MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

« Previous Entries

The Red Flag Council, by L. Neil Smith

Posted by M. C. on September 18, 2019

https://ncc-1776.org/tle2019/tle1038-20190915-02.html

by L. Neil Smith

In America, the highest law of the land consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as Bill of Rights.

Unlike the remainder of the Constitution (which merely serves as an “operating system” for the government), The Bill of Rights is the exclusive property of the American people, their guarantee of liberty, and the essential condition, historically, on which the rest of the Constitution was ratified.

The Bill of Rights is not simply a laundry list of things that government generously allows it humble subjects to do. (Go to Canada, if that’s the kind of society you prefer, go to disarmed and prostrate Australia) It is a list of things that government is absolutely forbidden to do by the people, who were meant to own and control it. A far better name for it would have been the “Bill of Limits”.

As such, the Bill of Rights was never intended by its authors to be readable and understandable, only by so-called or self-appointed elite “experts” but by everyday citizens. Its mandates are not to be trivialized or interpreted away by judges, courts, lawyers, or collectivist legal “scholars”, whose real interest lies in controlling individual lives by naked, brute force, if necessary.

Ordinary Americans are entitled to express any opinion they wish, a right guaranteed to them under the First Amendment. Politicians, political appointees (bureaucrats), and police officers gave up that right when they took an Oath of Office—required by law —to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Accordingly, any politico, bureaucrat, or cop who attempts to nullify or suspend any part of the Bill of Rights in any way is a criminal, having (A) committed perjury when he took his Oath of Office, (B) for disregarding the civil rights provisions of Title 18 of the U,S. Code, Sections 241 and 242, and (C) having engaged in what amounts to an act of “Rebellion against the Constitution”, forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment.

An additional crime, (D) is to be found in the Bill of Rights, itself, specifically, in the Second Amendment, which asserts (written and duly-ratified laws are allowed to do that) “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (which, in 18th century terminology simply means, “the right of the individual to own and carry weapons”) is “necessary for the security of a free state”) That means clearly that any politician, bureaucrat, or cop who tries to take weapons away from Americans is endangering the security of a free state and is therefore guilty of treason…

Now the security of our free state is threatened with “red flag” laws, a simple-minded, evil scheme to circumvent the Second Amendment entirely, and cut it out of the Constitution, and use corrupt judges and the police to forcibly strip everyone of their means of personal and national defense. It cannot stand.

Clearly Congress, the various state legislatures, and the egregiously mislabeled “justice system” are not up to doing the right thing in this regard. If they were, every capitol building in the nation would be filled with empty seats, rather than empty suits. That’s why I’m proposing—and with extreme reluctance, believe me—an organization to “provide new guards for [our] future security.

The “Red Flag Council” will be a national group, a step beyond the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment Foundation, or even Gun Owners of America or my Alma Mater, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, that publicly lists politicians, bureaucrats, and police by name (not the same as “doxing” them), all those who have taken an Oath of Office, to “uphold and defend“ the Constitution—and betrayed it. The Red Flag Council will relentlessly work toward their prosecution. With an eye toward the future, it would be wise to track candidates, and their views on Constitutional rights, as well…

The “Red Flag Council”. Since then the government and the insatiably greedy left have ridden roughshod over rights that were supposed to have been guaranteed to us, and the right wing has started to join them. It is no coincidence that the resident parasites in politics who want to steal as much of what we’ve earned from us as they can, also demand that we be forced (somehow) to give up what my friend the late Aaron Zelman used to call our “liberty teeth“.

The “Red Flag Council”. If you want to help us in some way, let us know. We could use your assistance to help keep this a free country. Having striven against the Dark Side since 1968, I’m absolutely determined that, now it’s going to cost them something, at long last. There are at least a hundred million gun owners in America. I can’t think of a single Democrat who deserves to occupy anything but a jail cell. And if we gun owners stay home next November, because our “own” side took us for granted (the way Democrats do black people) and failed to adequately defend our rights, no Republican will ever hold office again.

Be seeing you

Pin by Jim Feig on News / Politics | Pinterest

 

 

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

What Is It That Libertarians Don’t Get about the Military? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/laurence-m-vance/what-is-it-that-libertarians-dont-get-about-the-military/

By

I expect to get negative responses from conservatives when I write articles about the U.S. military. I don’t expect to get them from libertarians.

In response to my recent article, “Should We Honor Military Personnel?,” I received e-mails from two libertarians. Perhaps there were others. I never assume that everyone who contacts me after I write an article for LewRockwell.com is a libertarian. One, not everyone who reads LRC is a libertarian. I myself, a libertarian, read many conservative and liberal websites. And two, many times my LRC articles are reposted by a variety of websites. I never know if someone read my article on LRC or some other website.

Both libertarians who wrote me took issue with the basic premise of my article: military personnel who actually defend the country like they are supposed to shouldn’t be honored any more than a cook at Waffle House. I didn’t address the issue of honoring military personnel who don’t actually defend the country like they are supposed to. My position on that has been consistently and vehemently negative since I began writing about the warfare state after the United States invaded Iraq…

What is it that libertarians don’t get about the U.S. military?

Here are ten things about the U.S. military that I have mentioned scores of times over the years in my articles about the U.S. military:

  1. The U.S. military is the president’s personal attack force.
  2. The U.S. military doesn’t defend our freedoms.
  3. The U.S. military carries out a reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy.
  4. The U.S. military goes places it has no business going.
  5. The U.S. military kills people it has no business killing.
  6. The U.S. military engages in offense, not defense.
  7. The U.S. military fights unjust and immoral wars.
  8. The U.S. military bombs countries that were no threat to the United States.
  9. The U.S. military creates terrorists, insurgents, and militants because of its actions.
  10.  The U.S. military is a global force for evil.

These ten things are more than enough.

No member of the military should be honored no matter where or why he “served.” Individual soldiers should be blamed for the misdeeds (and they are not perceived; they are real) of the military because (1) individual soldiers joined of their own freewill and (2) individual soldiers are the ones who commit the misdeeds. The fact that they took an oath to defend the Constitution means nothing if they don’t actually defend it. No soldier should have to be sent away from his family for extreme lengths of time or prepare himself mentally, emotionally and spiritually to lay down his life if necessary. Not if he was actually engaged in defending the country against real threats instead of fighting foreign wars.

The huge embarrassment to libertarianism is for anyone who calls himself a libertarian to honor U.S. military personnel just because they “served” when, even in their best state, they should not be honored any more than a cook at Waffle House.

Be seeing you

napalm

 

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

Red Flag Laws Spur Debate Over Due Process

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

You know our situation is bad when you have PEW and the ACLU fretting over your gun related rights.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flag-laws-spur-debate-over-due-process

By: Matt Vasilogambros

In the year since Florida enacted its red flag law, Kendra Parris has defended nearly 20 clients against risk protection orders that could remove their firearms.

The Orlando-based lawyer has long represented people who might be subject to the state’s involuntary mental health treatment provision. But when this new law, meant to protect against people who might be a harm to themselves or others, passed in the aftermath of the February 2018 Parkland mass shooting, she saw yet another opportunity for the state to potentially deprive certain people of their civil liberties.

“It’s almost like a shiny new toy for law enforcement,” Parris said, “filing them left and right.”

Since the law’s adoption, Florida courts have approved around 2,500 risk protection orders, according to an August count by NPR.

Since Parkland, at least six states and the District of Columbia have passed red flag laws, which allow law enforcement agencies that have gotten a court order to remove guns from people considered a harm to themselves or others. In the wake of high-profile shootings this summer in Ohio and Texas, including one that killed eight people in Midland-Odessa this past weekend, more state lawmakers are considering such laws, as are some members of Congress.

Many law enforcement officials firmly believe the laws save lives, and lawmakers say they can craft legislation that won’t infringe on civil liberties.

But for two decades, since the first such law was enacted in Connecticut, civil and gun rights advocates have protested that the seizures violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee — meaning residents have a right to fully argue their case in court.

“Rather than find clear and convincing evidence, [courts are] basically saying, ‘Better safe than sorry,’” Parris said.

Most red flag laws are vague on what constitutes a “significant danger,” which gives courts broad discretion to seize firearms, Parris said. And in some states, respondents are not guaranteed representation in court, since these are civil and not criminal matters.

Many defense lawyers say respondents fare much better with legal representation. Of Parris’ seven cases that have gone to a hearing, she has won five — which she said is a “vastly higher” success record than when someone represents themselves.

Due Process Concerns

Seventeen states and D.C. have laws on the books that allow law enforcement or family members to petition courts to remove weapons from people who may be dangerous and prevent them from buying other weapons for up to a year. In many of these states, bipartisan groups of lawmakers led the drive to pass the legislation.

States define “red flags” differently, but they largely follow the same process for taking away somebody’s guns.

If someone is showing signs of erratic behavior or expressed some intent to hurt themselves or others, they might be subject to an extreme risk protection order. In most states with red flag laws, family or community members can petition a court for those orders. But in Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, law enforcement officials are the only ones who can petition to remove firearms.

If there is an immediate risk of harm, a court can issue a temporary ex parte order to seize guns from people for up to 14 days in most states. Other states range from two days to 45 days. At those hearings, a judge can issue the order by listening to evidence from the petitioner.

In many cases, the subject of a petition can’t present a defense until the final hearing. But that’s where the process gets legally dubious to some critics.

Dave Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, a Denver-based libertarian think tank, said states have taken the same approach President Donald Trump spoke in favor of in March 2018: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

When it comes to seizing guns through a temporary order, the standards that a judge uses should be high, Kopel said. Vermont, he believes, has a fair system, which requires “specific facts” that show “an imminent and extreme risk.”

The situation becomes even more precarious when loved ones can petition for the removal of firearms, he said. Spurned former partners or family members seeking revenge might “weaponize” this tool, he said. Because of that, he argues, there should be a penalty for maliciously false accusations, which several states have adopted…

In Rhode Island, the American Civil Liberties Union originally came out against the state’s 2018 measure until the legislature tightened the standard for granting a petition, created penalties for providing false evidence of a threat, allowed only law enforcement to file petitions, required specific evidence and granted the right to legal counsel in hearings…

Be seeing you

29 best images about Books Worth Reading on Pinterest ...

 

 

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

Why Not Eliminate Both Departments? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 14, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/laurence-m-vance/why-not-eliminate-both-departments/

By

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced plans to move its Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture out of Washington, D.C., to the Kansas City metropolitan area.

The USDA, established in 1862, “is made up of 29 agencies and offices with nearly 100,000 employees who serve the American people at more than 4,500 locations across the country and abroad.” It provides “leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management.” Its vision is “to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation’s natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.”

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has announced plans to move the headquarters of its Bureau of Land Management (BLM) out of Washington, D.C., to Grand Junction in western Colorado.

The DOI, established in 1849, “conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper.” It “manages the Nation’s public lands and minerals, including providing access to more than 480 million acres of public lands, 700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf.” It “is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation’s lands, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands; manages resources that supply 30 percent of the Nation’s energy; supplies and manages water in the 17 Western States and supplies 15 percent of the Nation’s hydropower energy.”

I have a better idea. Instead of moving agencies of the USDA and the DOI, why not eliminate both departments?

The existence of the USDA cannot be justified in any way by the Constitution. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with agriculture, food, farm subsidies, food stamps, loans to farmers, agricultural price supports, food distribution, food inspection, nutrition guidelines, or school breakfast and lunch programs.

Farming is an occupation and a business. It comes with risks and uncertainties just like any other business. There is nothing special about agriculture that necessitates that the federal government be involved in it in any way.

The DOI includes a diverse number of agencies:

  • Bureau of Indian Affairs
  • Bureau of Indian Education
  • Bureau of Land Management
  • Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
  • Bureau of Reclamation
  • Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
  • National Park Service
  • Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • U.S. Geological Survey

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to have anything to do with fish and wildlife, minerals and mining, operating parks, or supplying water and power. The main problem is simply that the federal government still owns too much land…

  • 28.6% of Washington
  • 29% of Montana
  • 35.4% of New Mexico
  • 38.7% of Arizona
  • 45.9% of California
  • 53% of Oregon
  • 61.3% of Alaska
  • 61.6% of Idaho
  • 63.1% of Utah
  • 79.6% of Nevada…

Republicans used to talk about eliminating federal departments, agencies, bureaus, commissions, and corporations. But when they gained control of the White House and a majority in the House and Senate they did absolutely nothing to limit the size or scope of government. They actually made things worse with their creation of the monstrous Department of Homeland Security.

The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior don’t need some of their agencies moved, they need to eliminated in their entirety.

Be seeing you

Trail of Trouble - Bureau Of Indian Affairs - Magazine ...

 

 

 

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

Government Can Know Everything About Us Except Our Citizenship – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/07/09/government-can-know-everything-about-us-except-our-citizenship/

Paul Craig Roberts

The US Supreme Court has done next to nothing to enforce the Constitution and stop the government’s spying on the population.  Phone calls, text messages, emails, credit card purchases, state driver’s license databases, literally everything about our lives is collected as privacy-violating information.  Yet the Supreme Court based on speculation about the government’s motives has blocked the 2020 Census from finding out how many of the people living in the US are citizens.  Apparently, the jurists on the court regard whether one is or is not a citizen as the only piece of private information that can’t be collected.

Apparently, the Supreme Court is responding to the organizers of Hispanics, such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, who are protecting their power in numbers and who speculate that the citizenship question is being used to reduce immigrants’ willingness to participate in the census survey, with the result being an undercount of Hispanics and, thus, less representation in legislatures.

Many Americans are concluding that the Supreme Court wants to make sure that illegal aliens are as represented in elected legislatures as US citizens. Identity Politics has produced a Supreme Court that regards achieving diversity more important than citizenship. The precedent is being established that citizenship is established by mere presence.  If a person can place a foot on US territory, the person becomes a citizen. President Trump’s attempt to enforce US borders is regarded as a racist act. 

Be seeing you

Assange

 

 

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

Our Free Speech Crisis – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2019

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/walter-e-williams/our-free-speech-crisis/

By

The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia ratification convention during its narrow 89 to 79 vote to ratify the Constitution. Virginia’s resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly and free speech could not be canceled, abridged or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo, in his article “Free Speech and Its Present Crisis,” appearing in the autumn 2018 edition of City Journal, explores the trials and tribulations associated with the First Amendment. The early attempts to suppress free speech were signed into law by President John Adams and became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later attempts to suppress free speech came during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and his generals attacked newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. It wasn’t until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.

Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation’s college and university campuses. Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of Anthropology. Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year’s Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions.” As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make “claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”…

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive…

I am afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principles of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.

Be seeing you

offended

Citizen: “What are you protesting against” Johnny: “What have you got?” The Wild One

 

 

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

What Robert Reich Failed to Say about Marijuana Legalization – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on June 22, 2019

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/what-robert-reich-failed-to-say-about-marijuana-legalization/

by

…But even though Reich is a liberal in every sense of the word, conservatives should be paying attention to what he says about marijuana legalization. And so should liberals, since, after all, drug freedom is not a tenet of liberalism.

A recent post on Reich’s blog titled “Why We Must Legalize Marijuana” also appeared at Salon. He begins,

The federal prohibition on marijuana has been a disaster. For decades, millions of Americans have been locked up and billions of dollars have been wasted. It’s also deepened racial and economic inequality.

We must end this nonsensical prohibition.

The facts are staggering. In 2017, more Americans were arrested for marijuana possession than for murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery combined. That’s one marijuana arrest every minute.

The costs associated with enforcing this ban — including arrests, court costs, and incarceration — reach nearly $14 billion a year.

Prohibition also hurts the economy in terms of lost wages. And Americans with criminal records have a harder time finding a job and getting the education they need.

That marijuana prohibition is a colossal waste of money with costs that greatly exceed any of its supposed benefits is reason enough to legalize marijuana. But Reich doesn’t stop there. He also maintains that “legalizing, taxing, and regulating” marijuana “is good for the economy and creates jobs.” He believes that marijuana should be taxed by state and local governments the way cigarettes and alcohol are. Reich points to states such as Colorado and Washington that tax and regulate marijuana and generate “millions of dollars for health care, education, and other public investments.” As a libertarian, I certainly oppose taxes and regulations on marijuana, just as I oppose taxes and regulations on cigarettes and alcohol. But, like it or not, the fact remains that every state that has legalized marijuana has also taxed and regulated it — and reaped a windfall.

But Reich isn’t finished yet. Marijuana legalization is “more than an economic issue” because “it’s also a matter of racial justice and equality.” Reich recounts the racist origins of the federal prohibition on marijuana and asserts that “black and brown Americans are still much more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white Americans, despite using marijuana at similar rates.” He also points out that “more states are taking action to reform their laws and move toward legalization” and “support for marijuana legalization has surged in recent years, with two-thirds of Americans now in favor of it,” although I take issue with his statement that “even a majority of Republicans are in support.” “It’s time to legalize marijuana,” concludes Reich…

So Reich is certainly correct: It’s time to legalize marijuana.

Yet, there are some extremely important things that Robert Reich failed to say about marijuana legalization. And they are, in fact, much more important than anything he says in his article.

Reich has a law degree. He should know that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about marijuana or any other drug. He should know that the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to have a Controlled Substances Act, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), a drug czar, an Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), or a Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. He should know that the federal government has not only no authority under the Constitution to prohibit marijuana possession, but also that it has no authority whatsoever to have anything to do with marijuana.

So why didn’t Reich say so? They are things that any liberal, progressive, socialist, or Democrat could say. And they are also things that any conservative or Republican could say, and especially those who claim to revere the Constitution and say that the Constitution should be followed.

But that’s not all that Reich failed to say about marijuana legalization.

He failed to say that it is not the proper role of government to be concerned with the medical or recreational habits of Americans.

He failed to say that it is not the business of government bureaucrats to interfere with what Americans want to put in their mouths, noses, veins, or lungs.

He failed to say that it is an illegitimate purpose of government to regulate what Americans desire to eat, drink, smoke, inhale, or inject.

He failed to say that people should be able to do anything that’s peaceful as long as they don’t infringe the personal or property rights of others and are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

He failed to say that every crime should have a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property.

He failed to say that no American should ever be arrested, fined, or imprisoned for possessing a plant his government doesn’t approve of.

He failed to say that the government’s war on marijuana is a war on personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and the free market.

But at least he said what he did about marijuana legalization. That is more than most conservatives would ever say.

Be seeing you

Despite Liberalizing Marijuana Laws, the War on Drugs ...

 

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

That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on May 17, 2019

Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute Of Near East Policy think tank, the group’s Director of Research Patrick Clawson openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran, citing the various ways the US has done exactly that with its previous wars.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson began.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/16/that-time-john-bolton-said-its-good-to-lie-about-war/

author: Caitlin Johnstone

That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War

Journalist Whitney Webb recently tweeted a 2010 video clip I’d never seen before featuring US National Security Advisor John Bolton defending the use of deception in advancing military agendas, which highlights something we should all be paying attention to as Trump administration foreign policy becomes increasingly Boltonized.

On a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ Freedom Watch, Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating about recent WikiLeaks publications, and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.

“Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton said. “You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

“Do you really believe that?” asked an incredulous Napolitano.

“Absolutely,” Bolton replied.

“You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.

“I don’t think we’re often faced with that difficulty, but would I lie about where the D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans, you’d better believe it,” Bolton continued.

“Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don’t apply to them?” Napolitano asked.

“Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton replied. “They are dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply.”

“But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness,” Napolitano protested. “You’re willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?”

“I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Bolton said. “And I think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in the United States we would find unprofessional. I don’t make any apology for it.”

So that’s a thing. And it’s important for us to know it’s a thing because of the way things are heating up in Iran right now, since Bolton’s fingerprints are all over it.

Bolton has long been calling for war with Iran and in a paid speech in July 2017 told his pro-regime change MEK terror cult audience that they would be celebrating the successful overthrow of the Iranian government together before 2019. Now we’re seeing threat alarms being elevated and fearmongering about Iranian missiles being circulated, with reports being leaked to the press of possible plans to send 120,000 US troops to the region.

This is an environment that is ripe for deceptions of all sorts, and, given what Bolton said on live television nearly a decade ago, we would all do very well to remain very, very skeptical of any and all news we hear about Iran going forward. If for example you hear that within this environment of escalated tensions and military posturing Iran or one of its “proxies” has attacked the United States in some way, your immediate response should be one of intense skepticism about what the mass media talking heads are telling you to believe.

Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute Of Near East Policy think tank, the group’s Director of Research Patrick Clawson openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran, citing the various ways the US has done exactly that with its previous wars.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson began.

(Can I just pause here to note what a bizarre series of words that is? “Get us to war with Iran?” Get us to the thing that every sane human being wants to avoid with every fiber of their being? You want to “get us to” there? This is not the kind of thing normal humans say. You only hear this kind of insanity in the DC swamp where creatures like John Bolton have their roots.)

“Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way that America gets to war is what would be best for US interests,” Clawson added. “Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war… you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.”

“So if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson continued. “One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things, if we wish to increase the pressure (I’m not advocating that) but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either/or proposition – just sanctions have to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”

So these are ideas that have been in circulation for many years. That gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Bolton trussed up his 2010 confession using an example that most people would agree with: that it was reasonable for the Allied forces to deliberately deceive the Nazis about the nature of the D-Day invasion. But we know John Bolton better than that by now. This PNAC director and architect of the Iraq war once threatened to murder a foreign official’s children because his successful diplomatic efforts were putting a damper on the manufacturing of consent for the Iraq invasion. He wasn’t defending the use of deception in crucial military options used to halt tyrants trying to take over the world, he was defending the use of deception in the senseless wars of aggression that he has built his political career on advancing.

Take everything you hear about Iran with a planet-sized grain of salt, dear reader, and everything you hear about Venezuela too while we’re on the subject. There are skillful manipulators who are hell bent on toppling the governments of those nations, and they have absolutely no problem whatsoever with deceiving you in order to facilitate that. And they don’t believe the rules apply to them.

__________________________

Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.

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

Why School Compulsory-Attendance Laws? – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on May 10, 2019

No one should be forced to attend church. By the same token, no one should be force to submit to a state-approved education. For that matter, no one should be forced to fund a state-approved school any more than he should be forced to fund a state-approved church. The state has no more business in education than it does in religion.

https://www.fff.org/2019/05/09/why-school-compulsory-attendance-laws/

by

Imagine if Congress were to enact a law that required everyone to attend church on Sundays. The overwhelming majority of Americans would go up in arms. The concept of religious liberty is so deeply ingrained in our American heritage that there is no way that people, including devout Christians, would accept such a law. That heritage was enshrined in the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting such a law.

Now, suppose things had been the exact opposite. Suppose that from the beginning, the Constitution had authorized Congress to enact compulsory church-attendance laws. Suppose that immediately after the Constitution called the federal government into existence, Congress had enacted a law requiring parents to send their children to church, in order to be educated on religious, moral, ethical, and Biblical principles. Suppose that we had been living with that national compulsory church-attendance law for the entire history of the United States.

Now suppose we libertarians were to advocate the repeal of the church-attendance law, which would enable families to decide for themselves whether to send their children to church or not. Can you imagine the outcry?

“Are you libertarians crazy? If we let families make that decision, no one would send their children to church. Most parents are just too irresponsible. How could we be certain that children would receive the right education and training when it comes to morality, ethics, and religion? Wouldn’t some parents teach their children to be atheists or, even worse, to worship Satan? No, you libertarians are all off base. People aren’t ready for that type of freedom. Repealing the church-attendance law would destroy the moral, religious, and ethical foundation of American society.”

After all, isn’t that the mindset of many Americans when they hear libertarians calling for the repeal of compulsory school-attendance laws? Don’t they say that people just aren’t ready for that type of freedom — that parents are too irresponsible — that children wouldn’t get educated — and that a free-market educational system would destroy America?

But the fact is that there is no difference in principle between religious liberty and educational liberty. Just as people shouldn’t be forced to send their children to church, they shouldn’t be forced to send their children to a state-approved organization for secular education and training. Families have the natural, God-given right to make educational decisions for their children without state interference or meddling, just as they do with respect to religious decisions…

Be seeing you

public vs private primary schools

 

 

 

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : A Nuclear War? Over Venezuela?

Posted by M. C. on May 7, 2019

How ironic that Pompeo and the rest of the neocons in the Trump Administration are ready to attack Venezuela to “restore their constitution” but they could not care less about our own Constitution!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/may/06/a-nuclear-war-over-venezuela/

Written by Ron Paul

Is President Trump about to invade Venezuela? His advisors keep telling us in ever-stronger terms that “all options are on the table” and that US military intervention to restore Venezuela’s constitution “may be necessary.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the Sunday news programs to claim that President Trump could launch a military attack against Venezuela without Congress’s approval.

Pompeo said that, “[t]he president has his full range of Article II authorities and I’m very confident that any action we took in Venezuela would be lawful.” The man who bragged recently about his lying, cheating, and stealing, is giving plenty of evidence to back his claim.

The president has no Constitutional authority to start a war with Venezuela or any other country that has not attacked or credibly threatened the United States without Congressional approval. It is that simple…

Unfortunately, Washington is so addicted to war that President Trump would likely have little difficulty getting authority from Congress to invade Venezuela if he bothered to ask. Just as with the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the mainstream media is nothing but non-stop war propaganda. Even so-called progressives like Rachel Maddow are attacking the Trump Administration not for its reckless saber-rattling toward Venezuela but for not being aggressive enough!

The real lesson is that even a “Constitutional” war against Venezuela would not be a just war. It would be a war of aggression for which Americans should be angry and ashamed. But the mainstream media is pumping out the same old pro-war lies, while the independent media is under attack from social media companies that have partnered with US government entities to decide what is “fake news.”…

While President Trump’s neocon advisors are purposely trying to position him so that war is the only option, we can only hope that President Putin was able to explain that the Venezuela problem must be solved by the Venezuelans themselves. Certainly the US, perhaps together with the Russians, could help facilitate discussions between the government and the opposition, but the neocon road to war will surely end up like all the other neocon wars: total disaster.

The media is furious that Trump dared to speak to Putin as the two countries increasingly face-off over Venezuela. The Democrats and neocons are pushing for a direct confrontation that may even involve Russia. Republicans agree. Do they really prefer thermonuclear war? Over Venezuela?

Be seeing you

America’s Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953 ...

 

 

 

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

« Previous Entries