MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Prepare: The Supreme Court Might Legalize Warrantless Gun Seizures | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on February 11, 2021

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/prepare-the-supreme-court-might-legalize-warrantless-gun-seizures/

by Matt Agorist

Last week, the Free Thought Project reported on HR 127, the most tyrannical gun bill ever proposed. The bill would target the poor by forcing citizens to pay $800 per year to possess firearms that they are required to register. It also bans multiple legal guns and ammo types, turning tens of millions of Americans into felons over night. While this bill is, without a doubt, the worst gun bill in history, it didn’t lay out any guidelines for violating a citizen’s Fourth Amendment right. Next month, however, the Supreme Court will be considering exactly that—can cops enter a home to seize guns without a warrant?

That escalated quickly.

In March, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Caniglia v. Strom, which asks the question of whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

The community caretaker exception, has already been recognized as an exception to the Fourth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after an accident.

The Court acknowledged that, “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases,” police cannot search private property without consent or a warrant. It emphasized, however, that “there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.” Since Cady, there has been a whole host of cases that took this holding and created the doctrine of “community caretaking.” Cady defined community caretaking activities as those “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”

In other words, as long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional. This was in vehicles, not homes.

While the caretaker exception has long been applied to vehicles, the idea of applying it to homes and allowing cops to seize guns without a warrant is worrisome. In an article from Forbes, the case of Caniglia v. Strom, is explained:

Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The case has been making its way through the courts, with the courts ruling in favor of warrantless searches. The federal court just below the Supreme Court, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is fine and dandy for cops to warrantlessly search your home and take your guns because they need “elbow room” to provide safety.

“At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways,” the court wrote.

As Forbes points out, unlike the “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid” exceptions, the community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant. And the question of what sort of caretaking falls under this exception is extremely vague. Will the police be able to use it to, for example, conduct warrantless searches of political protesters’ homes to make sure they aren’t planning on violent behavior at their next political rally?

We have already seen tech giants like Facebook hand over the private messages of those who talked about the events of January 6. If this ruling is upheld, it could pave the way for cops to raid the home of those who engage in peaceful discourse based solely on the premise that violence might happen.

President Biden has already labeled tens of millions of Americans who supported the pro-Trump rally in DC as “terrorists.”

Just a few weeks later and a DHS terror alert was issued for beliefs held by tens of millions of Americans like those who oppose lockdowns or who were upset over the outcome of the election. With the slippery slope of this case, these views could easily be included in the “elbow room” granted to police to carry out their “community caretaking” and subsequently raid homes and seize guns with no warrant.

Hopefully SCOTUS knocks down this ruling and cooler heads prevail. However, at the rate this tyranny is unfolding in 2021, that is not very likely.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mass Manipulation – How It Works – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 11, 2021

Fractionation, A ‘Yes’ set, Confusion, Repetition, Illusion of Choice, Social Proof, Scarcity

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/no_author/mass-manipulation-how-it-works/

By Peter Koenig
Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Have you ever wondered how a herd of sheep is driven to their “slaughterhouse”?

Manipulation of minds is a well-studied science, has been applied already for centuries, but is getting ever more sophisticated. For example, the many poignant assertions, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda (1933 to 1945), included,

“if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth”; or

“if you make people believe in the threat of an enemy, they’ll do your bidding”- and

“divide and polarize them, destroy their solidarity, and they follow your command”.

Today we have become more sophisticated. While fear is still the weapon of choice – imagine an invisible enemy that everybody is scared of – we have digitally observant media, algorithms and robots that focus on your thinking, how you react and deal with social media, or what websites you consult, and where and what you shop.

This is just to mention a few points of information. Today there are on average about 200 such data to be electronically computed, so as  to sway your opinion and to make you believe the most flagrant lies.

You may recognize what the covid crisis is doing to you and at what state of manipulation we are – how close to the slaughterhouse are we?

The seven stages below synthesize the book ‘Influence, The Power of Persuasion’, by Robert Cialdini: 

“Influence”, the classic book on persuasion, explains the psychology of why people say “yes” – and how to apply these understandings. Dr. Robert Cialdini is the seminal expert in the rapidly expanding field of influence and persuasion. His thirty-five years of rigorous, evidence-based research along with a three-year program of study on what moves people to change behavior has resulted in this highly acclaimed book. You’ll learn the six universal principles, how to use them to become a skilled persuader – and how to defend yourself against them. Perfect for people in all walks of life, the principles of “Influence” will move you toward profound personal change and act as a driving force for your success.:”

Australia’s Naval Base in Papua New Guinea: Power Play in the South Pacific against China

Hypnotherapists have been noticing blatant hypnosis and Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) techniques being used by the government and state-controlled media. NPL is a psychological approach that involves analyzing strategies used by successful individuals and applying them to reach a personal goal. It relates thoughts, language, and patterns of behavior learned through experience to specific outcomes.

Fractionation:

You get them to do something not once, but again and again, increasing the level of intensity each time. Usually, you do it 3 times. (At the first lockdown I said – watch out, there’ll be a 2nd and a 3rd) This increases compliance – you’re much more likely to get them to do whatever you want.

A ‘Yes’ set:

Get them to say ‘Yes’ to something small at first (just two weeks to “flatten the curve”) then gradually increase (months of lockdown, Christmas cancelled, socially/economically coerced into vaccines). In this way they’re much more likely to keep saying yes. (There would’ve been riots if they’d said in March lockdowns will carry on through Christmas.)

Confusion:

Keep them in a constant state of uncertainty. The conscious mind responds to this by ‘going offline’ as it searches for the appropriate response for something it has no precedent for. Then it’s much easier for the manipulator to gain access to the unconscious mind and change belief systems. For example, lockdown rules are changing on practically a day-to-day basis; we’re living in a world we’ve never lived in before, everyone’s stumbling about with no idea how to behave. We’ve no energy left to fight our oppressors.

Repetition:

Repeat the same information over and over (see any newspaper / TV news for evidence of this!)

Illusion of Choice

Make them believe they’re in control by giving them 2 choices, both of which lead to the same result. For example, ‘Do you want the Pfizer or the Oxford?’ or ‘You can choose to be good or bad. Bad = more lockdown. Good = more lockdown.’

“Social Proof”

“Look, all these great celebrities are backing it!”

“Scarcity”

“You’ll have to wait your turn for the vaccine… we might be running out”

And so many more… All classic psychological control techniques. Once you see it, you can’t un-see it.

*

Check out the book ‘Influence’, The Power of Persuasion’ by Robert Cialdini – all the methods he talks about are being used daily in the news and other media.

*

If we realize in time that this is what is happening to us, that this theory applied is behind covid, and that using covid for a much more freedom encroaching ulterior goal – total control of humanity, of people’s behavior, of food, of resources – over whether people live or die – and of the world’s riches – then we might have a chance to break out from the herd that storms towards the abyss – or the slaughterhouse.

Waking up – protesting – disobeying – and reconnecting with each other. NOW.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Clampdown – RPI 10 Feb Update

Posted by M. C. on February 11, 2021

The Atlantic Council is lavishly funded by war profiteers and the western governments that benefit most from war profiteers. Nimmo, who will decide what is allowed on Facebook and what is not, has a long history of falsely denouncing those who disagree with NATO’s hyper-interventionist goals of being “Russian bots” – including the great Ukrainian-American pianist Valentina Lisitsa – with the intent to silence and disappear critics. His pronouncements closely track with his paymasters in NATO and the military-industrial complex. The result will be the elimination of speech that disagrees with these and other deep state institutions.

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/csaky-115230?e=4e0de347c8

Working for the Clampdown… Dear Friends:

I was on the phone with my RPI colleague Adam Dick this week and in an uncharacteristic comment he captured what I had been feeling for some time: it appears the brakes are off the runaway train of political revengism. That’s not exactly what he said, but he conveyed back to me the same very strong sense of mal à l’aise that I had been feeling. 

From the bizarre spectacle of Impeachment 2.0 to the continuing – and intensifying – Covid crackdown, to the continuing merger of social media with government with the goal of silencing all dissidents outside the extreme center, it appears increasingly likely that the total state is here and it is intent on flexing its muscles.

If you have a different opinion on any of these issues you are not just a political opponent, but a “domestic terrorist” who needs to be silenced, shut down, destroyed, and perhaps incarcerated.

(This is not a partisan attack against Joe Biden because frankly I do not believe Biden is at the helm in any substantive way. Not that his four or so decades in “public service” do not indicate his attraction to the use of force and his embrace of authoritarianism.)

Exhibit one: I have not been watching the Impeachment 2.0 hearings live, but I have been following them on various news and social media sources. I feel fairly well informed of the important bits. House impeachment managers delivered a Resolution to the Senate stating very clearly that it was former President Trump’s speech on January 6th that contained specific phrases that served as an incitement to insurrection and was directly responsible for the melee that occurred at the US Capitol on that day.

They narrowed it down to that one speech.

They proceeded to argue Tuesday at the opening of the Senate trial that Trump’s words such as “fight like hell” and his insistence that the election was stolen were clearly criminal and justified removing him from office (which he does not hold) and barring him from ever running for office again (the real goal).

Surely, they claimed, the use of “fight like hell” was even worse than yelling “fire” in a crowded move theater!

But then something kind of funny happened: because public records are permanent, social media users began finding and identifying the numerous times the Democrats – and even the House impeachment managers – had used the same phrases and had even publicly challenged elections.

Nancy Pelosi in 2017 sounded a lot like Trump in 2020, telling people that the election was invalid and that Congress must “protect our democracy” – presumably by overturning the election.

House impeachment manager Rep. Jeremy Raskin sounded a lot like Trump’s team when he formally objected to the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump in 2017.

But what about that call to arms “fight like hell”? Surely that was the smoking gun? Nope. 

House impeachment manager Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) vowed to “fight like hell.” House lead manager Jeremy Raskin spoke of the need to “fight like hell.”

House impeachment manager Ted Lieu (R-CA) vowed to “fight like hell” against President Trump.

And in the ultimate blow that using the phrase “fight like hell” opens one up to impeachment for incitement to insurrection, President Joe Biden himself used the phrase in 2019.

Oh no this does not compute! The entire impeachment case rides on a phrase that literally all of the House managers and House leadership have used in the past. What to do?

Lie.

Even though any sentient reading of the House impeachment resolution would conclude that Trump’s January 6th speech was the sole trigger for the charge that he incited an “insurrection,” turning on a dime when caught in their lie, the impeachers then claimed that, c’mon man, it wasn’t that one speech at all. It was the pattern of Trump’s speeches leading up to that speech that inspired the “insurrection.”

This is not a defense of Trump, which our readers and subscribers will recall endured four years of RPI criticism for actual boneheaded policies – like bombing Syria, pulling out of the Iran deal, slapping sanctions on anything that moved, etc. – rather than phony, made-up offenses like “Russiagate.”

The case is a joke.

Exhibit two: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decided in September that lockdowns and mask mandates were worthless in fighting the latest coronavirus, so he lifted all the state mandates and forbade local governments from levying fines on their own for such “infractions.” Fauci warned that a major disaster was coming for Florida. Bodies in the street. A bloodbath. 

But a funny thing happened on the way to the apocalypse: nothing. Florida, with no restrictions on businesses, no lockdowns, no mask mandates, did as well – mostly better – on cases per million and hospitalizations per million and deaths per million as California Governor Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom’s hyper-Stalinist gulag regime.

Florida should be a disaster, teeming with the hospitalized and the dead like a third world country. Instead this is Florida:



Not too bad!

The lockdown states were the basket cases, not Florida. So what to do about the obvious success of simply allowing people to choose their own precautionary measures regarding the virus? 

In an unprecedented and bizarre move, the Biden Administration announced today that it might introduce sanctions against…Florida! Yes, Florida’s great success in balancing the need to manage a virus and manage civil liberties and the economy may well be punished by the Biden Administration with “travel restrictions” from the rest of the other 49 states.

No wonder libertarian-minded intellectuals and libertarian organizations are racing to do business with and move to Florida. Secession anyone?

Exhibit three: The social media behemoth Facebook announced that it would be bringing on as “intelligence chief” former NATO press officer and current Atlantic Council senior fellow Ben Nimmo. (BTW: Why should a social media company, which should be all about friends communicating with each other, need an “intelligence chief”?) Nimmo has a history of assassinating anyone who disagrees with the hyper-militarist, interventionist, Russia and China war promoting Atlantic Council as a “Russian bot” or agent of China. In fact his organization put out a policy paper recently calling for “regime change” in China. 

The Atlantic Council is lavishly funded by war profiteers and the western governments that benefit most from war profiteers. Nimmo, who will decide what is allowed on Facebook and what is not, has a long history of falsely denouncing those who disagree with NATO’s hyper-interventionist goals of being “Russian bots” – including the great Ukrainian-American pianist Valentina Lisitsa – with the intent to silence and disappear critics. His pronouncements closely track with his paymasters in NATO and the military-industrial complex. The result will be the elimination of speech that disagrees with these and other deep state institutions.

Yes they are all working for the clampdown. But as alarmed as we are in the short term, as Lenin himself said the worse the better. The more totalitarian they become the more the public will be open to hearing about the principles of liberty. They cannot succeed in the longer term. So our job is to hone our rhetorical skills, to focus on the philosophy of peace and prosperity – which is far outside the bogus Washington left-right continuum – and work with our allies without judging them on issues of limited importance on which we might disagree.

These buffoons are so absurd – far more so than even Trump – that a unique window has opened for our ideas. Let’s work together to take advantage.
  Please Donate Now!
Thank you for your support!
Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AOC and Schumer Want Taxpayer Funding for Covid-19 Funerals | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

By now, we already know that the forced business shutdowns created a pattern of destruction that will be hard to remedy. According to Yelp’s data, 97,966, or 60 percent, of the 163,735 businesses listed on the platform that closed between March and August won’t reopen. To many of these small business owners and their employees, unexpected closures meant poverty, depression, and lack of access to healthcare, all problems that also lead to deaths.

https://mises.org/wire/aoc-and-schumer-want-taxpayer-funding-covid-19-funerals

Alice Salles

US residents whose family members died with or of covid will be eligible to receive $7,000 for funeral and related expenses, New York senator Chuck Schumer (D) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) announced.

During a briefing in Queens on Monday, February 8, the duo announced that $267 million of the federally funded funeral benefits would go to low-income families in New York alone. The package, Schumer added, is part of a $2 billion disaster funds program run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that will provide benefits to families nationwide.

In her speech, Ocasio-Cortez explained that families “are having to pay for the storage of the bodies of their own loved ones” in addition to covering the funeral and burial expenses.

“This is wrong,” she added.

The announcement was received warmly on social media, so it wasn’t a surprise to see few people questioning the duo’s intentions.

But if the goal is to help those impacted by the pandemic, why did neither Democrat bring up plans to provide aid to the families who lost loved ones to various state governments’ responses to the coronavirus?

An Undeserving Bunch

Following the first reports of infections, most states had stay-at-home orders in place as early as March 2020. While some governors started lifting some of the restrictions in June, the majority kept them in place, tightening restrictions once again by Thanksgiving.

By now, we already know that the forced business shutdowns created a pattern of destruction that will be hard to remedy. According to Yelp’s data, 97,966, or 60 percent, of the 163,735 businesses listed on the platform that closed between March and August won’t reopen. To many of these small business owners and their employees, unexpected closures meant poverty, depression, and lack of access to healthcare, all problems that also lead to deaths.

According to some estimates, deaths associated with factors other than coronavirus make up at least one-third of all excess deaths during the pandemic.

Deaths of despair, which include suicide and drug abuse, have been on the rise everywhere in the country since the beginning of the lockdowns, as well as deaths caused by delayed or interrupted medical treatment. The rate of domestic abuse is also growing, putting a greater number of lives at danger. One would think congressmen would try to use the lockdown-related data to push yet another benefits package. However, they all seem to play down the deaths and suffering caused by governments’ shutdown orders.

Before pushing for funeral expense reimbursements for families whose loved ones had covid, Ocasio-Cortez tried to play down the Democrats’ support for lockdowns by blaming Republicans who don’t wear masks for “forcing” states to shut down.

“Here’s what’s ironic to me: all these Republicans, all these people who were anti-shutdown, were the same people who weren’t wearing masks, who forced us to shut down in the first place,” she said in an Instagram Live video.

Despite her claims, two of the states hardest hit by the pandemic, California and New York, were also two of the first to enact mask mandates. But on Monday, February 8, the New York congresswoman had no words of sympathy for the families whose loved ones died due to the tyrannical mandates enacted by governors such as New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who now believes that lockdowns have gone too far.

“We simply cannot stay closed until the vaccine hits critical mass. The cost is too high,” he tweeted following the inauguration of President Joe Biden.

If Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez are indeed working to help the low-income families who lost loved ones in 2020, they are letting down a great number of Americans (and immigrants). Author:

Alice Salles

Alice Salles was born and raised in Brazil but has lived in America for over ten years. She now lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana with her husband Nick Hankoff and their three children.  

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why No State Needs Thousands of Nuclear Warheads | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

What really matters is the perception that the other side has second-strike capability, and this certainly exists in US-Russia relations. Once each regime knows that the other regime has second-strike capability, the competition is over. Deterrence is established. Waltz notes:

So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless. If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant….Within very wide ranges, a nuclear balance is insensitive to variation in numbers and size of warheads.

https://mises.org/wire/why-no-state-needs-thousands-nuclear-warheads

Ryan McMaken

Last week, the United States signed a five-year extension of the New START arms control treaty with Russia. Russia’s President Putin signed the treaty shortly thereafter. The “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” allows Russia and the US to monitor each other’s nuclear forces, facilities, and activities. The idea is to keep track of the relative strength of the two regimes’ respective arsenals and to encourage reductions. The treaty also caps the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 each. (The total stockpiles for the US and Russia are 4,700 and 4,300, respectively.)

The move is a departure from the Trump administration’s opposition to the treaty. The Trump administration had wanted to renegotiate the treaty, insisting that so-called tactical nuclear weapons—designed for battlefield use—be included. As it is, the treaty focuses only on strategic weapons. The Trump administration also insisted that China be added to the treaty. The Chinese declined to participate. President Trump also ended two other arms treaties, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty.

These all may sound to many readers like rather momentous changes to policy. But this is all a lot of political theater.

Just as the Trump administration used the abrogation of these treaties as red meat for the “America first” crowd,1 the Biden administration is surely more than happy to use the treaty to demonstrate how Biden is a departure from Trump. The treaty may even offer military lobbyists the opportunity to point to Russian stockpiles and claim the US must find ways to balance or counter Russian nuclear capabilities. Putin, meanwhile, can say that he signed a treaty limiting the arsenal of the far-richer American regime, which has a lot more money to spend on nuclear weapons. For Putin, this is important because the Russian state has been looking to economize and has been reducing or moderating military spending in recent years.

In short, arms treaties like New START serve a domestic political function. They help politicians take credit for allegedly pursuing peace while also potentially justifying more military spending overall.

In practice, however, the extension of the treaty does not reduce the risk of nuclear war, and it certainly won’t make nuclear arms disappear or even be substantially reduced. It is the presence of the nuclear weapons themselves that has deterred both the US and the Russians—and the Soviets before them—from a nuclear conflict. Moreover, the arms limitations provisions of the treaty won’t change the status quo of deterrence. Both nations have more than enough nuclear capability to achieve a deterrent effect, and given the current thinking within each regime, it’s a safe bet neither will agree to a treaty which threatened to reduce arsenal levels to anywhere near levels of “minimum deterrence.”

Yet, in practice, both regimes could reduce nuclear spending and nuclear stockpiles far below current levels without sacrificing deterrence. Neither regime, however, is likely to risk making any sizable reductions. The ideal of overwhelming nuclear force still has many friends in both Washington and Moscow.

The Value of Minimum Deterrence

Whether or not politicians believe in the use of minimum deterrence has little to do with whether or not it is actually effective, and arms agreements like New START don’t do much to push regimes in this direction.

In a 1990 essay titled “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” Kenneth Waltz—perhaps the most influential scholar of international relations of the past fifty years—outlines how “strategic arms agreements do not have military but economic and political, significance.”2

Counting up the total number of missiles in these enormous arsenals does little, since, for nations that are already well above the threshold of achieving nuclear deterrence, these treaties don’t change the military calculus.

What really matters is the perception that the other side has second-strike capability, and this certainly exists in US-Russia relations. Once each regime knows that the other regime has second-strike capability, the competition is over. Deterrence is established. Waltz notes:

So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless. If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant….Within very wide ranges, a nuclear balance is insensitive to variation in numbers and size of warheads.

The focus on second-strike capability is key because pro-arms-race policymakers are quick to note that if a regime is able (with a first strike) to destroy its enemy’s ability to retaliate in kind, then a nuclear war can be “won.”

Second-Strike Capability Evens the Score

But, as shown by Michael Gerson in International Security (2010) establishing second-strike capability—or, more importantly, the perception that a regime has it—is not as difficult as many suppose. Gerson writes:

A successful first strike would require near-perfect intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect, identify, and track all of the adversary’s nuclear forces; recent events surrounding U.S. assessments of Iraq’s suspected WMD [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities forcefully demonstrate the challenges of reliable, accurate, and unbiased information. Intelligence regarding where an adversary’s nuclear weapons are located and if the state is actually planning to attack could be wrong or incomplete, and an attempted first strike based on inaccurate or incomplete information could have far-reaching negative consequences.

This can be countered through a variety of methods, including secrecy and the ability to move weapons delivery systems around. This is why the US, Russian, and Chinese regimes have long been so enthusiastic about the so-called nuclear triad. It is assumed that if nuclear weapons can be delivered by submarine, aircraft, and land, then it would be impossible for an opposing regime to destroy all three at once and achieve first-strike victory.

But even in the absence of a triad, an opposing regime that seeks a total first-strike victory has few grounds for much confidence. As Waltz shows, “Nuclear weapons are small and light; they are easy to move, easy to hide, and easy to deliver in a variety of ways.” That is, if a regime manages to move around and hide even a small number of planes, subs, or trucks, this could spell disaster for the regime attempting a successful first strike. Gerson explains:

A nuclear first strike is fraught with risk and uncertainty. Could a U.S. president, the only person with the power to authorize nuclear use and a political official concerned with re-election, his or her political party, and their historical legacy, ever be entirely confident that the mission would be a complete success? What if the strike failed to destroy all of the weapons, or what if weapons were hidden in unknown areas, and the remaining weapons were used in retaliation?

Nor must it be assumed that a large number of warheads is necessary to achieve deterrence. Waltz recalls that Desmond Ball—who had advised the US on escalation strategies—convincingly asserted that the nuclear weapons necessary for deterrence numbered “not in the hundreds but in the tens.”3 Ball contended that a debilitating attack on the US could be achieved with as few as fifty warheads.

Proceeding on the assumption that an enemy has no warheads left following a first strike requires an extremely high level of confidence, because the cost of miscalculation is so high. If a regime initiates a first strike and misses only a few of the enemy’s missiles, this could lead to devastating retaliation both in terms of human life and in terms of the first-strike regime’s political prospects.

This is why Waltz concludes that a rudimentary nuclear force can achieve deterrence if there is even a small and plausible chance of second-strike capability. A small nuclear strike is nonetheless disastrous for the target, and thus “second-strike forces have to be seen in absolute terms.” Waltz correctly insists that calculating the relative dominance of one arsenal over another becomes a waste of time: “the question of dominance is pointless because one second-strike force cannot dominate another.”

The conclusion is that a small second-strike force is sufficient. Naturally, this can be attractive to smaller or cash-strapped regimes, such as the Soviet Union, which in its final decades found itself devoting ever larger amounts of its GDP to military spending.

A Minority View

This remains the minority view. Nikita Khrushchev, for example, faced much opposition to his plans to adopt a minimum deterrence posture in the Soviet Union after 1961. Conservatives in the military and Politburo were vehemently opposed to the plan, in part because it included cutting back on spending on conventional military forces. But the opposition was also due to the fact that the hardliners were quite convinced by the perceived necessity of immense, flexible, and overwhelming force.4

In the United States, of course, minimum deterrence has never been very popular, especially among conservatives. For example, spending on the US nuclear arsenal increased 50 percent under Donald Trump from 2016 to 2020. The Pentagon and Congress continue to put sizable faith in maintaining a large, diverse, and expensive arsenal.

In any case, the rejection of minimum deterrence achieves a useful political goal, as described by Waltz:

The claim that we need a seamless web of capabilities in order to deter does serve one purpose: it keeps military budgets wondrously high.

New START isn’t likely to change this, and if the treaty presented any real obstacle to military spending or the military establishment, it would be long gone. Yet the US regime could easily slash its nuclear budget and stockpile without sacrificing anything in the way of nuclear deterrence. Although much is being made in recent years of China’s growing nuclear stockpile, China’s total nuclear arms amount to a mere fraction of the US’s deployed warheads. But facts like these have never gotten in the way of the promilitary narrative on Capitol Hill.

  • 1. The Trump administration’s lack of interest in any ostensible limits on the nuclear arsenal also helped pave the way for increased spending on nuclear arms. Under Trump, spending on the nuclear arsenal increased 50 percent from 2016 to 2020.
  • 2. Kenneth Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” American Political Science Review 84, no. 3 (September 1990): 731–45.
  • 3. Waltz, p. 740.
  • 4. John Erickson, “Détente, Deterrence, and ‘Military Superiority: A Soviet Dilemma,” World Today 21, no. 8 (August 1965): 339, 344.

Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Winning Hearts and Minds By Burning Down Your Village

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

France confronted with the jihadism of its Turkish ally, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

France realises a little late that the jihadists who have carried out attacks on its soil and others who are preparing new ones are supported by foreign states, military allies within NATO.

It revolves around four strong ideas, including the prohibition of the financing of religious associations by foreign States. Everyone is well aware that this is the head of Islamism, but no one dares to name these states: Turkey and Qatar, remote controlled by the United Kingdom and the United States.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article212155.html

by Thierry Meyssan

France realises a little late that the jihadists who have carried out attacks on its soil and others who are preparing new ones are supported by foreign states, military allies within NATO. The refusal to draw conclusions in terms of foreign policy makes the bill to combat Islamism of little use.

President Emmanuel Macron and the government of Jean Castex drafted a bill to combat the political instrumentation of the Muslim faith. This text is currently being discussed in Parliament.

It revolves around four strong ideas, including the prohibition of the financing of religious associations by foreign States. Everyone is well aware that this is the head of Islamism, but no one dares to name these states: Turkey and Qatar, remote controlled by the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, fighting against Islamism in France has many brutal consequences in foreign policy. No party dares to tackle this problem, rendering all the efforts made in this struggle ineffective.

France has already experienced this hesitation in the face of Islamism in the mid-1990s. At the time, the United Kingdom and the United States supported the jihadists in Algeria against French influence. London also offered political asylum to these “democrats” who were fighting against a military regime. The Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua, launched a showdown that led him to have the members of a commando of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) who had hijacked an Air France plane shot dead and to expel the CIA chief of post in Paris (who was also compromised in a case of economic espionage). The issue was thus settled for 20 years.JPEG - 62.1 kb

The Directorate General of Internal Security (DGSI) inspired a press dossier, in the Journal du Dimanche of February 7, 2021, on how “Erdoğan is infiltrating France”. Note: the newspaper did not question Turkey, but the only President Erdoğan. Similarly, at least initially, it did not mention Qatar, the United Kingdom or the United States. Above all, it quoted the Millî Görüş which it accuses, without noting that it was the militia of Prime minister Necmettin Erbakan and that President Erdoğan was one of its leaders. Finally, it omitted to mention the alleged role of the Turkish secret services in the attacks of November 13, 2015 (the Bataclan).

It is this theme that we are going to develop by rectifying many prejudices.JPEG - 64.1 kbDidier Lemaire, professor of philosophy in the Paris region (in France, one teaches philosophy in the final year of secondary school), has been threatened by Islamists because he dares to debate political Islam. He was placed under police protection.

Islam: faith and politics

Mohammed was a prophet, warlord and prince at the same time. The Islam he founded was at the same time a particular rite of Christianity [1], his policy towards the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the law he promulgated. No one was able at his death to distinguish his spiritual heritage from his political and military action. On the contrary, his political successors (in Arabic: “Caliphs”) inherited his authority in religious matters, although they had no theological knowledge and sometimes even did not believe in God.

Today, Muslims living in Europe aspire to sort out this Islam, to keep only the spiritual part of it and to abandon dated aspects, especially the Sharia. On the contrary, President Erdoğan, who officially wishes to be declared Caliph of Muslims on October 29, 2023 (the centenary of the Turkish Republic), is doing everything possible to oppose this.

It is therefore a struggle between two civilisations. Not between European culture and that of Turkey, but contemporary civilisation against another, which disappeared a century ago.JPEG - 43.8 kbFormer Islamist Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan and his bodyguards. To the right of the photo is Recep Tayyp Erdoğan.

Erdoğan: an Islamist thug who became president

President Erdoğan is not a politician like the others. He started his career as a thug who was punching in the streets of the capital. He entered politics in the 1970s by joining an Islamist militia, the Akıncılar, until he joined the militia created during the fall of Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan in 1997, the Millî Görüş. This organisation of nervis was financed by the Iraq of President Saddam Hussein and placed under the control of the Grand Master of the Sufi Order of the Naqchbandis, General Ezzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, future Iraqi Vice-President.JPEG - 23.3 kbIn Afghanistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar with at his feet Rachid Ghanoucchi Ghanoucchi (left in the photo) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (right).

The Anglo-Tunisian Rachid Ghanoucchi, one of the great figures of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: “In the Arab world of my generation, when people talked about the Islamic movement, they talked about Erbakan. When they talked about Erbakan, it was the way they talked about Hassan al-Banna and Sayyed Qutb”. So, although the Islamist movement is organisationally divided between the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and the Naqchbandis on the other, they undoubtedly form a single ideology.

It is in the name of the Millî Görüş that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan played an effective role in the wars in Afghanistan alongside Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and in the wars in Chechnya alongside Shamil Basayev. Once he became president, he imposed himself as the leader of this movement during the NATO war in Syria. Today he is the leader of both the Muslim Brotherhood (established in the wider Middle East and Europe) and the Naqchbandis (established mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Russian Dagestan, South Asia and Chinese Xinjiang).

Islamist networks

See the rest here

Article licensed under Creative Commons

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tom Brady is the left’s worst nightmare – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

We need winners right now, those who got where they are based on their talents and not by the choice of government or other ideological bullies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/tom_brady_is_the_lefts_worst_nightmare.html

By Dex Bahr

Soon after Super Bowl LV, I texted a good friend of mine that Tampa Bay quarterback Tom Brady is every leftist’s worst nightmare: he is successful, a winner, and a Trump-supporter, and worst of all, he is a white man.  For a little context, I pretty much boycotted the NFL this year because of politics, do not watch corporate media, and had not read any websites or blogs after the game, but one thing I do know is how the left thinks.

Let me go on the record by saying that until about four years ago, I couldn’t stand Tom Brady.  I used to root for every one of Patriot’s opponents.  My reasons for not liking him: He was successful, a winner, and a good-looking guy with a supermodel wife.  I suppose, like most guys who wanted Brady to lose, I was jealous.

Yeah, it really just came down to stupid petty jealousy, and it’s pretty embarrassing to admit.

So what changed?

Two things changed my mind about Tom Brady.  First, he and Coach Bill Belichick were vocal in their support of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2015, and second, I realized that it was pretty stupid to loathe someone because he wins.  After all, isn’t it great to win and to constantly seek that goal?

I then came to the realization that anyone who works hard and succeeds in any endeavor should be emulated, not ridiculed.  We used to love winners in America, but I guess these days, winners have to be a member of a minority group for it to count and not a white man who keeps his political opinions mostly to himself.

I am a Christian, and an American who happens to be black and I proudly say that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback to ever play in the NFL.  He is deserving of admiration as a great American athlete.

This is a man who worked hard for everything he achieved: first in his effort to earn the starting QB role for Michigan (1996–1999) and then in his quest to be the starter at New England.  What Brady’s detractors either do not know or forget is that this guy was drafted by the Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL draft.  As the 199th pick in the sixth round, no one was predicting that this guy would win seven Super Bowls, much less one.  Brady is a living, breathing example of success: a strong work ethic, focus, and tenacity.

Brady,43, wears seven Super Bowl rings, not solely because of his talented throwing arm or his ability to read defenses, but because he is one of those rare leaders who inspires his teammates to elevate their game.  Brady signed a two-year, $50-million contract with the Buccaneers after leaving the Patriots in 2020.  Tampa Bay finished 7-9 in 2019 and had not made a playoff appearance since 2007.  Now they are Super Bowl champs for the second time in their franchise history.

What I have always found fascinating about team sports is chemistry.  Sure, a team may have the talent, but there is something magical about the right mix and the difference an inspirational leader can make.  Winners bring out the best in those around them — not only in sports, but in any endeavor.

Those detractors who say it is somehow racist that Brady won during Black History Month should be ridiculed and vilified.  Demonizing Brady for winning during Black History Month is offensive because it sells black athletes short.  It sounds as though these whiners wanted Brady to throw the game so the black starter on Kansas City, Patrick Mahomes, could win during Black History Month.  Talk about some sort of weird gridiron affirmative action fetish.

Mahomes is a fierce competitor and would be the first one to want to beat Brady on his own talents, guts, and determination.  The Buccaneers certainly respected Mahomes’s talents enough to devise a defense to neutralize his targets while maintaining constant pressure on the young quarterback.  I suppose that to leftists, it was racist to come up with a game plan to stop the talented and formidable signal-caller who happens to be black.  Ridiculous!

The criticism of Brady is illustrative of where we are as a country right now.  White people, especially white men, are being demonized as the scourge of America.  Heroes can only be those leftists from “persecuted” minority groups who hate America as it was founded or those who acknowledge the struggle and admit their white guilt.  And lurking in the background are evil entities invested keeping the country divided, whether by politics, race, or class.

We need winners right now, those who got where they are based on their talents and not by the choice of government or other ideological bullies.  And boy, we patriots could use any inspiration we can get in the times we are living.

Dex Bahr is a freelance writer and author of the book No Christian Man is an Island: Leading the Spiritual Quest in America’s Culture Wars.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Deep State’s Stealthy, Subversive, Silent Coup to Ensure Nothing Changes – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

This stealthy, creeping, silent coup that Gross prophesied is the same danger that writer Rod Serling envisioned in the 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May, a clear warning to beware of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-deep-states-stealthy-subversive-silent-coup-to-ensure-nothing-changes/

by John W. Whitehead

You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country…why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell-bent to protect? You want to defend the United States of America, then defend it with the tools it supplies you with—its Constitution. You ask for a mandate, General, from a ballot box. You don’t steal it after midnight, when the country has its back turned. — Seven Days in May (1964)The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is to power and money.
[Click to Tweet]

No doubt about it: the coup d’etat was successful.

That January 6 attempt by so-called insurrectionists to overturn the election results was not the real coup, however. Those who answered President Trump’s call to march on the Capitol were merely the fall guys, manipulated into creating the perfect crisis for the Deep State—a.k.a. the Police State a.k.a. the Military Industrial Complex a.k.a. the Techno-Corporate State a.k.a. the Surveillance State—to swoop in and take control.

It took no time at all for the switch to be thrown and the nation’s capital to be placed under a military lockdown, online speech forums restricted, and individuals with subversive or controversial viewpoints ferreted out, investigated, shamed and/or shunned.

This new order didn’t emerge into being this week, or this month, or even this year, however.

Indeed, the real coup happened when our government “of the people, by the people, for the people” was overthrown by a profit-driven, militaristic, techno-corporate state that is in cahoots with a government “of the rich, by the elite, for the corporations.”

We’ve been mired in this swamp for decades now.

Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought lock, stock and barrel and made to dance to the Deep State’s tune.

Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC. Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the Deep State to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic.

Joe Biden will be no different: his job is to keep the Deep State in power.

Step away from the cult of personality politics and you’ll find that beneath the power suits, they’re all alike.

Follow the money.  It always points the way.

As Bertram Gross noted in Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, “evil now wears a friendlier face than ever before in American history.”

Writing in 1980, Gross predicted a future in which he saw:

…a new despotism creeping slowly across America. Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and, more important, the subversion of our constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion…

This stealthy, creeping, silent coup that Gross prophesied is the same danger that writer Rod Serling envisioned in the 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May, a clear warning to beware of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

Incredibly enough, almost 60 years later, we find ourselves hostages to a government run more by military doctrine and corporate greed than by the rule of law established in the Constitution. Indeed, proving once again that fact and fiction are not dissimilar, today’s current events could well have been lifted straight out of Seven Days in May, which takes viewers into eerily familiar terrain.

The premise is straightforward.

With the Cold War at its height, an unpopular U.S. President signs a momentous nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Believing that the treaty constitutes an unacceptable threat to the security of the United States and certain that he knows what is best for the nation, General James Mattoon Scott (played by Burt Lancaster), the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presidential hopeful, plans a military takeover of the national government.  When Gen. Scott’s aide, Col. Casey (Kirk Douglas), discovers the planned military coup, he goes to the President with the information. The race for command of the U.S. government begins, with the clock ticking off the hours until the military plotters plan to overthrow the President.

Needless to say, while on the big screen, the military coup is foiled and the republic is saved in a matter of hours, in the real world, the plot thickens and spreads out over the past half century.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’ve been on that fast-moving, downward trajectory for some time now.

The question is no longer whether the U.S. government will be preyed upon and taken over by the military industrial complex. That’s a done deal, but martial law disguised as national security is only one small part of the greater deception we’ve been fooled into believing is for our own good.

How do you get a nation to docilely accept a police state? How do you persuade a populace to accept metal detectors and pat downs in their schools, bag searches in their train stations, tanks and military weaponry used by their small town police forces, surveillance cameras in their traffic lights, police strip searches on their public roads, unwarranted blood draws at drunk driving checkpoints, whole body scanners in their airports, and government agents monitoring their communications?

Try to ram such a state of affairs down the throats of the populace, and you might find yourself with a rebellion on your hands. Instead, you bombard them with constant color-coded alerts, terrorize them with shootings and bomb threats in malls, schools, and sports arenas, desensitize them with a steady diet of police violence, and sell the whole package to them as being for their best interests.

This present military occupation of the nation’s capital by 25,000 troops as part of the so-called “peaceful” transfer of power from one administration to the next is telling.

This is not the language of a free people. This is the language of force.

Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that labelled right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) and called on the government to subject such targeted individuals to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance. Almost a decade later, after spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.

Meanwhile, the police have been transformed into extensions of the military while the nation itself has been transformed into a battlefield. This is what a state of undeclared martial law looks like, when you can be arrested, tasered, shot, brutalized and in some cases killed merely for not complying with a government agent’s order or not complying fast enough. This hasn’t just been happening in crime-ridden inner cities. It’s been happening all across the country.

And then you’ve got the government, which has been steadily amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

So you see, January 6 and its aftermath provided the government and its corporate technocrats the perfect excuse to show off all of the powers they’ve been amassing so assiduously over the years.

Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.

I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.

This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

Brace yourself.

There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.

Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware.

Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware.

And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are at our most vulnerable right now.

All of those dastardly seeds we have allowed the government to sow under the guise of national security are bearing demon fruit.

The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is to power and money.

This article was originally published at The Rutherford Institute.

John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney, author, and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. This article is a revised version of a piece that originally appeared on the Rutherford Institute website, http://www.rutherford.org, and is reprinted by permission.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Libertarian Silence on the Kennedy Assassination – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 10, 2021

This is the same conservative mindset that has led reform-oriented libertarians to maintain a strict silence in the Kennedy assassination. If the U.S. national-security establishment determined that Kennedy’s policies posed a grave threat to national security, then that it is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians, just as it was when the Chilean national-security establishment determined that Allende’s policies posed a grave threat to national security in Chile.

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/08/libertarian-silence-on-the-kennedy-assassination/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Kennedy assassination is the silence among conservative, reform-oriented libertarians on the national-security state’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

What’s up with that?

After all, wouldn’t you think that a domestic regime-change operation against a U.S. president would be something every libertarian would be condemning, even if it did happen more than 50 years ago? Libertarians, after all, condemn U.S. regime-change operations against foreign rulers that preceded the Kennedy assassination. Why the silence on a domestic regime-change operation?

The reason for this deafening silence lies with the conservative baggage that reform-oriented libertarians brought with them when they joined the libertarian movement. We’ve seen this baggage, of course, with respect to such conservative-oriented reform proposals as school vouchers, health-savings accounts, Social Security “privatization,” immigration-control reform, and much more.

Perhaps the biggest and heaviest baggage that conservative-oriented libertarians have brought with them into the libertarian movement is with respect to their support for the national-security establishment or for what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” or for what the Founding Fathers called “standing armies.”

Ever since World War II, conservatives have been unabashed supporters of the national-security state way of life. They were convinced that it was necessary to convert the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian form of governmental structure. They were convinced and remain convinced that the conversion was necessary to protect us from a communist takeover during the Cold War.

Conservatives also favor the omnipotent powers that are wielded by the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, including the power of assassination. They are convinced that omnipotent government is necessary to keep us safe and secure, not only from communists but also from terrorists and other dangerous creatures in the world.

It’s that conservative baggage that the reform-oriented libertarians have imported into the libertarian movement.

Now, there is one difference between conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians. The former support unconditionally whatever the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA determine is necessary to keep us safe or what is in the interests of “national security.” The latter objects to abuses that these agencies commit and call for reforming them.

But there is one overriding commonality between conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians: their joint devotion to the very existence of the national-security state. Search the articles, books, blog posts, speeches, and conferences of the conservative-oriented libertarians and you will hardly ever find any call for the dismantling of America’s national-security establishment and the restoration of America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic.

At most, you’ll find a call for repealing the Patriot Act, or for some sort of reform proposal on NSA surveillance, or maybe for more oversight of the FISA court, or for more judicious intervention in foreign affairs, or for a call to end America’s “forever wars.” But what you won’t see is a call to dismantle the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA and restore a limited-government republic to our land.

What does this conservative baggage have to do with the Kennedy assassination?

Conservatives and conservative-oriented libertarians have long extolled the Chilean regime of conservative military General Augusto Pinochet. They love the guy because he was a conservative — a Thatcher-like conservative — who brought the “Chicago Boys” and their “free enterprise” proposals to Chile, including Social Security “privatization.”

When you remind such libertarians that Pinochet gained power through a domestic regime-change operation against a democratically elected president, their answer is an revealing one — they say that the operation was necessary to save Chile from a president whose policies posed a grave threat to Chile’s national security.

When you point out to them that the Chilean constitution did not provide for a coup as a way to save the nation from a president whose policies ostensibly posed a grave threat to national security, their response is predictable: The constitution is not a “suicide pact,” they say. If it’s necessary for the national-security establishment to violate it to save the nation, then so be it.

When you point out that Pinochet’s goons rounded, incarcerated, tortured, raped, abused, executed, or disappeared more than 50,000 innocent people, including two Americans, they respond that that was unfortunate but that it must be weighed against Pinochet’s ostensible saving of the nation from a democratically elected president whose policies were supposedly leading the nation to destruction.

This is the same conservative mindset that has led reform-oriented libertarians to maintain a strict silence in the Kennedy assassination. If the U.S. national-security establishment determined that Kennedy’s policies posed a grave threat to national security, then that it is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians, just as it was when the Chilean national-security establishment determined that Allende’s policies posed a grave threat to national security in Chile.

Equally important, if the U.S. national-security establishment wants to keep its role in the Kennedy regime-change operation covert, just as it has in many of its foreign regime-change operations, then that too is the end of the matter for conservative-oriented libertarians. Our national-security officials know what’s best to protect us and keep us safe, they believe, and we must defer to their judgment.

Fortunately, however, there are many libertarians who reject this conservative national-security state mindset. They are skeptical of the official narrative in the Kennedy assassination but have not delved deeply into the matter. They continue to seek understanding about this pivotal event in the history of the U.S. national-security state.

That’s the purpose of our upcoming conference — “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination” — to provide an easy-to-understand synopsis of the JFK assassination — why he was assassinated and the adverse consequences the assassination has had on the nation — and why it is imperative that we restore a limited-government republic to our land if we want a genuinely free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society.

Our conference website is forthcoming. Mark your calendar: Wednesday, March 3, at 7 p.m. for the first presentation and continuing weekly every Wednesday evening after that through April 21. Registration will be required but admission will be free.EMAIL


This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »