"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." - John Adams

Monday, December 19, 2011

War, Peace and the State

by Murray N. Rothbard

This article, which first appeared in The Standard for April 1963, is collected in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.

The libertarian movement has been chided by William F. Buckley, Jr., for failing to use its "strategic intelligence" in facing the major problems of our time. We have, indeed, been too often prone to "pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors" (as Buckley has contemptuously written), while ignoring and failing to apply libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time: war and peace. There is a sense in which libertarians have been utopian rather than strategic in their thinking, with a tendency to divorce the ideal system which we envisage from the realities of the world in which we live. In short, too many of us have divorced theory from practice, and have then been content to hold the pure libertarian society as an abstract ideal for some remotely future time, while in the concrete world of today we follow unthinkingly the orthodox "conservative" line. To live liberty, to begin the hard but essential strategic struggle of changing the unsatisfactory world of today in the direction of our ideals, we must realize and demonstrate to the world that libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world's crucial problems. By coming to grips with these problems, we can demonstrate that libertarianism is not just a beautiful ideal somewhere on Cloud Nine, but a tough-minded body of truths that enables us to take our stand and to cope with the whole host of issues of our day.

Let us then, by all means, use our strategic intelligence. Although, when he sees the result, Mr. Buckley might well wish that we had stayed in the realm of garbage collection. Let us construct a libertarian theory of war and peace.

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.1 In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.2

Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for a while and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute: it holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathize with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel, by violence if necessary. In short, A aggresses against B because C is threatening, or aggressing against, A. We may understand C's "higher" culpability in this whole procedure; but we must still label this aggression as a criminal act which B has the right to repel by violence.

To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is.

The application to problems of war and peace is already becoming evident. For while war in the narrower sense is a conflict between States, in the broader sense we may define it as the outbreak of open violence between people or groups of people. If Smith and a group of his henchmen aggress against Jones and Jones and his bodyguards pursue the Smith gang to their lair, we may cheer Jones on in his endeavor; and we, and others in society interested in repelling aggression, may contribute financially or personally to Jones's cause. But Jones has no right, any more than does Smith, to aggress against anyone else in the course of his "just war": to steal others' property in order to finance his pursuit, to conscript others into his posse by use of violence, or to kill others in the course of his struggle to capture the Smith forces. If Jones should do any of these things, he becomes a criminal as fully as Smith, and he too becomes subject to whatever sanctions are meted out against criminality. In fact, if Smith's crime was theft, and Jones should use conscription to catch him, or should kill others in the pursuit, Jones becomes more of a criminal than Smith, for such crimes against another person as enslavement and murder are surely far worse than theft. (For while theft injures the extension of another's personality, enslavement injures, and murder obliterates, that personality itself.)

Suppose that Jones, in the course of his "just war" against the ravages of Smith, should kill a few innocent people, and suppose that he should declaim, in defense of this murder, that he was simply acting on the slogan, "Give me liberty or give me death." The absurdity of this "defense" should be evident at once, for the issue is not whether Jones was willing to risk death personally in his defensive struggle against Smith; the issue is whether he was willing to kill other people in pursuit of his legitimate end. For Jones was in truth acting on the completely indefensible slogan: "Give me liberty or give them death" surely a far less noble battle cry. 3
The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.

This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even "conventional" warfare between States!

It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called "taxation") is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.

Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be "peace" in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of "revolutions" in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed "vertical violence": violence of the State against its public or vice versa.

In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of "anarchy" exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without an overlord, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as "crackpot anarchism"; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and "national sovereignty" from "world government.") And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called "international war" (or "horizontal violence").

Now there are crucial and vital differences between inter-State warfare on the one hand and revolutions against the State or conflicts between private individuals on the other. One vital difference is the shift in geography. In a revolution, the conflict takes place within the same geographical area: both the minions of the State and the revolutionaries inhabit the same territory. Inter-State warfare, on the other hand, takes place between two groups, each having a monopoly over its own geographical area; that is, it takes place between inhabitants of different territories. From this difference flow several important consequences: (1) in inter-State war the scope for the use of modern weapons of destruction is far greater. For if the "escalation" of weaponry in an intra-territorial conflict becomes too great, each side will blow itself up with the weapons directed against the other. Neither a revolutionary group nor a State combating revolution, for example, can use nuclear weapons against the other. But, on the other hand, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the scope for modern weaponry becomes enormous, and the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play. A second consequence (2) is that while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their State enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-State war.6 This is true even with older weapons; and, of course, with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. Furthermore, (3) since each State can mobilize all the people and resources in its territory, the other State comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as at least temporarily its enemies and to treat them accordingly by extending the war to them. Thus, all of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians – the private individuals – of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modern weapons of mass destruction.

If one distinct attribute of inter-State war is inter-territoriality, another unique attribute stems from the fact that each State lives by taxation over its subjects. Any war against another State, therefore, involves the increase and extension of taxation-aggression over its own people.7 Conflicts between private individuals can be, and usually are, voluntarily waged and financed by the parties concerned. Revolutions can be, and often are, financed and fought by voluntary contributions of the public. But State wars can only be waged through aggression against the taxpayer.

All State wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the State's own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State. On the other hand, revolutions are generally financed voluntarily and may pinpoint their violence to the State rulers, and private conflicts may confine their violence to the actual criminals. The libertarian must, therefore, conclude that, while some revolutions and some private conflicts may be legitimate, State wars are always to be condemned.

Many libertarians object as follows: "While we too deplore the use of taxation for warfare, and the State's monopoly of defense service, we have to recognize that these conditions exist, and while they do, we must support the State in just wars of defense." The reply to this would go as follows: "Yes, as you say, unfortunately States exist, each having a monopoly of violence over its territorial area." What then should be the attitude of the libertarian toward conflicts between these States? The libertarian should say, in effect, to the State: "All right, you exist, but as long as you exist at least confine your activities to the area which you monopolize." In short, the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of State aggression against all private individuals. The only way to do this, in international affairs, is for the people of each country to pressure their own State to confine its activities to the area which it monopolizes and not to aggress against other State-monopolists. In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible. And this means the total avoidance of war. The people under each State should pressure "their" respective States not to attack one another, and, if a conflict should break out, to negotiate a peace or declare a cease-fire as quickly as physically possible.

Suppose further that we have that rarity – an unusually clear-cut case in which the State is actually trying to defend the property of one of its citizens. A citizen of country A travels or invests in country B, and then State B aggresses against his person or confiscates his property. Surely, our libertarian critic would argue, here is a clear-cut case where State A should threaten or commit war against State B in order to defend the property of "its" citizen. Since, the argument runs, the State has taken upon itself the monopoly of defense of its citizens, it then has the obligation to go to war on behalf of any citizen, and libertarians have an obligation to support this war as a just one.

But the point again is that each State has a monopoly of violence and, therefore, of defense only over its territorial area. It has no such monopoly; in fact, it has no power at all, over any other geographical area. Therefore, if an inhabitant of country A should move to or invest in country B, the libertarian must argue that he thereby takes his chances with the State-monopolist of country B, and it would be immoral and criminal for State A to tax people in country A and kill numerous innocents in country B in order to defend the property of the traveler or investor.8

It should also be pointed out that there is no defense against nuclear weapons (the only current "defense" is the threat of mutual annihilation) and, therefore, that the State cannot fulfill any sort of defense function so long as these weapons exist.

The libertarian objective, then, should be, regardless of the specific causes of any conflict, to pressure States not to launch wars against other States and, should a war break out, to pressure them to sue for peace and negotiate a cease-fire and peace treaty as quickly as physically possible. This objective, incidentally, is enshrined in the international law of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that is, the ideal that no State could aggress against the territory of another – in short, the "peaceful coexistence" of States.9

Suppose, however, that despite libertarian opposition, war has begun and the warring States are not negotiating a peace. What, then, should be the libertarian position? Clearly, to reduce the scope of assault on innocent civilians as much as possible. Old-fashioned international law had two excellent devices for this: the "laws of war," and the "laws of neutrality" or "neutrals' rights." The laws of neutrality are designed to keep any war that breaks out confined to the warring States themselves, without aggression against the States or particularly the peoples of the other nations. Hence the importance of such ancient and now forgotten American principles as "freedom of the seas" or severe limitations upon the rights of warring States to blockade neutral trade with the enemy country. In short, the libertarian tries to induce neutral States to remain neutral in any inter-State conflict and to induce the warring States to observe fully the rights of neutral citizens. The "laws of war" were designed to limit as much as possible the invasion by warring States of the rights of the civilians of the respective warring countries. As the British jurist F.J.P. Veale put it:

The fundamental principle of this code was that hostilities between civilized peoples must be limited to the armed forces actually engaged.... It drew a distinction between combatants and noncombatants by laying down that the sole business of the combatants is to fight each other and, consequently, that noncombatants must be excluded from the scope of military operations.10

In the modified form of prohibiting the bombardment of all cities not in the front line, this rule held in Western European wars in recent centuries until Britain launched the strategic bombing of civilians in World War II. Now, of course, the entire concept is scarcely remembered, the very nature of nuclear war resting on the annihilation of civilians.

In condemning all wars, regardless of motive, the libertarian knows that there may well be varying degrees of guilt among States for any specific war. But the overriding consideration for the libertarian is the condemnation of any State participation in war. Hence his policy is that of exerting pressure on all States not to start a war, to stop one that has begun and to reduce the scope of any persisting war in injuring civilians of either side or no side.

A neglected corollary to the libertarian policy of peaceful coexistence of States is the rigorous abstention from any foreign aid; that is, a policy of nonintervention between States (= "isolationism" = "neutralism"). For any aid given by State A to State B (1) increases tax aggression against the people of country A and (2) aggravates the suppression by State B of its own people. If there are any revolutionary groups in country B, then foreign aid intensifies this suppression all the more. Even foreign aid to a revolutionary group in B – more defensible because directed to a voluntary group opposing a State rather than a State oppressing the people – must be condemned as (at the very least) aggravating tax aggression at home.

Let us see how libertarian theory applies to the problem of imperialism, which may be defined as the aggression by State A over the people of country B, and the subsequent maintenance of this foreign rule. Revolution by the B people against the imperial rule of A is certainly legitimate, provided again that revolutionary fire be directed only against the rulers. It has often been maintained – even by libertarians – that Western imperialism over undeveloped countries should be supported as more watchful of property rights than any successor native government would be. The first reply is that judging what might follow the status quo is purely speculative, whereas existing imperialist rule is all too real and culpable. Moreover, the libertarian here begins his focus at the wrong end – at the alleged benefit of imperialism to the native. He should, on the contrary, concentrate first on the Western taxpayer, who is mulcted and burdened to pay for the wars of conquest, and then for the maintenance of the imperial bureaucracy. On this ground alone, the libertarian must condemn imperialism.11

Does opposition to all war mean that the libertarian can never countenance change – that he is consigning the world to a permanent freezing of unjust regimes? Certainly not. Suppose, for example, that the hypothetical state of "Waldavia" has attacked "Ruritania" and annexed the western part of the country. The Western Ruritanians now long to be reunited with their Ruritanian brethren. How is this to be achieved? There is, of course, the route of peaceful negotiation between the two powers, but suppose that the Waldavian imperialists prove adamant. Or, libertarian Waldavians can put pressure on their government to abandon its conquest in the name of justice. But suppose that this, too, does not work. What then? We must still maintain the illegitimacy of Ruritania's mounting a war against Waldavia. The legitimate routes are (1) revolutionary uprisings by the oppressed Western Ruritanian people, and (2) aid by private Ruritanian groups (or, for that matter, by friends of the Ruritanian cause in other countries) to the Western rebels – either in the form of equipment or of volunteer personnel.12

We have seen throughout our discussion the crucial importance, in any present-day libertarian peace program, of the elimination of modern methods of mass annihilation. These weapons, against which there can be no defense, assure maximum aggression against civilians in any conflict with the clear prospect of the destruction of civilization and even of the human race itself. Highest priority on any libertarian agenda, therefore, must be pressure on all States to agree to general and complete disarmament down to police levels, with particular stress on nuclear disarmament. In short, if we are to use our strategic intelligence, we must conclude that the dismantling of the greatest menace that has ever confronted the life and liberty of the human race is indeed far more important than demunicipalizing the garbage service.

We cannot leave our topic without saying at least a word about the domestic tyranny that is the inevitable accompaniment of war. The great Randolph Bourne realized that "war is the health of the State."13 It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morale – as Albert Jay Nock once phrased it – of an "army on the march."

The root myth that enables the State to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The facts, of course, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the State, it is also its greatest danger. A State can only "die" by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically mobilizes the people to fight for it against another State, under the pretext that it is fighting for them. But all this should occasion no surprise; we see it in other walks of life. For which categories of crime does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of person and property, but dangers to its own contentment: for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, conspiracy to overthrow the government. Murder is pursued haphazardly unless the victim be a policeman, or Gott soll hüten, an assassinated Chief of State; failure to pay a private debt is, if anything, almost encouraged, but income tax evasion is punished with utmost severity; counterfeiting the State's money is pursued far more relentlessly than forging private checks, etc. All this evidence demonstrates that the State is far more interested in preserving its own power than in defending the rights of private citizens.

A final word about conscription: of all the ways in which war aggrandizes the State, this is perhaps the most flagrant and most despotic. But the most striking fact about conscription is the absurdity of the arguments put forward on its behalf. A man must be conscripted to defend his (or someone else's?) liberty against an evil State beyond the borders. Defend his liberty? How? By being coerced into an army whose very raison d'être is the expunging of liberty, the trampling on all the liberties of the person, the calculated and brutal dehumanization of the soldier and his transformation into an efficient engine of murder at the whim of his "commanding officer"?14 Can any conceivable foreign State do anything worse to him than what "his" army is now doing for his alleged benefit? Who is there, O Lord, to defend him against his "defenders"?


1 There are some libertarians who would go even further and say that no one should employ violence even in defending himself against violence. However, even such Tolstoyans, or "absolute pacifists," would concede the defender's right to employ defensive violence and would merely urge him not to exercise that right. They, therefore, do not disagree with our proposition. In the same way, a libertarian temperance advocate would not challenge a man's right to drink liquor, only his wisdom in exercising that right.

2 We shall not attempt to justify this axiom here. Most libertarians and even conservatives are familiar with the rule and even defend it; the problem is not so much in arriving at the rule as in fearlessly and consistently pursuing its numerous and often astounding implications.

3 Or, to bring up another famous antipacifist slogan, the question is not whether "we would be willing to use force to prevent the rape of our sister," but whether, to prevent that rape, we are willing to kill innocent people and perhaps even the sister herself.

4 William Buckley and other conservatives have propounded the curious moral doctrine that it is no worse to kill millions than it is to kill one man. The man who does either is, to be sure, a murderer; but surely it makes a huge difference how many people he kills. We may see this by phrasing the problem thus: after a man has already killed one person, does it make any difference whether he stops killing now or goes on a further rampage and kills many dozen more people? Obviously, it does.

5 Professor Robert L. Cunningham has defined the State as the institution with "a monopoly on initiating open physical coercion." Or, as Albert Jay Nock put it similarly if more caustically, "The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime.... It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants."

6 An outstanding example of pinpointing by revolutionaries was the invariable practice of the Irish Republican Army, in its later years, of making sure that only British troops and British government property were attacked and that no innocent Irish civilians were injured. A guerrilla revolution not supported by the bulk of the people, of course, is far more likely to aggress against civilians.

7 If it be objected that a war could theoretically be financed solely by a State's lowering of nonwar expenditures, then the reply still holds that taxation remains greater than it could be without the war effect. Moreover, the purport of this article is that libertarians should be opposed to government expenditures whatever the field, war or nonwar.

8 There is another consideration which applies rather to "domestic" defense within a State's territory: the less the State can successfully defend the inhabitants of its area against attack by criminals, the more these inhabitants may come to learn the inefficiency of state operations, and the more they will turn to non-State methods of defense. Failure by the State to defend, therefore, has educative value for the public.

9 The international law mentioned in this paper is the old-fashioned libertarian law as had voluntarily emerged in previous centuries and has nothing to do with the modern statist accretion of "collective security." Collective security forces a maximum escalation of every local war into a worldwide war – the precise reversal of the libertarian objective of reducing the scope of any war as much as possible.

10 F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Appleton, Wis.: C.C. Nelson, 1953), p. 58.

11 Two other points about Western imperialism: first, its rule is not nearly so liberal or benevolent as many libertarians like to believe. The only property rights respected are those of the Europeans; the natives find their best lands stolen from them by the imperialists and their labor coerced by violence into working the vast landed estates acquired by this theft.

Second, another myth holds that the "gunboat diplomacy" of the turn of the century was a heroic libertarian action in defense of the property rights of Western investors in backward countries. Aside from our above strictures against going beyond any State's monopolized land area, it is overlooked that the bulk of gunboat moves were in defense, not of private investments, but of Western holders of government bonds. The Western powers coerced the smaller governments into increasing tax aggression on their own people, in order to pay off foreign bondholders. By no stretch of the imagination was this an action on behalf of private property – quite the contrary.

12 The Tolstoyan wing of the libertarian movement could urge the Western Ruritanians to engage in nonviolent revolution, for example, tax strikes, boycotts, mass refusal to obey government orders or a general strike – especially in arms factories. Cf. the work of the revolutionary Tolstoyan, Bartelemy De Ligt, The Conquest of Violence: An Essay On War and Revolution (New York: Dutton, 1938).

13 See Randolph Bourne, "Unfinished Fragment on the State," in Untimely Papers (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1919).

14 To the old militarist taunt hurled against the pacifist: "Would you use force to prevent the rape of your sister?" the proper retort is: "Would you rape your sister if ordered to do so by your commanding officer?"

Reprinted from Mises.org.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011



A new respect for Justin Timberlake

I know, I'm ususally all economic doom and gloom, Big Brother looking over your shoulder, sh*t's gonna hit the fan around here, but today I wanted to spread a little good news.

I remember reading a few months ago that a young female Marine Corporal had send a letter to Justin Timberlake, asking him to escort her to The Marine Corps Ball. Much to her surprise, he graciously accepted. Here is his account of the evening.

Add that to his efforts to raise money for Shriner's Hospitals For Children through his "Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospitals for Children Open" Golf Tournement and I'd have to say, he's just a stand up guy.

My hat's off to you sir.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

TSA Bribes Passengers To Give Up Personal Info

(NaturalNews) The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has launched a new pilot program that bribes air travelers to "voluntarily" surrender personal and other information in exchange for an expedited and less-invasive screening experience at the airport. And the program has reportedly been so successful at the first few airports in which it was tested that the Obama Administration is planning to expand it to many more airports.
Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, Dallas Fort Worth International, and Miami International Airport all participated in the TSA's PreCheck program which was unveiled last month. The program offers certain American Airlines (AA) and Delta Air Lines (DAL) frequent fliers the "opportunity" to avoid full-body pat downs and naked body scans by agreeing to provide the TSA with information about themselves.
Lest anyone forget, these heinous TSA "enhanced" security protocols, which were unveiled just over a year ago, are a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. And throughout the past year, we here at NaturalNews have covered numerous incidents of abuse involving these protocols by TSA agents against passengers.
But instead of scrapping these illegal invasions of personal privacy, the TSA is now using them as a deterrent to persuade the public into surrendering personal information instead. The TSA obviously knows its "enhanced" screening requirements are excessive, unreasonable, and felonious, which is why it is now offering incentives to travelers to bypass them.
In a press release announcing PreCheck, the TSA specifically states that the surrendering of personal information in exchange for faster and less-intrusive screenings is "voluntary," because it knows that it cannot technically force this information out of travelers. Using its illegal screenings as a way to extort information is basically the same thing -- it is just far less obvious to most travelers who will be more than willing to "voluntarily" concede to this TSA extortion racket.

The federal government has absolutely no business mandating that travelers comply with unwarranted search and seizure in the first place, which is exactly what the TSA screening process at US airports truly is. But the agency's PreCheck "alternative" is just an extension of this government takeover designed to manipulate the public into capitulating to tyranny.

Learn more: Here

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Elections Have Consequences - Are you Happy Now?

Do you remember, back in 2008, when President Obama said we have to "fundamentally change" the United States of America?

For those 53% of America who voted, are you happy now?

Take a good look at the "Occupy" crowd. You know, the ones sexually assaulting women, defecating in bank buildings and police cars, setting fires to condominiums, rioting against police, marching with Neo-Nazis, Communists and anti-Semites.

This is your change, America.

Obama said back then that "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Since our mainstream seems so efficient at digging up innuendos, rumors and any bit of dirt they can on Conservative blacks and women, perhaps one of them should have inquired what, exactly, Mr. Obama meant.

It goes without saying that the media spent more time and energy vilifying Herman Cane in one day than they spent connecting the then-future President to his strong ties to radical Marxists, Islamists and unrepentant terrorists.

Do you recall when Joe Biden said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy"?

So let's count up the "international crisis" that have transpired under Obama...

Iran - Obama ignored the "Green Revolution" and instead sided with the Mullahs (in the interest of his insistence that we could be "friends" with these maniacs. Had Obama offered support for the protesters, the likelihood that we would now be facing a nuclear Iran is at best minimal.

Iraq - During his campaign, Obama repeated called the Iraq War a terrible mistake and voted against the surge that secured what should have been a victory. However, he has now gone against his military experts (who know a thing or two more that he does) and has idiotically announced a complete withdrawal of military personnel in the Iraq theater. Thereby basically allowing Iran to fill the void left by American withdrawal. Like in Vietnam, we are basically leaving those who needed us that they are on their own. No wonder the world hates us.

Russia - One of the first decisions Obama made as President was to renege on President Bush's promise to Poland to build a missile defense shield program. He did this in order to "reset" relations with Russia. However, aside from the fact that under President Bush, Russia and the US got along fine, it was a total betrayal to Eastern Europe and leaves them at the mercy of both a more aggressive Russia and a psychotic Iran.

Egypt - Whether or not Hosni Mubarak was good for Egypt or not, the way Obama handled the situation was nothing less than incompetent. His calling for Mubarak's dismissal, after saying he should stay - and ignoring the ultimate outcome of a power vacuum that is being filled by the murderous Muslim Brotherhood, set the stage for the massacre of the Coptic Christian population, as well as Egypt's severed peace with Israel.

Libya - This was another terrible mess. Obama completely overstepped his authority in bombing the Hell out of Libya. Again, losing Gaddafi was not a terrible outcome. However, Obama sided with our sworn enemies of Al-Qaeda in order to accomplish this feat. Now, with Gaddafi dead, Libya has accepted Sharia law to the strictest. I guess the liberation of Libya wasn't also for women, Christians or Jews. Nice Job.

Syria - See Iran.

Forget for a moment that under Obama, the economy is in the toilet, unemployment is still around 9% (under employment estimated around 20%), the US is $15 trillion in debt and the President's signature legislation - ObamaCare is a complete disaster that is just as unpopular today as it was when it was forced down the nation's throat. Forget the fact that while Obama promised to have the "most ethical, transparent administration, the scandals that are currently plaguing the White House makes the Nixon administration jealous.

Forget all that for a moment and answer this - how do you possibly re-elect Obama at a time when his incompetence on the world stage is so glaring?

I give credit to the man for hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden. I'll even give him credit for Gaddafi's demise. But neither of these accomplishments were his alone and they are terribly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I do want to point out that this is not a comparison between President Obama and President Bush. There were a number of issues where Bush failed as well. I am simply stating the truth about Obama. This is also not an endorsement of any of the Republican candidates in the race. Obviously, there are questions regarding which one of them is the best option for 2012.

All this is is a condemnation on the record of President Obama and a rational reason why he should be soundly defeated next November.
Is This What You Wanted America? Originally Published Here

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Election Day - Nov 8, 2011

I'm optimistic for the chances of Libertarians running in Georgia.  The Libertarian Party of Georgia has 3 local candidates running.  Amanda Swafford is running for Re-Election in the Flowery Branch City Council race, Lance Lamberton for Austell City Council and Doug Craig for Griffin City Council.  Good Luck!
In Athens, I'm not so optimistic.
We have an Education SPLOST vote going on today.  Athens Clarke County spends the third highest amount per student in the state, and has the third lowest graduation rates.
Not only that, but the SPLOST was created to lower the millage rate for our property taxes.  Today our millage rate is at the maximum allowable by law in the county and the SPLOST is just icing on top of the big ole tax cake.
The only thing that wasn't on the ballot locally, Sunday Sales of Alcohol.  One of our county commissioners is even on record as saying the issue would not be on the ballot because she was afraid pro Sunday Sales voters would be anti-SPLOST voters.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Papers Please, Hotels Pimp DHS

The Department of Homeland Security is recruiting hotel guests to join the fight against terrorism.

Starting today, the welcome screens on 1.2 million hotel television sets in Marriott, Hilton, Sheraton, Holiday Inn and other hotels in the USA will show a short public service announcement from DHS. The 15-second spot encourages viewers to be vigilant and call law enforcement if they witness something suspicious during their travels.

During the PSA, which starts with a woman exiting a yellow taxi in front of a train station, a narrator says, "Maybe you see something suspicious. Can you be sure? If you see something, say something to authorities."

The PSA, which will be interspersed with other messages on the welcome screen, will be the same in all 5,400 hotels that LodgeNet serves. It ends by telling viewers to contact "local authorities."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that reaching the "millions of guests that stay at hotels and motels each year is a significant step in engaging the full range of partners in our Homeland Security efforts."

The federal government gained access to hotel TV sets by forming a partnership with the hotel industry's largest association — the American Hotel & Lodging Association — which connected DHS with LodgeNet, the industry's largest TV-content provider.

By entering hotels at a time when the hospitality industry is on the rebound, the government has the power to tap a growing, captive audience. Recent research from LodgeNet says 98% of hotel guests turn on their hotel TV, and the average guest keeps it on for more than three hours per day.

Ann Parker, a LodgeNet spokeswoman, describes the PSAs as "well done and professional" and says the decision to air them was not difficult.

"It's about everyone doing their part to help keep each other and the country safe," she says.

But critics of the campaign point out potential pitfalls. Josh Meyer of the Washington-based National Security Journalism Initiative predicts it will generate "a huge amount of potentially baseless tips that will inundate local, state and federal law enforcement authorities."

DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard, however, cites successful citizen interventions, such as the May 2010 incident in which two street vendors helped thwart a car bombing attempt in New York City's Times Square by noticing a smoking vehicle and reporting it to police.

In the last two years, DHS has formed partnerships with a variety of groups including Amtrak, the U.S. Tennis Association, the National Football League and the Mall of America to enlist public support.

Read The Rest Here

Monday, October 31, 2011


When Nationalism Becomes A Little Frightening

This past weekend, The Bitter Patriot took a few days off from the busy schedule of pissing people off and ventured to our neighboring State of Florida.  I went to witness the annual debauchery formerly, officially known as "The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" or The Annual Georgia - Florida Football Classic.  I am happy to report the victory of the UGA Bulldogs. Goooo Dawgs!

While I am excited that The United States of America will soon only be involved "officially" in 6 military conflicts instead of 7, after this year end's scheduled withdrawal from Iraq. I am reminded that we are only currently involved in 2 that had a minimum of Congressional approval and 0 with a formal Declaration of War. (After we withdraw from Iraq it will only be the Afghan conflict with approval from Congress) But I digress.

The opening moments of the Football Festivities in Jacksonville were marked by a few strange new trends.  First, and unbeknownst to me ahead of time, we we all frisked before being allowed entrance to the stadium. All 84,000 of us were felt up, not by the Transportation Security Adminisrtration, but by the stadium's private security force. Obviously, none of them had any sort of Law Enforcement training, or they would have found the myriad of liquor bottles I stepped over in the restroom.  I wonder how many weapons they missed?  Had I known that I would have to allow myself to be felt up by the Rent-a-cops on my way into the stadium, in ways that would otherwise merit a sexual assault charge, I would have stayed at the tailgate and watched it on TV.

Still not to the most bizarre new twist to college football.

Now, prior to the traditional singing of the National Anthem, the entire stadium is encouraged to participate in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America. 

This would not have bothered me 10 years ago, but today with American involvement in no less than 7 military conflicts around the world, the Department of Homeland Security conducting the 4th Amendment-violating screenings at airports,  DHS checkpoints on the highways, security cameras on every corner, well, I start thinking the whole Nationalism is getting to be a bit much. 

None of this is for the "security" of the "homeland". 

Sunday, October 23, 2011

ALERT:  Final Implementation Phase of Obama Formal Dictatorship has Begun

ALERT: Final Implementation Phase of Obama Formal Dictatorship has Begun

Man, I've been busy.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've been running a little ragged.

It started with helping out with a float for the Atlanta Pride Parade.  The Libertarian Party of Georgia made its third annual appearance in the parade and also hosted an outreach booth in Atlanta's Piedmont Park.  The parade was on Sunday and took about 12 hours out of my weekend.  Totally worth it, though.  We gathered a few hundred new subscribers to our weekly online newsletter "Georgia Libertarian Online".  The LP Float had the world's largest QR code on either side that took the scanner directly to the LP Georgia sign up page.  I think we had about 125 people scan the code while we eased on down the road.

Monday morning following the Pride weekend, I hopped on a flight from Atlanta to Harrisburg, PA to visit a customer.  The outbound airport experience was nothing out of the ordinary.  I fly so much that I know most of the TSA agents by name, all 300 of them.

I ended up working in my client's manufacturing plant about 70 hours over the next 4 days.  My feet and back are still sore a week later.

My return trip started out ok, but as I approached the TSA screening area, the agents stopped using the magnetometer (walk through metal detector) and fired up the Microwave Oven Naked Body Scanner. Now, I have no use for the security theater that goes on in airports these days and have no intention of having my DNA scrambled in a Jiffy Pop popcorn cooker, so I "opted out" and had an "enhanced pat down".

This was no "pat down".  I am a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer and have been trained in the art of searching suspects as part of an arrest.  I truly thought a cavity search was coming. I asked Barney Fife how he liked poking and prodding the genitals of complete strangers.  That got a smirk.  I then recited the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution to him.

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

This only pissed him off.  He attempted to tell me that it didn't apply, since I was not under arrest. Hmm, I think he confused that pesky Constitutional Amendment with the Miranda Act.  Obviously, pointing out his mistake led to a little Constitutional Convention of our own with the TSA agent, his supervisor and local law enforcement. I offered all of the participants a parting gift from my briefcase (Campaign for Liberty Pocket Constitutions with a foreword by Congressman Ron Paul) and made my way to the gate.

The following Saturday, I was honored to take part in a round table discussion for television on "We Speak".  The subject matter for the show: Constitutional Powers - Expressed Vs. Implied.  It was a ton of fun teaching the Executive Director of the GA Democratic Party a few things about why her interpretation of the General Welfare clause is just plain wrong, but that will have to wait for another post.

I spent this week catching up, so I apologize for my absence.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Information Flow.

Maybe it's just me.
I dunno.  I kinda do things by feel more than my statistic.  I really don't have the time or energy to analyse web traffic data, day in and day out, but something lately just feels wrong.
As a creature of habit, I look at the same several websites daily and lately, it seems that the flow of information is really slowing down. I've written on this subject before, and at that time, I was receiving a whole lot more information than I am today.
Like I said, it may just be me. Or maybe, Big Brother doesn't want me to reach YOU.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Big Brother is Watching YOU. FBI to launch national facial recognition program

The FBI by mid-January will activate a nationwide facial recognition service in select states that will allow local police to identify unknown subjects in photos, bureau officials told Nextgov.

The federal government is embarking on a multiyear, $1 billion dollar overhaul of the FBI's existing fingerprint database to more quickly and accurately identify suspects, partly through applying other biometric markers, such as iris scans and voice recordings.

Often law enforcement authorities will "have a photo of a person and for whatever reason they just don't know who it is [but they know] this is clearly the missing link to our case," said Nick Megna, a unit chief at the FBI's criminal justice information services division. The new facial recognition service can help provide that missing link by retrieving a list of mug shots ranked in order of similarity to the features of the subject in the photo.

Today, an agent would have to already know the name of an individual to pull up the suspect's mug shot from among the 10 million shots stored in the bureau's existing Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Using the new Next-Generation Identification system that is under development, law enforcement analysts will be able to upload a photo of an unknown person; choose a desired number of results from two to 50 mug shots; and, within 15 minutes, receive identified mugs to inspect for potential matches. Users typically will request 20 candidates, Megna said. The service does not provide a direct match.

Michigan, Washington, Florida and North Carolina will participate in a test of the new search tool this winter before it is offered to criminal justice professionals across the country in 2014 as part of NGI. The project, which was awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp. in 2008, already has upgraded the FBI's fingerprint matching service.

Local authorities have the choice to file mug shots with the FBI as part of the booking process. The bureau expects its collection of shots to rival its repository of 70 million fingerprints once more officers are aware of the facial search's capabilities.

Thomas E. Bush III, who helped develop NGI's system requirements when he served as assistant director of the CJIS division between 2005 and 2009, said, "The idea was to be able to plug and play with these identifiers and biometrics." Law enforcement personnel saw value in facial recognition and the technology was maturing, said the 33-year FBI veteran who now serves as a private consultant.

NGI's incremental construction seems to align with the White House's push to deploy new information technology in phases so features can be scrapped if they don't meet expectations or run over budget.

But immigrant rights groups have raised concerns that the Homeland Security Department, which exchanges digital prints with the FBI, will abuse the new facial recognition component. Currently, a controversial DHS immigrant fingerprinting program called Secure Communities runs FBI prints from booked offenders against the department's IDENT biometric database to check whether they are in the country illegally. Homeland Security officials say they extradite only the most dangerous aliens, including convicted murderers and rapists. But critics say the FBI-DHS print swapping ensnares as many foreigners as possible, including those whose charges are minor or are ultimately dismissed.

Megna said Homeland Security is not part of the facial recognition pilot. But, Bush said in the future NGI's data, including the photos, will be accessible by Homeland Security's IDENT.

The planned addition of facial searches worries Sunita Patel, a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who said, "Any database of personal identity information is bound to have mistakes. And with the most personal immutable traits like our facial features and fingerprints, the public can't afford a mistake."

In addition, Patel said she is concerned about the involvement of local police in information sharing for federal immigration enforcement purposes. "The federal government is using local cops to create a massive surveillance system," she said.

Bush said, "We do have the capability to search against each other's systems," but added, "if you don't come to the attention of law enforcement you don't have anything to fear from these systems."

Other civil liberties advocates questioned whether the facial recognition application would retrieve mug shots of those who have simply been arrested. "It might be appropriate to have nonconvicted people out of that system," said Jim Harper, director of information policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. FBI officials declined to comment on the recommendation.

Harper also noted large-scale searches may generate a lot of false positives, or incorrect matches. Facial recognition "is more accurate with a Google or a Facebook, because they will have anywhere from a half-dozen to a dozen pictures of an individual, whereas I imagine the FBI has one or two mug shots," he said.

FBI officials would not disclose the name of the search product or the vendor, but said they gained insights on the technique's accuracy by studying research from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

In responding to concerns about the creation of a Big Brother database for tracking innocent Americans, Megna said the system will not alter the FBI's authorities or the way it conducts business. "This doesn't change or create any new exchanges of data," he said. "It only provides [law enforcement] with a new service to determine what photos are of interest to them."

In 2008, the FBI released a privacy impact assessment summarizing its appraisal of controls in place to ensure compliance with federal privacy regulations. Megna said that, during meetings with the CJIS Advisory Policy Board and the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, "we haven't gotten a whole lot of pushback on the photo capability."

The FBI has an elaborate system of checks and balances to guard fingerprints, palm prints, mug shots and all manner of criminal history data, he said.

"This is not something where we want to collect a bunch of surveillance film" and enter it in the system, Megna said. "That would be useless to us. It would be useless to our users."

By Aliya Sternstein 10/07/2011

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Buy Gold, While It's On Sale

Dollar Commentary:
Smart investing is about taking advantage of situations when they arise, and there are plenty of opportunities right now. On the above chart you can see that the dollar has gained 19% against gold in the last month, after falling horribly for many years. This dollar rally is effectively an invitation to increase your gold holdings, and it is what I have done this week. Gold is quickly becoming my personal currency.

Debts have to be paid, whether in one form or another. Dollar debt can be paid traditionally or by dilution. The US debt is so large that I don’t believe it can be paid traditionally, so the dollar has to be diluted. This dilution will cost all citizens in one form or another, mostly in the form of a lower standard of living.

If a currency is diluted it loses purchasing power, both here and abroad. The buyer gets less and pays more. In the next few months the dollar appears headed down to the $65.00 area on the $USD index. This technical price action represents the fundamental of debt payment by dilution.

While the time of this actual quotation is uncertain, Jim Rogers has commented on the magnitude of the US debt with this statement over the years,“Europe’s got some bad problems but the entity as a whole is not nearly as deep in debt as the U.S. They don't have a huge balance of trade deficit, like we do.”

Our debt could turn into a crisis, and it could be a lot worse than what Europe is experiencing. Will Illinois, California, and New York be viewed by the rest of America like Germany views Greece now? Where does this all end? It feels like there is no end, and much more pain to come for many years.

The dollar rally already now appears to be starting a topping out process. This process that is topping the dollar is also creating substantial bottoming action in gold and commodities. I expect this process to take another two weeks. I want to own more gold while the “sale” is on.

Gold Super Highway Chart

Gold Analysis

Two important items:

You can make the argument that chart damage has been done here. The small symmetrical triangle I highlighted last week failed, but it was a small technical formation; the big technical picture continues to strengthen. Gold has begun the journey to becoming the worldwide asset of choice in this crisis.

Massive Asian physical buying has come to the metals as a result of the three day correction that saw gold prices fall over 10%, and the Indian wedding season preparations are picking up steam.

A report was posted on Bloomberg several days ago stating that gold could go to $10,000 per ounce based upon the amount of money printed on a historical basis. That is prior to any additional QE programs. More printing allows for an even higher gold price. Many believe the US government will default on obligations. There really is no final target price for gold. Over time, governments will just keep printing paper currency to dilute their debts, as they have for thousands of years. It began with diluting gold coins with other metals. The space age has brought the electronic printing press. Gold is volatile, but the largest trend of the gold price over the longest time has always been higher, against government promise-backed currency.

I believe physical gold owners are the smartest of all investors.

To be in a market and to stay in a market, you must believe in what you own and know why you own it. Don’t buy something simply because the chart looks nice. Buy it because of great fundamentals. Use my technical buy signals to increase your core positions.

Read The Rest Here

Emails show Operation Fast and Furious was shared with Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan -- and perhaps beyond

Emails show Operation Fast and Furious was shared with Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan -- and perhaps beyond

Doug Ross Nails It Again!

Thursday, September 29, 2011

A Government Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want, Is Strong Enough To Take Everything You Have - Thomas Jefferson

For lack of a better way of putting this, you have got to be kidding me!
It's bad enough that we have people out of work, and in many cases directly attributable to the current administrations policies. Now we a Federal Government that is offering bonouses (bribes) to individual states for signing up the most Food Stamp recipients.

It seems more and more the assumed role of the Federal Government is to make all of us 100% dependent on Government, for 100% of our needs. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A Government Big Enough To Give You Everything You Want, Is Strong Enough To Take Everything You Have."

State Gets $5Mil Bonus For Food Stamp Sign Up

In its quest to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, the Obama Administration has actually rewarded one state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls.

It’s part of the administration’s campaign to eradicate “food insecure households” by improving access and increasing participation in the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Incidentally, the program was recently changed to SNAP to eliminate the stigma that comes with a name like food stamps. Just a few months ago the federal agency that administers the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), launched a multi-million-dollar initiative to recruit more food-stamp participants even though the number of recipients has skyrocketed in the last few years.

This week Oregon officials bragged that the USDA has given the state $5 million in “performance bonuses” for ensuring that people eligible for food benefits receive them and for its “swift processing of applications.” The money comes on the heels of a separate $1.5 million award from the feds for making “accurate payments of food stamp benefits to clients.” So welfare recipients are clients? .

It marks the fifth consecutive year that Oregon has been “recognized” by the federal government for “exceptional administration” of the entitlement program, according to the announcement posted on the state’s Department of Human Services web site. The state official who runs SNAP assures that her staff will “continue working very hard to exceed expectations” so that Oregonians can “put healthy foods on their table quickly.”

Could this be why the number of food-stamp beneficiaries in Oregon has increased dramatically in the last few years? Since 2008 the state has seen a 60% boost in the number of food-stamp recipients, which means that more than 780,000 people (one out of five Oregonians) get groceries compliments of Uncle Sam.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the feds are also giving the state a two-year grant to test an “innovative approach” to the food-stamp “client eligibility review process.” This will make it even easier for people to get food stamps because it grants state officials a waiver that allows them to grant the benefit without interviewing the candidate.

Monday, September 26, 2011

The Federal Reserve Wants To Monitor All Who Oppose Them In Real Time

If you believe Ben Bernanke and his merry band of money printers don’t care about what you think, then consider the latest product development proposal from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. According to RFP (Request for Proposal) 6994, the Fed intends to build a real-time monitoring solution capable of mining and aggregating data across social networks like Facebook and Twitter, alternative news web sites and blogs, video sharing web sites, and mainstream media outlets.

Not only do they care about what you think, they want to know exactly who you are, what language you speak, who you’re talking to, where you’re getting your information, who you are sharing it with, and what your sentiment and emotional state is in reference to that specific moment.

According to portions of the RFP, the Fed intends to collect, aggregate and analyze data, as well as to us this information to direct their own actions and responses. By identifying “crisis” points with the new listening platform, the Fed will be able to specifically target information being put out by news web sites and even individual users (in forums or comments) and then respond to that information in kind by either contacting “key bloggers” and “influencers,” or simply ramping up their public relations machine to either discredit the message, or simply rewrite the message through the spread of news releases to major internet distribution channels and heavily trafficked social networks.

The Federal Reserve’s Criteria for its Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution are described, in part, below:

Description: Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”) is extending to suppliers an invitation to participate in anSentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution RFP bid process. The intent is to establish a fair andequitable partnership with a market leader who will who gather data from various social media outlets and news sources and provide applicable reporting to FRBNY. This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) was created in an effort tosupport FRBNY’s Social Media Listening Platforms initiative.

I. Introduction

Social media platforms are changing the way organizations are communicating to the public Conversations are happening all the time and everywhere.

There is need for the Communications Group to be timely and proactively aware of the reactions and opinions expressed by the general public as it relates to the Federal Reserve and its actions on a variety of subjects.

II. Social Listening Platforms

Social media listening platforms are solutions that gather data from various social media outlets and news sources. They monitor billions of conversations and generate text analytics based on predefined criteria. They can also determine the sentiment of a speaker or writer with respect to some topic or document.

The information gathered can guide the organizations public relations group in assessing the effectiveness of communication strategies.

Here are some of the services it can offer:

■Track reach and spread of your messages and press releases

■Handle crisis situations

■Continuously monitor conversations

■Identify and reach out to key bloggers and influencers

■Spot emerging trends, discussions themes and topics

A. Geographic scope of social media sites

The solution must support content coming from different countries and geographical regions. It should also support multiple languages.

B. Content and Data Type:

The solution must be able to gather data from the primary social media platforms –Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Forums and YouTube. It should also be able to aggregate data from various media outlets such as: CNN, WSJ, Factiva etc.

C. Reports and Metrics

The solution must provide real-time monitoring of relevant conversations. It should provide sentiment analysis (positive, negative or neutral) around key conversational topics.

It must be able to provide summaries or high level overviews of a specific set of topics. It should have a configurable dashboard that can easily be accessed by internal analysts or management. The dashboard must support customization by user or group access.

The solution should provide an alerting mechanism that automatically sends out reports or notifications based a predefined trigger.

D. FRBNY Technology Integration

The solution must be able to integrate with existing FRBNY technologies such as: Google Search appliance, Lotus notes suite and web trends.It must have support for single sign on or windows integrated authentication.

Sourced Via Zero Hedge and Scribd

What’s important to note is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York does not intend to build a completely new platform. Their intention is to establish a relationship with an existing market leader – likely one of the information mining and gathering platforms already in existence, such as a large search engine – with whom they can then integrate their systems.

The key point is that the technology for what the Federal Reserve is looking for already exists and it’s being used not just by private entities, but government as well, as we pointed out in Americans, Everything You Do Is Monitored. The National Security Agency (NSA), which at one time was responsible for foreign communications monitoring, is expanding its duties to domestic monitoring of all electronic communications in America and is in the process of building a one million squarefo

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: September 26th, 2011
Website: www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Still think Big Brother, or in this case Big Sis, isn't watching you?

If you're the owner of a fairly new General Motors product, you may want to take a close look at the most recent OnStar terms and conditions. As it turns out, the company has altered the parameters under which it can legally collect GPS data on your vehicle.

Originally, the terms and conditions stated that OnStar could only collect information on your vehicle's location during a theft recovery or in the midst of sending emergency services your way. That has apparently changed. Now, OnStar says that it has the right to collect and sell personal, yet supposedly anonymous information on your vehicle, including speed, location, seat belt usage and other information.

Who would be interested in that data, you ask? Law enforcement agencies, for starters, as well as insurance companies. Perhaps the most startling news to come out of the latest OnStar terms and conditions is the fact that the company can continue to collect the information even after you disconnect the service. If you want the info to be cut off all together, you'll have to specifically shut down the vehicle's data connection. If that sounds scary, you should check out a full breakdown of the new policies here.

Read Zach Bowman's full article here

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Liberals complain about lack of infrastructure.

Well, maybe they ought to worry about something else.
h/t - doug ross

Saturday, September 17, 2011

San Fransico Cops Miss Suspect And Shoot Two Bystanders

According to KCBS and Bay City News Service, two bystanders were hit by gunfire after an officer-involved shooting in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood early this morning.

According to police, at 2:06 a.m., officers located a wanted person in the 400 block of Broadway. The suspect ran away from police and produced a weapon, they said.

Officers then fired at the suspect, who was not hit. However, two bystanders were hit by the gunfire. They were taken to a hospital to be treated for their injuries that are not believed to be life-threatening, according to police.

The suspect, who was not wounded, was taken into custody. The suspect’s weapon was recovered, police said.

Police did not have information available about how many officers were involved in the shooting or how many rounds were fired. Read More Here

You know, the last time the bay area cops were quick to shoot at someone, they shot a man in the back, whose only offense was resisting arrest.  Oh, did I mention that suspect was killed? How about that he was unarmed? How about the fact that the officer that shot him is still on the job? Or that there was a huge public protest at the same BART station? Or that when a second protest was planned, BART had all of the cellular phone service shut down in the area to thwart protestors?

Man, it's great to live in a free country where our right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated!
I sure am glad we don't live in some sort of 1984 Police State.

Bitter Patriot Endorses Ron Paul For President, I Mean, Why Not?

Friday, September 16, 2011

Obama openly admits that he would like to be a dictator

Obama is already working well outside of his Constitutional authority in many areas.  We have some 42 "Czars" running a bureacracy outside of Congress, we have 6 or 7 "military actions" (Wars) going on without Congressional approval, the new UnConsititutional 12 person "Super Congress" to propose all spending bills, enough Executive Orders to wall paper the Library of Congress and now the president has finally come out and admitted that he wishes he didn't have a Congress.

Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, "I'd like to work my way around Congress."

"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress."

Monday, September 12, 2011

What have we become?

Check points in order to travel?
The "Blue Glove of  Love" and the high tech "Cube of Submission"

Are we safer? Have your individual Liberties been infringed?

Do you Care? 

Sunday, September 11, 2011

9/11 - Ten years later.

Don't get me wrong.   I say a prayer, daily,  for all of those that lost their lives 10 years ago.  Their lives were ripped from them and their loved ones through no fault of their own, and for that I mourn, and you should too.
9/11/2001 was a day just like any other for me, up early, a 60 mile drive to where I needed to be that morning. At the time, I was working in an industry that required me to travel to wherever my customers were that day.  So, on that beautiful, blue skied, crisp, cool, Fall, Tuesday morning, I drove from Savannah, GA over to Hilton Head, SC to meet with my customer. I was running a little late and called the customer to say so, he seemed a little preoccupied on the phone. He told me that a plane crash had happened in New York City, and the news was a little strange, but to come ahead for the meeting.
I tuned in to listen to the news on the radio. Indeed a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers and it was believed to be a commuter plane or maybe even a small private plane. Odd, but not life changing.
Over the course of the next few hours, all of our lives would change.  The news of the second plane hitting the WTC, seemed to confirm what we all feared, it was in fact a Terror Attack.
My first thought was about the tens of thousands of people that worked in those buildings.  I have been in the WTC a few times and I knew that on a typical Tuesday morning there could have been as many as 25,000 people in either building. Thank God that it was really early in the day, and there weren't anywhere near that many people at work yet.
The official story of 9/11 is well documented and told every day by thousands of people.  I don't buy it.
In the entire history of steel framed buildings, only 3 have ever been destroyed by fire, and all on the same day. WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11/2001. That's a huge coincidence, don't you think?
A typical office with all of it's paper, wood, polyester carpets, furniture, etc... burns at approx 1400 degrees F.  Jet fuel is basically Kerosene. Jet A, JP4, JP5, etc... are all kerosene refined to various degrees of purity.  Under the best of conditions, kerosene burns at atmospheric pressure with typically available oxygen at somewhere within a few degrees of 500 degrees F.
Steel melts at a temperature of 2600 degrees F. There is no way in hell that a kerosene fire would melt steel and cause what looks like a free fall demolition of a steel framed building, even with the addition of the office supplies, furniture, carpet, etc...
I am certain to be labeled a kook, a freak, a hater of Liberty, a Muslim sympathizer, you name it. But, I cannot in good conscience not seek the TRUTH. Just look at the evidence with an open mind and make your own decision. The following links provide some information. Do your own research.


I don't want to attempt to tell you what to believe, but I want you to seek the truth.  Since 9-11-2001 the United States of America has been complicit in the deaths of nearly 1.7 million people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syrian and perhaps a few other countries, as a result of the official story.
Seek the Truth.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

New York Judge Doesn't Understand The 2nd Amendment

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CN) - Five Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation cannot relax a law forcing citizens to demonstrate proper cause before they pack heat on public streets, a federal judge ruled.

New York courts have interpreted "proper cause" as having a "special need for self-protection" as compared to the general population.

"I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote in an order dismissing a class action challenging the regulation.

Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance and Anna Marcucci-Nance say their applications for full-carry permits were rejected, even though they had all been trained in firearms and had spotless criminal records.

Kachalsky claimed he had proper cause because "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others," court documents say.

Judge Susan Cacace, his licensing officer, found that this explanation did not distinguish him from anybody else seeking a permit.

Nikolov said she deserved a license because she passed three firearms safety courses with the National Rifle Association, showed a "calm demeanor" as a pilot and flight instructor, and had a higher likelihood of being the victim of violence as a transgender woman.

Rejecting her request, Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen explained that a specific threat of violence against her was "conspicuously absent" from her application.

Nance and Marcucci-Nance cited no special needs for full-carry permits, Judge Robert K. Holdman found.

Detmer thought he satisfied the proper cause requirement as a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard, but Judge Albert Lorenzo said his application contained "no justification" for a full-carry permit.

Gaining the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, the five applicants filed a federal class action lawsuit against Westchester County and the four judges serving as licensing officers in late 2010.

On Friday, Judge Seibel agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case, but she granted summary judgment to the defendants sua sponte on the grounds that the state had the duty to protect public safety.

In a footnote, she noted that the state attorneys argued in affidavits that gun crimes are linked to general availability, and citizens with concealed handguns can endanger cops stopping them.

An affidavit also said that the "majority of criminal homicides and other serious crimes are committed by individuals who have not been convicted of a felony and would receive permits to carry concealed weapons without the 'proper cause' requirement."

Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that 227 firearms were recovered during the first half of 2009 in Westchester, more than double those recovered in nearby Orange County and several times more than those recovered in Dutchess, Rockland, Sullivan and Putnam.

The report also cited 132 weapon offenses in the Westchester region.

Judge Seibel entered the 60-page opinion on Friday, preceding a particularly bloody Labor Day weekend in which 48 people were shot in New York City. Mayor Mike Bloomberg called for stricter gun-control laws Tuesday.
By ADAM KLASFELD Courthouse News Service

Friday, September 2, 2011

CIA shifts focus to killing targets - The Washington Post

CIA shifts focus to killing targets - The Washington Post

So, exactly how many illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional, kinetic military actions are we involved in now?

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Fast and Furious: Update, Ken Melson - BATFE Director Loses Job, Or Does He?

"The controversy over the Fast and Furious anti-gun-trafficking operation upended the careers of two Justice Department officials Tuesday as the interim head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was transferred to an obscure, new post and the well-connected chief federal prosecutor in Arizona resigned.

ATF’s current acting director, Ken Melson, will move to Justice’s Office of Legal Policy this week to become a senior adviser on forensic science, the Justice Department said. Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona who oversaw prosecutions in that state related to the Fast and Furious operation, stepped down and left the federal government." says Politico 

So, in typical government fashion, Ken Melson, whose "Fast and Furious"-"Gun Walking" program is not only directly responsible for the death of at least one Border Patrol Agent  but is being attributed to attacks on the 2nd Amendment as retribution for American Guns going to Mexico, isn't brought up on any charges of any kind.  Instead, he's given a lower profile job in the ATF, with less work and the same pay that he received as Director.

What the Hell is wrong with this picture? If you are an Obama supporter and support all of the illegal, unconstitutional, shadow "Czar" government activity, probably nothing.

Monday, August 22, 2011

H.R.2819: To prohibit the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and any other... OpenCongress

H.R.2819: To prohibit the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and any other... OpenCongress

Gag order to prevent anyone in the CIA or any other branch of the federal government from saying anything about the mission that supposedly killed Bin Laden
Yet another example of the feds covering their tracks.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Jon Stewart Blasts Media Ignoring Ron Paul

Obama's ultimate "Bug Out Bus"! Too bad we had to foot the bill.

Originally published at Politico.com
The Secret Service has revealed to Talking Points Memo that the government has purchased two armored buses for use by President Barack Obama and Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign and beyond.

The agency initially declined to tell TPM whom the buses were bought from, but based on some searches of federal databases it looked to me like the seller was Hemphill Brothers Coach Co. of Whites Creek, Tenn. Last July, the Service signed a contract for nearly $2.2 million with the firm, according to a federal procurement database. (The entry doesn't specify the number of buses.)

"The contract you found is the contract," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said Thursday morning. "It's two buses for $1.1 million each."

"We've been overdue for having this asset in our protective fleet for some time," Donovan said. "We've been protecting presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates all the way back to the 1980s using buses during bus tours."

In the past, the service leased buses and then tried to fit them with extra security gear. But that can't provide the assurance of starting from scratch.

"They're certainly going to be used for bus tours around the country," as well as other events, Donovan said. "When protectees go to remote areas, go camping or on a motorcyle trip, we''ll bring the asset out as a mobile security facility." (Kind of like a congressman's mobile office, I guess.

The final cost of the two new buses will exceed $2.2 million, because the Service prefers to add its own aftermarket security features to vehicles. Donovan said the service will do so in this instance as well.

The $1.1 million price tag is roughly in line with costs for custom-made, luxury motorcoaches. This company quotes prices of $1.5 million to $2.5 million for a new luxury bus.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

It Is Unravelling

So, this is the front page of today's Drudge Report.

I think it pretty much sums up what is happening everywhere around the world. The Globalist Banking Cartels are beginning to reap what they have sown. 

For many years we have been able to live a life of relative luxury on cheap credit and now it's time to pay the piper.  Only, there isn't anything left to give, except to give into tyranny and debt slavery. Or, we can stand and fight.

Fight, yes, but not each other.  We have to fight our own personal demons of the individual greed that forces each of us to live beyond our means. We must learn to live with what we have and what we can afford.

Fight the system. Refuse to take handouts from the government. Stop using government services, paid for by the sweat of the taxpayer. 

Today, nearly 50 million Americans are on some sort of Government assistance. They will never attempt to find their own way as long as the government provides a hand out. And NO, I am not heartless. I prefer private charity and encouragement of people to do for themselves.

Stop contributing too. Do whatever you can to reduce the amount of taxes you pay through witholdings your employer takes from you. Raise your number of dependents on your W-4 form to 20 or 30 if you have no choice to stop witholding. Stop making quarterly contributions. Stop.

Stop taking it. Stop paying into it. Stop.

If we are together, we can overthrow the insanity by starving it out.

United We Stand. Live Free or Die.