do away with humanities, social science, and multicultural awareness requirements for science, engineering, and business degrees. All these requirements do is pad the pockets of the useless sector of liberal arts academia.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This would effectively destroy the savings of every working person the world over. The author of this demand has absolutely no clue what damage this proposal will bring. The way loans work is not difficult to understand (unless you’re a Marxist). So for the benefit of the economically illiterate Marxists who penned this idiocy, I will explain the process as simply as I can. There are some people in this world who earn money and save money. In some of these cases, these shrewd and frugal individuals either place their money in a savings account that earns interest, or they invest this money in stocks, bonds, or money markets which pay dividends. In the case of savings accounts, banks and lending institutions lend portions of this money and charge an interest rate to those who borrow it. Those interest payments go back to the persons who were wise enough to put their money into savings. This is money that honest and hardworking people have earned and have saved for their retirements, the education of their children, or perhaps for just a rainy day. Regardless of why this money was saved, this money and the interest it accumulates belongs to those who have earned it and not those who have borrowed it and refused to pay it back. To “wipe the books clean” as the demand states would be wholesale robbery from those who save by those who borrow. It would be a 65 trillion dollar heist. That’s 65 trillion dollars in collected GDP from all nations erased. That would be 65 trillion dollars of the earnings and wages of those who tirelessly earned it wiped out by those who borrowed money they knew they could never pay back. This demand is completely unconscionable.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

This one is particularly funny in it’s rampant absurdity. A credit reporting agency is a private entity that essentially keeps track of a person’s financial reputation. These entities are essential in establishing the trustworthiness of a borrower. If someone cannot be trusted to pay back a loan, they should not be allowed to borrow more money (or raise the debt ceiling for an entire nation *hint hint*). As a microcosm of this, imagine that within your own circle of friends there is one person who consistently borrows money from you without paying it back. One day he asks if you could spot him $100 for various expenses. Suppose that he already has borrowed a total of $1000 without paying any of it back over the course of 2 years. It’s already clear that he is probably not going to pay back the $100 he is asking for since he’s already borrowed a sum of $1000 in bad faith. If you decide to deny him this request he’s likely to go to another friend to ask for the loan. If this person is a mutual friend it might not only be advisable, but it may in-fact be an ethical responsibility to give this other friend the heads-up about the borrower’s reputation for not paying back debts. To outlaw credit reporting agencies is to facilitate a lifestyle for freeloaders to live way beyond their means at the expense of those who lend money. That money comes from somewhere. It was earned by someone who worked for it. Once again this would be wholesale robbery from the earners by the borrowers.

The more I read about the Occupy Wall Street movement, the more I find myself disgusted by it. This is not a push to bring political corruption to heel. This is not an indictment of the corporatist alliances the U. S. federal government has fostered to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of favored corporations. This isn’t a call to smash the Mussolini-style protectionism that has made the free market nothing more than a fantasy in this country. This is not a call to bring jobs back to U.S. soil by making it affordable for companies to actually do business here. This is a call for the government to once again rob Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more and nothing less.  While some of the Occupy Wall Street movement’s grievances may be partially valid, I find it very telling that many of the grievances that should be rightly directed towards the U.S. Congress and the executive branch of the Federal government are instead being directed towards the so-called fat cats on Wall St. If a burglar breaks into your home and steals a diamond bracelet and then gives it to his girlfriend who do you blame. Do you blame the burglar or the girlfriend? This movement however, cannot align itself against the government. They are depending on the government to carry out their demands. The simple fact of the matter is, the Occupy Wall Street movement is yet another Marxo-Facsist movement whose ultimate ends are to have a massive centralized government take by force from those who have earned and redistribute to those who have not.

These voters are going to the polls with a cheat sheet from their local labor union.

Someone on my facebook page posted a link to a voter’s “cheat sheet” published by the local weekly leftist free newspaper. Such “cheat sheets” are published by various special interest parties to make it easier for those in their sphere of influence to vote according to a specific agenda without these individuals actually needing to do any research themselves regarding any of the candidates or issues on the ballot. Some voters find these “cheat sheets” a godsend. After all, it’s very difficult to decipher the legalese behind any ballot issue. Someone could potentially vote for something they never wanted or would agree with. However, how would a “cheat sheet” published by someone else prevent that very outcome? For all the voter knows the person who wrote the cheat sheet may be deliberately misrepresenting the candidates and issues on the ballot to serve his or her own agenda.

I cannot see how any self-respecting person can view these so-called “cheat sheets” as anything more than an insult to his or her intelligence. The publication of these thing sends the message that “You’re too stupid and uninformed to make the correct decision at the ballot box. So we’re going to give you your marching orders so you can make the right decision.” Churches, labor unions, and other politically motivated organizations send this message every election year to everyone among their group in the hope of advancing their own collective agenda. Essentially these groups see voters as foot soldiers in their ideological battles who will blindly follow whatever orders are decreed from on-high.

In 2004 Rolling Stone magazine published an interview with South Park co-creator Matt Stone in which Mr. Stone said “If you don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no shame in not voting. They say if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch. But you can bitch all you want. This is America.” Mr. Stone brings up an important point here. Simply casting a vote without fully understanding it’s implications is a lot like firing a gun without being sure where the barrel is pointed. It’s foolish, dangerous, and irresponsible. In my previous article I acknowledged that voting is a right in this country. I also pointed out that as with any right voting is also accompanied by responsibility born by those who exercise that right. To go to the polls with a “cheat sheet” without examining the issues abdicates that responsibility. It creates a Nuremberg type of situation where voters aren’t following their own consciences but instead are “simply following orders.”

It’s difficult to be well-informed during an election season. Propagandizing is in full force from both sides of every issue. Though it may be difficult, it is not impossible to achieve a clear perspective on the issues. One way to keep a clear and objective view on each issue is to hear all the lies. What I mean by this is that advocates from either side of an issue will exaggerate and even tell bald-faced lies to further their agenda. An informed voter listens to all the lies from all sides. Carefully hidden in these lies is reality. Only when one explores all the lies from both sides can one derive some composite of the truth. Too many voters go to the ballot box only being exposed to one side’s lies without hearing the lies from the other side. When that happens a voter is little more than a puppet for whichever propagandists they believe. When this happens your vote is no longer your own, but rather it is an additional vote for someone who is probably a complete stranger.

Voting can potentially be an act of violence. Any ballot issue that arises can potentially curtail the liberties of everyone in the community. The analogy of the gun I used earlier in this post may seem extreme, but it is indeed accurate. If one does not know which direction the barrel is pointing, one should not pull the trigger. If that trigger is pulled, there could be dire and even fatal consequences. The same is true for voting. If you do not understand the issues, don’t vote. If you abdicate the responsibility of learning and understanding the issues being presented in an election than the only moral and ethical course of action to take is to abstain from voting. Any person of intelligence and strong moral character would not pull the trigger of a loaded handgun if he or she does not know which direction that weapon is pointed. The same principle applies to elections. Also one must remember that to vote at the behest of another is to be a mindless automaton which only follows orders with no regard for the consequences. This is just another surrender to the sort of totalitarianism that voting is supposed to eliminate in the first place.

...shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I wonder if anyone remembers the Charles Schultz comic strip Peanuts. In a frequently recurring situation the strip’s main protagonist Charlie Brown would be asked by schoolmate Lucy Van Pelt to punt a football while she holds it in place. Charlie Brown would remember that the last time this happened Lucy pulled the football away at the last second and he would kick into the empty air landing hard on his back. Lucy would then persuade Charlie Brown to try again with repeated assurances that this time will be different. Charlie Brown would then agree to kick the ball and Lucy would once again pull the ball away at the last second. For some incomprehensible reason the Charlie Brown character would be repeatedly duped into this situation without ever learning his lesson. I fear the same is also true of most American voters.

As the mid-term elections approach, the Republican Party is gaining some traction in the polls largely due to the anti-incumbency sentiment among most of the voting public. Currently most of these incumbent candidates are affiliated with the Democratic party. After the TARP bailouts and the $800 trillion stimulus boondoggle, it has become clear to anyone paying attention that our elected representatives in Washington do not represent the interests of their constituencies but rather the interests of their corporate sponsors and other special interest lobbies who were the beneficiaries of these windfall government spending programs. It was from this obvious fleecing of the American taxpayer that the Tea Party movement was born. This gave the Republican party an opportunity to once again pretend to be something they are not. They’re pretending to be small-government conservatives.

Humorist P.J. O’Rourke once wrote “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.” This is exactly what happened during the 1980 Presidential election. As much as I hate to bash the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, he was a prime example of the point I’m making. During the campaign, Reagan presented some of the tastiest libertarian rhetoric I have ever had the pleasure to hear. He was eloquent, charming, and presented the case for smaller government and lower taxes with greater skill than any of his contemporaries. He was the best spokesperson these ideas have had in a very long time. However, once the election was over his administration proceeded to increase the size and role of the Federal Government on almost every level. Federal spending increased, deficits skyrocketed, and the Federal government usurped even more power. The one and only thing that salvaged the stagnant economy was the tax cuts implemented during those years. But one cannot simply cut taxes while spending more. That’s a bit like cutting your salary in half while spending twice as much.

George W. Bush is another example of what has become the classic Republican bait-and-switch. During his campaign, Bush advocated for a more modest and fiscally responsible foreign policy. During his debate with Vice President Albert Gore Jr. he was critical of the Clinton administrations nation-building efforts abroad citing the expense as well as the overall lack of effectiveness in bolstering our national security. Once he was elected however, U.S. foreign policy had become even more bellicose accompanied by increases in military spending. This was partly in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but this trend continued to escalate as nation-building went from being something to avoid to becoming the bread and butter of our foreign policy.

It seems the American voters are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Both of the two major parties are only interested in increasing the size and power of the government to serve their corporate masters. Candidates from both parties will play the charade of being a “voice for the people” all the way up to election day. Once the votes are in, it’s politics as usual. These candidates will feel no remorse over betraying their constituencies because they feel the election gave them a mandate to do so. We the voters gave them our consent to screw us. As the old saying goes “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.” One could avoid offering this consent by abstaining from voting or casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate who has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, but in the end that will not matter. Either a Democrat or a Republican will be likely to win.

The fault is not with the Republican candidates who lie and then go back on their word. The fault lies with those who casually cast their votes for them without subsequently holding them accountable to their campaign promises. Politicians are like toddlers. They require constant supervision or they will inevitably misbehave. Whether we like it or not, our government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. That would be us. We are ultimately responsible for the direction of this nation. Voting is not enough. It is mere political wankery which ultimately changes nothing at all. Both houses of Congress, the White House, and our local and state governments are supposed to be working for us. No employer simply hires someone and leaves that person to his or her own devices for 4 years and then either re-hires them or replaces them. That would be insanity. With most jobs a newly hired employee is watched carefully and supervised by those who gave that person the job. That is the responsibility of the employer. Voting may be a right, but as with every right we enjoy in a free society it is accompanied by responsibility and that responsibility is to hold those we elect accountable.

"Look at the silly monkey."

It seems in the wake of Arizona’s passage of SB1070, the law that imbues the state with the authority to enforce Federal immigration laws independently, immigration reform has become the hot topic of political discussions. This issue is becoming a driving force on the Sunday morning chat shows as well as many of the political blogs sprinkled throughout the realm of cyberspace. It’s become the hot button issue of the 2010 mid-term elections for many of the candidates seeking office in an increasingly divisive political environment. The debate on immigration reform may very well be the pivotal issue in the upcoming November elections, which may be the worst of possible outcomes for the future of American politics.

After the financial fiasco of TARP just before the 2008 elections (or as I like to call it the “Bailouts for Billionaires” program), the 2009 Economic Stimulus bill (which I like to refer to as the “Thanks for the Votes” reimbursement program), the Federal buyout of General Motors (or as I like to call it “The UAW Jobs and Bonuses ‘Thanks for the Votes You Mafioso Bastards’ Preservation Program”), and the Health-care Reform bill (or as I like to call it the “We’re passing this 2,000 page monstrosity without even reading it come hell or high water whether you voters like it or not” bill), it seems the problem of illegal immigration is a rather small one. Granted the influx of illegal immigrants from our southern border may be a cause for concern, but such concerns seem almost trivial in the wake of the recent financial atrocities listed above.

There’s a reason why the focus has shifted from the overspending and subsequent taxation to support so-called private corporations who are “too big to fail” to kicking out the illegal aliens who pour through our sieve-like southern border. It’s very likely that the political candidates and their associated political action committees who are working overtime to shift the focus of the current political climate are being funded by one or more of these corporations who are “too big to fail.” These candidates are looking to break into politics right on the heels of the growing economic malaise plaguing the American psyche but they would be fools to do so by biting the hand that feeds them. So the blame shifts from the billionaires who bathe in money appropriated from the taxpayers on their behalf to illegal aliens who may or may not be illicitly making use of public services.

The Republican party has been doing everything it can since 2009 to capitalize on the fervor of the Tea Party movement but has fallen short of this goal due to the fact that their own fiscal insanity and corruption is on par with that of their Democrat counterparts. Some Republicans however have seemed to find a way to avoid the larger fiscal issues by playing upon an increasing sense of xenophobia and it appears to be working. The public outrage concerning our porous southern border seems to be eclipsing the outrage of taxpayer dollars being used to bail billion-dollar companies out of their financial blunders. The eyes of the public are being led away from the malicious partnership between the Wall Street financial sector and the U.S. Federal government and being led to the barely literate migrant workers from Mexico working for a slave’s wage illegally.

One should make no mistake that this is nothing more than a distraction and it’s deliberate. I can only hope that the recent anti-government sentiment among voters remains steadfastly focused on the larger issues of fundamental corruption in Washington as opposed to the trifles surrounding immigration reform. There are bigger and far more expensive fish to fry. We should not let the 2010 elections be hijacked by indictments of the U.S. immigration policy but rather a sober look at this nation’s financial situation with a ruthless eye towards sweeping audits and spending cuts. Until those issues are addressed this nation’s immigration policy will be a moot point.

It's not as scary as it looks.

This afternoon I watched a video clip on youtube of an old episode of Crossfire, a Sunday afternoon talk program. This clip was from the year 1986 and the subject was obscene rock music and whether or not the government should step in and impose standards of censorship to ensure that obscene materials do not fall into the hands of impressionable young listeners. Two of the four panelists were political commentator John Lofton and musical iconoclast Frank Zappa. During one point in the heated discussion (it was actually more of an interrupting contest than a discussion), Lofton asked Zappa if he’s some kind of anarchist. This was in response to Zappa’s unwavering viewpoint that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is completely inviolate in all forms of media. Often when someone is openly advocating freedom over government control, it seems that there will always be someone else who sees exercising that freedom as anarchy. I myself have often been called an anarchist. At first I defended my pro-liberty viewpoint as not being anarchy but rather as a Constitutionally sound rational perspective. After closer examination of this however, I may be forced to describe my defense of individual liberty as anarchy.

Anarchy is a dirty word in political discussions. It often invokes images of a dystopian society gripped in crime, fear, and chaos where roving gangs of thugs roam the streets looking to rob, rape, and kill anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path. In other words, a bad post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie from the 1980′s. The only image the word anarchy invokes that is even more nightmarish than this is that of Sex Pistols front man Johnny Rotten. However, one has to ask if that is what anarchy would certainly look like. The fact of the matter is that those who describe anarchy in such negative terms are usually persons in the payed service of a government agency. It makes sense that they would view anarchy as a threat to society at large. If there were anarchy these individuals would be out of a job. That would clearly constitute a conflict of interest. It makes one begin to wonder if the specter of anarchy is truly the hobgoblin of chaos that those who hold the reins of state power claim it to be.

The truth is that we experience anarchy every day in very small ways. Thousands of interpersonal interactions occur between people every day without any supervision from the almighty government. Even in cases where there are laws in place, these laws are frequently violated by millions of people who suffer no consequence for doing so. Somehow society manages to not descend into total chaos and violence despite the fact that some people drive 5 mph faster than the posted speed limit. Despite it’s evil and corrupting influence millions of people illegally smoke marijuana and society hasn’t collapsed into utter chaos. It seems surprising given all the hysteria surrounding what would happen if law and order were to be ignored.

Advocates of government power will do whatever it takes to ensure that that power remains in place. It’s like a security blanket. It doesn’t actually provide any practical security in most cases, but those who put their faith in government cling to this blanket as though it were their only lifeline. Some would argue that government is necessary for providing police services, fire departments, and public education. However, oftentimes the police department is ineffectual when dealing with violent crime in any preventative capacity. Cops are largely bureaucrats with badges and paramilitary training. They usually show up long after crimes have already been committed. Although fire departments do fine work, most fire departments in rural areas are already staffed by volunteers which make a centralized state-run fire department unnecessary. Education has existed long before the establishment of public schools and the curriculum focused upon subjects of academic rigor as opposed to the politically motivated public education of today. It seems anarchy isn’t a word to describe chaos as much as it is a word to describe self-government. That is why anarchy is a dirty word to those whose interests lie with government power. After all, the last thing any politician or government bureaucrat wants is for it to be made known that they are not needed.

The balls on that guy!

During his most recent visit to the White House, Mexican President Felipe Calderon described the new Arizona Immigration Law as discriminatory to Mexicans. Upon reading it, it seems that the new state law is almost a verbatim copy of the Unites States Federal Immigration Laws regarding the status of persons who are in the country illegally. The biggest difference is that the state of Arizona actually intends to enforce this law. The new Arizona immigration law might seem draconian at first glance, but in reality it is merely a state-level redundancy of an already existing but oft unenforced federal law. It could be argued that the new law may be merely the first step in the push for national identification cards which violate constitutional sovereignty, but so far there does not appear to be any correlation. Regardless of how one may feel about Arizona taking on the responsibilities that the Federal government appears to have abdicated, one has to consider that the immigration laws of Arizona and the United States are some of the most lenient in the world.

When I was on an extended vacation in the country of Thailand, I was required to submit my passport to every hotel and guest house where I was staying in order to verify that my tourist visa was current and valid. This was true in every place I stayed because the Thai immigration policies are very strict. Even though tourists provide a significant portion of the country’s GDP, the Thai government takes no quarter when it comes to enforcing their immigration policies. Here in America the regulations are a great deal more relaxed. Most foreign tourists need nothing more than a credit card to stay the night in any hotel. Hotel owners are not required to submit a photocopy of a visitor’s passport to the INS whenever a foreign national checks in. Considering the sheer number of persons who are in this country illegally, it seems obvious that even our uncommonly lenient immigration laws aren’t being as vigorously enforced as they would be in other sovereign nations.

This brings me back to El Presidente Felipe Calderon. While Mr. Calderon plays the political game of national victim-hood for the Washington D.C. press corps, he neglects to mention the strict draconian immigration laws of his own country. For example one could be sentenced with up to two years in Mexican prison for sneaking across the border. I dare anyone to find a penalty that harsh anywhere in the controversial Arizona legislation. In Mexico foreign nationals are not allowed to own certain kinds of property, anyone who was not a naturally born citizen is not allowed to hold any public position at all, and any foreigners protesting against the government can be subject to immediate deportation. Mexican immigration laws make ours seem like outright anarchy by comparison. It seems that Mr. Calderon is either completely ignorant of the immigration policies of his own country or he has balls the size of pinatas.

Anyone who is functionally literate can easily see the hypocrisy of the Mexican President’s comments regarding the Arizona law. That’s what Mr. Calderon is counting on. Most reporters in Washington D.C. are not in-fact functionally literate. The Arizona immigration law is what these activist journalists have been praying for. To them it’s another chance to play the ever-so-overused race card. In their minds it’s not about the enforcing this country’s highly lenient immigration laws or addressing what has become a very real problem in that part of the country, it’s about racism. It’s always about racism. If Arizona’s new law is in fact motivated by racism, it forces me to ask the obvious question. Are Mexico’s harsh and ultimately counter-productive immigration laws racist? After all, even naturalized citizens aren’t allowed to hold public office in Mexico. Are the Mexicans racist, xenophobic, or both? Does President Calderon have a leg to stand on when he criticizes Arizona for doing a small fraction of what his own country already does? Does President Calderon have enormous balls for displaying his open and obvious hypocrisy for an entire nation to see? Are the answers to these questions as obvious as one might think?

This is your country on socialism...any questions?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” No matter how benevolent Socialism may appear, it is ultimately an unsustainable system of economics that relies upon mounting levels of debt that eventually devalue the nation’s currency laying waste to the entire economic infrastructure. This reality has played itself out every time any nation embraces a socialist model of economic management. Those who oppose socialistic philosophies often cite the downfall of the Soviet Union as a prime example of why Socialism doesn’t work. Those who favor Socialism often repeat the customary refrain of “Socialism works in Europe.” The events of this week however indicate that those who say that may have spoke too soon.

Greece is in trouble, big trouble. The nation’s public debt, expensive social programs, and floundering industries have put it on an inevitable course of economic ruin. The E.U. is going to lend even more money to Greece as a stop gap to give the Greek government a chance to address their economic issues. Taxes in Greece are on the rise as public services are beginning to dwindle. This is causing certain elements their dependent citizenry to riot in the face of diminishing services and escalating taxes. The international markets are in a tailspin due to rising concerns of not only Greece’s insolvency, but the insolvency of other European Union nations such as Spain and Portugal. The vaunted “soft socialism” of Europe which is often used as a shining example by progressives to advocate the implementation of such a system here in the U.S. is headed for the inevitable disaster that socialism of any stripe always brings.

Many can attribute Greece’s economic woes to corrupt politicians but I feel that’s more a symptom of the problem rather than the underlying cause. Politicians become corrupt once they are given power. It’s nearly unavoidable. When problems arise people look to government for solutions. To implement these solutions the government usurps power. Once this power falls into the hands of some bureaucratic functionary it is either misused by said functionary or it goes up for sale to the highest bidder (usually a major corporation of some kind). Marxists often argue that the only reason their visions of a worker’s utopia has never been realized is that the wrong people are always put in charge of socialist regimes. The truth is however, that even the right people can eventually be transformed into the wrong people once they have a taste for real power and can convince themselves and others that they wield this power for the common good. Lord Acton was quite correct about the corrupting influence of power.

Once government functionaries are given broad sweeping powers over a nation’s economic health, waste, fraud and abuse become the norm. When the public becomes aware of this situation politicians always promise to end the waste, fraud, and abuse. They do this by allocating even more power to government functionaries. This is the equivalent of throwing gasoline on an already massive inferno. At this point the social “safety net” erected as a temporary measure to help people who fall on hard times becomes a hammock where those who feel entitled take up permanent residence.

Those who pay into the system to support it’s massive failures and corruption soon get wise to the scheme and find a way to opt out by either finding a way to shelter their earnings or withdraw from the system altogether. Suddenly the “eat the rich” approach that Marxists espouse becomes a recipe for starvation as those who don’t benefit from the system find a way to circumvent it. The only option left for government is to borrow the money they need to pay for the ever increasing entitlement programs. This racks up public debt and undermines the nation’s currency as the treasury starts printing more and more money to cover the interest on the debt. This causes industries to cut their losses, pack up and leave for greener pastures. As a result of this unemployment soars which puts more people on the entitlement rolls. This increases the expense of the already overburdened entitlement programs which forces those who no longer have the ability or inclination to be self-sufficient to get by with less. This is the part of the story where riots begin.

Greece is at this point now. Riots are breaking out as the entire socialist house of cards collapses around the feet of those who built it. It’s unlikely the bailout from the E.U. will help in the long term. Greece needs  a fundamental economic restructuring, but it’s unlikely there will be any meaningful reforms. With thousands of citizens being dependent upon the state, the soil for economic growth has been sown with salt. If anyone tries to dismantle the entitlement juggernaut they will likely be met with profound resistance. The entire Greek economy will fall on it’s sword to preserve the political careers of the Greek ruling class. What’s happening in Greece is a preview of things to come in other European countries. This is why the DJIA plummeted nearly a thousand points at one point of trading today and closed at nearly -350 points. The writing is on the wall and the investors on Wall Street know it. The economy of Greece may be unsalvageable and hopefully it will serve as a warning to other nations dabbling in European-style “soft” socialism.  Socialism doesn’t work. It didn’t work in the U.S.S.R., it’s not working in Europe, and it won’t work here. The Marxists out there just need finally accept reality.

Your papers, please.

We’ve all seen old movies which take place within the borders of countries controlled by oppressive regimes. Most of these movies take place during the second world war in Nazi occupied territories or behind the iron curtain during the cold war. In these movies the spy or escaped POW has to make his way out of these countries using forged identification. The intrepid hero is usually stopped at some point (usually without any cause) by a soldier or law enforcement agent and asked to produce this identification on demand. The antagonist would ask the customary question with the equally customary euro-trash accent “Your papers please.” It’s usually a very tense part of the film where the character isn’t certain if his forged credentials will pass muster. As American moviegoers we would usually look upon these scenes and be very thankful that this sort of thing could never happen here in the land of the free…or could it?

Over the past couple of years there have been concerns in libertarian circles about the possibility of the Federal government imposing a national ID law for the entire country which would render state-issued ID obsolete. This article however is not being written to address that concern. This article concerns Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 which was passed into law yesterday. This law is supposed to address the burgeoning problem of illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. The law states that anyone suspected of being in the country illegally by law enforcement will be required to produce some form of identification to prove otherwise. Many in the conservative blogsphere are fully in support of this measure. After all, it does not seem that the Federal government has any interest at all in curbing the influx of illegal aliens into this country from our southern border. It looks as though the state of Arizona is taking the problem into it’s own hands to be solved as they feel is necessary.

The major problem with this approach however should seem obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature. It’s blatantly unconstitutional. Law enforcement cannot just stop someone and ask for their identification without probable cause or a warrant. It says so in the Fourth Amendment. How does one establish probable cause to suspect someone might be in the country illegally? Could it be that they look Hispanic? A significant percentage of people in this country who are here legitimately look Hispanic. An even larger percentage of these people live in Arizona. Will Arizona law enforcement officials be stopping all people who look Hispanic? That not only sounds like a formula for excessive civil rights violations, it sounds like a lot of overtime pay for law enforcement being billed to the taxpayer. What other probable causes might prompt police to ask someone for his or her papers? Maybe they no hablo Ingles. They might not be citizens of this country, and they might not speak the language, but that does not mean that they are here illegally. They could be here on completely legitimate visas or they could even be tourists. No judge in any court would consider looking Hispanic or speaking in a foreign language as constituting probable cause that a crime is being committed.

The only reason law enforcement may have to ask a person for their identification is if there is sufficient evidence to warrant probable cause to do so. If a patrol officer engages in a traffic stop it’s usually because there has been some sort of vehicular violation (such as erratic driving, damaged tail lights, or expired registration). All of these are legitimate reasons to ask for the requisite license and registration. If it happens that the driver cannot produce a valid drivers license because they are in the country illegally than by all means they should be dealt with according to existing immigration laws. It’s the same as if during a traffic stop an officer discovers that the driver of the vehicle has an outstanding warrant. Legally appropriate action will be taken. However, simply pulling someone over because they have a Mexican flag hanging from their rear-view mirror is just as bad as pulling someone over because they have an “Abort Obama” bumper sticker. It’s an outrageous and unconstitutional overreach of government powers.

This new law in Arizona is not only going to wreak havoc on the constitutional liberties of Arizonans, it will also bankrupt the state and leave it’s economy in ruins. Civil rights lawsuits will crop up like dandelions. Legal fees and settlements will become a gaping fiscal wound in Arizona’s budget. To help pay off these legal fees the state government will undoubtedly turn to the taxpayer to foot the bill for this fiasco. The higher tax burden in all likelihood will drive businesses and jobs far away from the Grand Canyon State thus widening it’s unemployment percentage. The situation would clearly lead to a lose-lose scenario for all concerned. Would pandering to “blame illegal aliens” crowd really be worth the cost overhead that this law will undoubtedly foist upon the people of Arizona? Somehow I don’t think so, and I’m not the only one. Someone far more qualified in legal matters than me shares his opinion in the video below.

Tomorrow is Tax day. It has also become the day for the Tea Party gatherings being held all across the United States. These gatherings have left-leaning statists making dookie in their underwear. They have gone as far as forging a party-line narrative that these gatherings are not about a Federal government gone mad with the taxpayer’s checkbook, but rather a gathering of Aryan white supremacists who are incensed that a black man was elected to the office of President of the United States. Anyone who has attended one of these gatherings could easily dispel this myth, but the opposition on the left won’t let a stupid thing like the facts get in the way of their precious narrative.

The problem these folks are faced with is that these gatherings are not a conglomeration of white, racist, illiterate rednecks. They know it as well as we do. So they need to find a way to make certain that the narrative sticks. Their solution can be found at the website crashtheteaparty dot org. Their strategy is simple.They want people to show up undercover (like super-secret spies and stuff) at the tea party gatherings with picket signs that are full of ignorant, racist, extremist rhetoric. They will pose as the type of person they imagine a typical Tea Party attendee to be in order to discredit the movement. Since these people could not find definitive facts to support their narrative, they decided to go ahead and fabricate it. How pathetic! This is a direct quote from their website (with my own annotations).

Whenever Possible we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways to exaggerate [read falsify] their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. [In other words they plan on lying about the Tea Party movement from the inside to any moron in the news media who will listen in an effort to discredit them.]

That’s a play right out of Saul Alinsky’s book. This to me goes a long way towards proving that the claims from the left about the Tea Party are patently false. After all if they were true they wouldn’t need to crash the Tea Parties to fabricate the evidence in the first place. This is like proving that cell phones cause brain tumors by finding someone with a brain tumor, giving him a cell phone, and then taking a photograph. There’s your poof! Eureka! The degree of moral and ethical depravity from the left appears to have no bounds in what they laughingly refer to as political discourse. Since I will not be attending the Tax Day Tea Party this year due to my employment obligations, I will ask any liberty-minded attendees to keep an eye out for these so-called “crashers”. If you happen to spot one, let him or her know that you are on to them and their attempt to mislead the mainstream American public will not work because we ARE the mainstream American public. If possible have someone at the podium point them out. Hopefully this might result in some good old fashioned public humiliation. Let these cockroaches know just how petty and pathetic they really are. Don’t give them a voice. Don’t give them a chance. Don’t give them an inch.

Update:

This is a perfect example of what I meant in this post. I’m glad to see that some of the crashers met with the abject failure they so richly deserve (hat tip to moonbattery.com).

Epic FAIL!!

]]> http://www.libertoad.com/2010/04/14/pathetic/feed/ 2