Archive for the “Civil Liberties” Category

Last weekend, I traveled from Boston to Cleveland and back, by plane. I had a connection in Philadelphia, where I needed to switch planes. The airline I was flying, US AIR, now charges extra for stowed baggage, so I brought my suitcase on the plane with me, in order to save money. You see, I had been charged a 33% tax on my flight (about $50) to pay for all the wonderful things the government would ask me to do, on my peaceful way to see a friend. Fifty dollars buys a lot of food.

I had three pieces of contraband with me - my shaving lotion and aftershave, in my grandfather’s toiletry bag, stuffed into the suitcase itself; and a bottle of bubble bath, which was a gift for a friend, in my knapsack (in a colored bag that the shopowner had packed it in). I REALLY didn’t want this bubble bath to be confiscated (it was nice small-shop stuff), but since its price had been about half of what it would cost to check a bag, simple reason compelled me to risk it.

Check the bag - $30.
Don’t, get caught, and have to buy another one - $15.
Don’t, and not get caught = $0.

Since my plane was leaving in only about 30 minutes, I did not subject the TSA agents to my right not to take off my shoes. My bookbag was flagged for a closer inspection. Here is a transcript of the convo I had, at 5:30 in the morning, with a slightly bedraggled and middle-aged woman, in a ridiculous uniform.

“Sir, I’m going to have to take a peak in this bag.”
“Very well.”
“I’m sorry, sir, but I can’t let you carry this on.”
“Why?”
“Since 2003, bottles over 3.4 ounces aren’t allowed.
“Why?
“The contents might be combined with something else, to produce explosives.”
“It’s bubble bath; it hasn’t even been opened. It’s a present for a friend of mine. Can’t one of your tests verify the truth of my claim?”
“I’m sorry, sir.”
“Well, at least admit that you are assuming guilt on my part, instead of treating me like the peaceful person I am.”
“It’s just the rule.”
“And the rule is that you can use force to take my property, arbitrarily.”

And so on. The most ridiculous argument that this woman used in defense of her behavior was a rhetorical question that she put to me, but which really she should be putting to herself: “Don’t you want to feel safe from terrorists, on the plane?”

No. I don’t want to FEEL safe on the plane. I want to BE safe on the plane. As I stood there, watching her sniff the bar of girly soap I had bought to go with the bubble bath, I didn’t have the heart to tell her that she and her accomplices had failed to detect my TWO other bottles, and that therefore, their security plan was not particularly effective in conjuring a feeling of safeness in my bosom. Really, I felt more frustrated with the fact that, instead of having $50 to buy my friend a nice dinner, and a $15 bottle of nice bubble bath, I instead had the pleasure of a morning conversation with someone whose whose job contributes to the consumption of wealth, instead of to its saving and accumulation.

Welcome to the destructionist economy, now entering its final stages.

A bill was introduced last month that would create an 8-member commission to study, among other things,

• “The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.”
• “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

This bill would require that a final “report” be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years after the passage of the act. Do you think that the eight wise men just might find a “fair and reasonable” way for the government to confiscate more of our wealth, by taking from us a part of our very lives, instead of just a part of our money? For those of you who may be shrugging your shoulders and thinking, “What’s the big deal?” - I only ask you to remember that you are the owner of your body, not the state. A mandatory period of “national service” is no different - in principle - than a military draft. If you were a draft protester in the 1970’s, or if you are an anti-war activist now, don’t be fooled by the government’s supposedly good intentions in this particular case. Don’t think that, once you give the government the power to treat its citizens merely as means - pawns to be directed according to centralized social engineering plans - you will be able to limit the government’s power only to those ends that you think are justified or worthwhile. Principles matter, and this is why - occasionally - free people have taken the time to write them down.

Involuntary servitude is no less involuntary, just because the state is the master. If you know anyone who escaped to the U.S. from the former USSR, ask them their opinion of a system in which the state is the master of its subjects. As for me - I will never submit to a draft, and I will never be a domestic slave.

Some news out today of police suppressing a peaceful protest in Moscow:

Police thwarted a banned anti-Kremlin protest in central Moscow on Sunday, seizing dozens of demonstrators and shoving them into trucks…News broadcasts on the main television networks made no mention of the Moscow crackdown or of protests in St. Petersburg and Vladivostok.

I don’t have much to say about authoritarian governments, the tactics they employ in response to domestic dissent, and the way that they control the media in order to keep their own people oppressed (but if the conclusions to be drawn from this news story are not pretty self-evident to the average American, I fear that we as a country have forgotten what principle the U.S.A. as a society was created to represent). All I want to do today is point out that a very similar incident occurred in Minneapolis this fall, during the Republican Party’s national convention. You can read about it here. Strange that mainstream American news sources made little mention of these despotic acts by our own government, don’t you think? And by now, three months later, they seem to have disappeared down our collective “memory hole.”

It’s not all that strange, when you put these events into their proper context. What is that context? In the words of Naomi Wolf: the fascist creep. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but “arbitrarily detain and release citizens” is #6 on the fascist checklist, and #8 is “restrict the press.”

Here’s a video from Minneapolis:

Arbitrary detention: is this a good thing or a bad thing for the future of American free speech and for the right of the people peaceably to assemble? And if this sort of practice continues (or increases) under a new administration, will people continue to tolerate it?

“I want my country to develop along a democratic path,” said Morozova, standing against a wall at the edge of the square. “It’s not only not democratic, it’s becoming totalitarian.”

Increasingly, its difficult to tell which country this 61 year old nurse is describing - is it hers? Or is it ours as well?

The Army Times once again proves to be a great source for information concerning fascist developments in the United States. An article posted on December 9 outlines several recent recommendations by the Center for National Policy, a “bipartisan think tank” - including “requiring every American youth to serve the nation in mandatory national service — with military duties as one option.” Here’s a particularly delicious literary morsel from the Times article:

The report says its recommendations are aimed at increasing the pool of volunteers to fill the ranks, something a mandatory national service program could accomplish by making military service an option that people otherwise might never consider.

I take issue with the categorization of “mandatory” service as “voluntary” - but what the hey: they’re just two words with completely opposite meanings. What was that concept from George Orwell’s 1984: A Novel…that involved the deliberate pairing of diametrically opposed concepts and the use of tortured intellectual gyrations somehow to meld them together? Oh yeah: doublethink. Maybe truth really is the first casualty of war, or in this case the preparations therefor.

Read the Army Times article “Report suggests radical personnel changes.”
Download the full CNP “report” here: “Agility Across the Spectrum: A Future Force Blueprint.”

Obama has already called for a “civilian national security force” and, as I’ve already pointed out, he and his transition team seem to be unsure as to whether their new “national service programs” should be mandatory or voluntary. It has always been the job of “think tanks” like this one to come up with the intellectual justifications for policies that are initially unpopular with the public, and thus present a problem for policy-makers who would prefer to maintain the illusion that they form part of a representative form of government. Often, the controversial developments are sneaked in under the blanket of more legitimate-sounding reforms (such as, in this case, an end to the army’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy). Check out the CNP’s website - funny how they make no mention in their press release of what is clearly the most revolutionary idea contained within the report.

Here’s a quote from the report:

“What is needed is for such service to be mandatory and to encompass a wide spectrum of activities, from community–oriented work to military service. Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics has articulated perhaps the most specific plan towards this end. Dr. Sabato argues for a constitutional amendment requiring a period of mandatory service to be completed at anytime between the ages of 18 and 26 in fields ranging from public to private and civilian to military.”

Why would a constitutional amendment be necessary? Because slavery and involuntary servitude are currently unconstitutional, as per the Thirteenth Amendment. Could it happen? It’s entirely possible. There’s a lot of talk in Ohio these days about current attempts to call a constitutional convention. The purpose of said convention is ostensibly to enact an amendment requiring the Federal government to balance its budget. But, as constitutional scholars will point out, if state legislatures call such a convention, they can only suggest the topic(s) of discussion, and have no power over the ultimate outcome.

Here is a video clip of the man cited by the CNP in their report:

This Sabato guy is a bit frightening - a “bill of responsibilities”? Is he joking? The constitution was written to restrict the power of the government, and to protect the rights of the individual - not the other way around! Sabato has no business calling himself a constitutional scholar if he doesn’t recognize and respect this clearly-evident truth.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Pentagon has plans to place 20,000 troops in the United States by 2011, ostensibly to help state and local authorities cope with a “domestic catastrophe.” This piece of news, combined with the authority that was recently given to the president (in the National Defense Act of 2007) to ignore the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978 and use the military to quell domestic disturbances and the like (if he arbitrarily deems there to exist a state of “emergency”) should make Americans very queasy.

“The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.”

When you find a point of emphatic agreement between the ACLU and the Cato Institute, supposedly left-wing and right-wing organizations, respectively, you might want to take note.

If martial law or suspension of the Constitution sounds impossible to you, check out President Bush’s National Security Presidential Directive 51, in which it is stated that in a “catastrophic emergency…a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President” will replace regular governmental procedures. Hmm, when was the last time you heard of a temporary dictatorship?

I think it is likely that the U.S. will continue its imperial foreign policy under President Obama. Given this likelihood, I think it almost certain that we will experience another “terrorist attack” over the course of the next few years. I think such an attack would fit nicely into NSPD-51’s definition of an emergency: “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Barring that, a stock market crash or failure of the monetary system would probably do just fine.

So, expect to see uniformed military personnel, tanks, and machine guns on a street near you, if not now, then in 2011. They’ll just bring the troops back from Iraq, and set about terrorizing a civilian population that’s a little closer to home.

Domestic military force + arbitrary, unchecked executive power + national emergency = tyrannical police state.

Can you find the time to read Naomi Wolf’s book, in which she outlines the other recent developments that have brought the U.S. closer to a system of authoritarian government? Or, why not just skim this short online summary? I don’t know about you, but I fear any dictator - even a charismatic, warm and fuzzy, hopeful one. People from all over the world have come to the United States to escape dictatorships - to where will we flee?

My little sister called me this afternoon. She thought of me when she heard the “official” pronouncement that the U.S. economy has been in a “recession” for over a year now. She also knew how disappointed I would be in the mainstream media’s vapid coverage of the NBER’s pronouncement, in which expert commentators were allowed to utter unhelpful inanities along the lines of: “But, of course, the American people have known this for a long time.”

Guess what? The political and monetary scientists (at least those with half a brain in their head) have known this for a long time too - but they don’t want Americans to know how serious this crisis is, because their Ponzi scheme of a monetary system will crash the moment the people lose confidence in it. Why? Because our money isn’t backed by a commodity of solid, market-based value. It’s backed by the debt of the U.S. government - a debt that any objective observer would have to conclude is not going to be repaid, EVER. And if a debt isn’t going to be repaid, then the piece of paper that represents the debt isn’t worth anything. It is these pieces of debt-paper that provide the “backing” for our money, the Federal Reserve Note. So, if for some reason the people decide to stop using FRNs, these little green pieces of paper will be completely worthless.

As soon as people understand the system, it will collapse. The central bankers know this, and they’re worried, which is why they are meeting more frequently these days, along with the finance ministers and treasury secretaries of the world’s twenty largest economies. They are frantically hatching a replacement for the Bretton Woods monetary agreement, ratified in 1944, and co-designed by the socialst economist John Maynard Keynes. These central planners will have two basic options from which to choose:

1. A new system of fiat currency (just like this one, only “BETTER”).
2. A return to a free-market, commodity standard.

Which will they choose? Hmmm, let’s see…

1. A new fiat currency would allow politicians and central bankers to maintain their control over the economy. Bankers benefit from their monopoly over money creation and the immense profits they derive from it; and from the influence they wield over private citizens and businesses whom they have trained to become dependent on their system of credit for survival (e.g. auto bailouts, etc.). Bankers like a debt-based money system, because it is to THEM that the debt is ultimately owed. What was that quote from the Bible? Oh yes: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” (Proverbs 22:7) So, what’s the easiest way to get rich? To create money. Politicians, on the other hand, benefit from a fiat currency system because it allows governments to inflate the money supply at will, thus enabling them to pay for unpopular wars and other massive government “projects” that they cannot convince their people voluntarily to fund. Inflation (which, as Milton Friedman compellingly argues in chapter 8 of his book, “Monetary Mischief,” is a monetary phenomenon and is ALWAYS the result of government action) also has the added bonus of making the people’s money worth less, i.e. making citizens poor, demoralized, and unable to resist their government’s brazenly criminal actions. Want to know why the middle class is disappearing? Maybe its because inflation has destroyed the efficacy of the middle class work ethic: working hard, spending as little as possible, and saving.

   The botton line: A fiat currency serves the interest of bankers, politicians, and well-connected corporations. These people are part of an elite financial/political/corporate ruling class, and I think we may expect to much of them if we think they will willingly do away with the power they have lorded over us for so many years.

2. A new monetary system, with a currency backed by a hard commodity (silver, for example) would take control over money away from those who would use it for their own political or economic gains. It would force our government to perform only those duties that our founding fathers believed were legitimate duties for government to perform: protecting civil liberties; enforcing legal, voluntary contracts between individuals; upholding the rule of law through a system of courts; and providing for the common defense (and by “defense” I don’t mean the Orwellian definition employed by the “Department of Defense,” our version of the “Ministry of Peace” - but rather maintaining a modern infrastructure that would allow the American people to defend their lands from attack; a standing army is the tool of an empire, not a republic). Without the ability to resort to inflation, the government would be forced finally to end these senseless wars (the profits of which go, again, to bankers, politicians and corporations), or at least ask our permission to continue them.

The bottom line: A return to a metallic standard would serve the interests of hard-working people everywhere, would enable the middle class to grow, and would be compatible with the American Dream: freedom for the individual, and opportunity for all. As an added bonus, we’d be doing what our nation’s founders (not exactly a bunch of dummies) required of us in the Constitution, the supreme law of our land. They thought long and hard over the issue of monetary policy, and maybe we should at least consider heeding their advice.

I’m guessing the monetary and political scientists will opt for more of the same. But wait a minute! In order for a new (and improved) fiat currency to work, people like you and me - individuals - will have to use it. But why would we want to use a new currency that is designed along the lines of the one that just failed? Why would we, the people, have have any confidence in its ability to work? The answer is: we wouldn’t. We wouldn’t have confidence in a new piece of paper to replace the old one.

And that’s the rub. How would the government get us to use debt-money again? Well, the easiest way would be to give us no other choice: to promote a new world currency. In other words, to eliminate all competition, to establish a true monopoly. This would be most easily done by giving the authority to create our money to some world bank or world monetary authority.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some world-politician to have the power to tax me against my will, through the process of inflation. And there are lots of other Americans I know who would feel the same way. I, for one, would REFUSE to use a world fiat currency, and I would REFUSE to pay a world inflation-tax. Now, if indepedent-minded citizens like me refuse to obey the orders of a corrupt and immoral government, what option has that government left, in order to uphold its edicts? Force: violence, intimidation, tyranny.

And that leads me to the news story of the day that SHOULD have received ALL the press, since like the experts said, this “recession” was old news to us, the American people. Yesterday, we learned that the final nail has quite possibly been driven into the coffin of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The mechanism by which our government could FORCE us to live in tyranny will soon be put into place.

Were you paying attention as your civil rights and protections were dealt another low blow? Almost as importantly, was our new president-elect - the man who has the power to restore the Rule of Law - was he paying attention? I’ll bet he was. Will he tell us what he thinks about this domestic army that will soon be under his control? I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

In a second series of answers to New York Times readers’ questions, Ron Paul discusses the importance of transparency in monetary policy, why government intervention has not and will not succeed in solving problems like global warming, and (by distorting the free market) will have unintended negative consequences (like mal-investment in unproven solutions like ethanol), and why he opposes both our imperial foreign policy and the destructive and failed federal “war on drugs.”

Like one of the blog commenters, I believe this series is the most concise, precise, persuasive, and eloquent defense of Ron Paul’s libertarian principles (and the policies they require) that I have read thus far.

1) The original call for questions (and the hundreds of questions that were initially posed).
2) The first set of answers.
3) The second set of answers.

Naomi Wolf is shaping up to be one of the leaders of the growing anti-fascist movement in the United States. She has a website on which she plugs her latest book, and a blog that she updates fairly regularly. Here is a link to her latest blog post, entitled “The People’s Counter-Coup.” And here is my response to it, which I posted on her facebook page:

Hi Naomi - my only criticism of your latest blog post is that you seem to think that a Democrat president will be less likely to use authoritarian powers than a Republican one. I think it is more likely than not that Obama will NOT restore posse comitatus, will NOT disband the domestic military presence, and will NOT end our imperial policy towards the world. Government almost never gives up a power it has given itself. When new leadership is swept into office, they always believe that they should keep the unconstitutional powers, now that they are in the hands of someone (themselves) who will use them for good instead of evil.

In some ways, having a socialist-leaning president like Obama will make it more likely, not less, that our government’s powers will continue to expand - in response to the worsening economic situation. Obama has made NO MENTION whatsoever of how the Federal Reserve is the cause of this crisis, showing that he either does not understand the situation or does not have the stones to tell Americans the truth. If he follows the lead of FDR, it is entirely possible that he will seek more power for himself - and that he will be given this power precisely BECAUSE of the sentiments, shared by many people like yourself, that he is less likely than Bush to abuse it.

We are still creeping towards fascism. The Republicans and Democrats are unwitting accomplices in this process - the Dems give the government more economic control (which inevitably leads to control over our personal lives) and the Repubs put together the infrastructure for a police state and create the foreign enemies necessary to scare our domestic population into submission. Please, be just as wary of Obama as you were of Bush! The thing that scares me most about Obama is that he IS intelligent and DOES mean well - but he has too much confidence in government’s ability to “fix” the problems, and probably too much confidence in his own abilities as well. You know what they say about the road to hell.

Keep up the good work! And if you have a chance, read “The Road to Serfdom” and one of the books on the Federal Reserve System. During your interview with Lew Rockwell, you mentioned that monetary policy is something you don’t quite understand, and I assure you, it is a fascinating subject, and one that will alter your understanding of the way that many “conservatives” think.

Ron Paul explains why he thinks centralized control of education, energy policy, and the price of money are bad ideas for the county. Part 2 will be released soon.

Article Here.

Like Lavar Burton used to say on Reading Rainbow, “but you don’t have to take my word for it!”

Naomi Wolf interview, Part 1

Rep. Sherman’s remarks

Naomi Wolf interview, Part 2

The Army Times Article: “Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man-made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks….They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control…”

Naomi Wolf interview, Part 3

I am afraid too, Naomi. And I wonder if it is already too late.