Liberty Economics

Laissez-Faire News & Commentary

Category: Civil Liberties

Reichsführer-SS Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton

I’ve said before that people can criticize others and advocate changes which appear benign, but in reality the purpose is to thrust us deeper into a constitutional crisis. Rudy Giuliani fits that narrative exactly. After watching Rudy Giuliani’s most recent remarks in Reno, the title I feel that is most appropriate for him is Reichsführer-SS. I will explain.

Before Holocaust victims were sent to their deaths, their possessions would be confiscated. After death, gold would be extracted from teeth. Anything of value was to be sent to the Reich. In October of 1943, Heinrich Himmler gave a speech in Poznan before SS officers in which he declared war on “corruption” in the SS. Corruption was defined as an SS officer taking a bribe to let a prisoner escape, or keeping some of the stolen loot for himself rather than sending it to the Reich. SS officers who were caught would be prosecuted and punished severely.

When you think about the seriousness of the crime of the Holocaust, you can see the absurdity of the Hitler regime prosecuting SS officers for keeping stolen loot. The real reason for a criminal regime cracking down on small scale corruption was not because the regime cared about the victims, but to enhance the power of the regime. To the extent SS officers complied with orders to send stolen loot to the Reich, that benefited the criminal regime. To the extent SS officers deviated from policy, they became competitors with the regime by functioning as independent de facto tax collectors.

Applying Caesar’s observation on war, Lysander Spooner neatly distilled the genesis of the state. Any group of scoundrels, as Spooner saliently articulated, having money enough to start with, can form themselves as a state. Because with money they could hire agents. With agents they could steal more money. And so the first use the state always makes of its money is to hire agents to subdue and kill all those who refuse to give it more money.

The government doesn’t sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands, i.e. it doesn’t earn its income. The government sustains itself with compulsory taxation, i.e. it uses violence or the threat of violence to obtain its revenue. (That’s why problems inhere with everything the government inserts itself into. It has nothing to do with personalities. It’s the nature of the state.) You have to pay the government in order to remain free. If that isn’t the definition of a protection racket, gentle reader, then I don’t know what is.

People often times conflate the violence that ensues between warring tribes and warlords with anarchy. That is not anarchy. That’s the genesis of the state. It’s competing warlords fighting to obtain a territorial monopoly on the use of violence. Eventually, one of them prevails and becomes the government. At that time, their crimes are made legal. And because the violence is directed one way, vertically downwards, that’s called “order”.

Government is, to put it simply, the most powerful group of thugs with guns. The first documented political act that I can think of is when Cain murdered his brother Abel. I’m not saying the government doesn’t do anything good and there aren’t a lot of well meaning people in government. But the good government does in apprehending sporadic criminals is because if the government allowed people to behave the way it does with impunity then pretty soon a different government would replace it. The good government does is incidental to its primary function of maintaining a territorial monopoly on the use of violence. If the government permitted its own minions to collect bribes its power would be diffused. If the government permitted anybody to steal with impunity, then before long there would be a new government. As we can see with the SS officers, their offense was not in harming people or even stealing, but in trying to compete with the Reich. Reichsführer-SS Himmler didn’t care about the Holocaust victims, just like Reichsführer-SS Giuliani doesn’t care about innocent detainees being tortured to death.

In Reno, Reichsführer-SS Giuliani boasted that he could successfully prosecute Hillary Clinton not for any of her matter of policy crimes, but for selling protection to UBS bank in Switzerland. This is the same Reichsführer-SS Giuliani who blamed Hillary Clinton for creating ISIS not because she actually helped create ISIS (like she did), but because of the alleged troop withdrawal from Iraq (there are troops in Iraq right now). Pursuant to Reichsführer-SS Giuliani’s calculus, criminal policies are not the crimes, but the efforts to circumvent criminal policies are the crimes.

Rather than plagiarize myself, I will post an excerpt from a previous commentary I wrote regarding Jesse Ventura’s anti-libertarian heresy on campaign finance. To make clear, I was still hoping he would run despite my disagreements. I can think of no better way to illustrate how the government’s war on corruption is corrupt. The trend is not for the government to administer justice but to drive up its cost (i.e. drive up the cost of a “bribe” or protection). My rule is to look for the means to further that trend in every political plan. And that’s why the government prosecutes people like the former police chief Willie Lovett, who deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Jesse Ventura recently posted a commentary about campaign expenditures. Somehow, campaign expenditures get morphed into both the cause of political crises and the crises itself. From that thought pattern, it then follows that curtailing and/or proscribing campaign expenditures is the way to remedy crises.

While Ventura lamented the First Amendment rights of protesters being curtailed, he simultaneously endorsed curtailing the First Amendment rights of campaign contributors and candidates. Hopefully I am able to draw the nexus between the First Amendment and campaign contributions for Jesse Ventura to see.

Newspapers can deputize their editorial boards to write up editorials in favor, or against, candidates. This amounts to nothing less than a campaign contribution. That doesn’t need to be reported as such. Worse yet, newspapers generally endorse candidates who wish to keep all of the other candidates in handcuffs with the very campaign regulations that newspapers are not bound by. Also, newspapers need not register as PACs, and they need not disclose subscriber lists.

Candidates are bound by disclosure laws, contribution limit laws, and so forth. Meanwhile, a newspaper can deputize its editors to endorse or oppose a candidate. That is, objectively, a campaign contribution. Should the political speech of newspapers be regulated? Should Jesse Ventura’s show be shut down? That would violate First Amendment rights. And so, too, do campaign finance regulations. Campaign finance regulations violate the First Amendment rights of candidates and PACs. So, let’s now see the nexus between the First Amendment rights of commentators and candidates.

About the only addition I could make to my previous commentary that I post below is that legalizing bribery on a blanket basis might actually diminish police brutality. Why? Police officers would feel much more beholden to the citizens whose generosity they rely upon. Before dismissing that argument, please read these two commentaries and consider two different cases involving police officers with different outcomes. In one case, a police officer didn’t arrest people for a victimless “offense” and received 7.5 years in prison. In another case, a police officer actually murdered a man for a victimless “offense” with impunity. See: http://libertyeconomics.com/supporting-the-police-who-enforce-sheldon-adelsons-racket/ and http://libertyeconomics.com/a-prediction-on-police-body-cameras/ Under the current system bribery is legal, but only for politicians. Politicians can bribe us with our own money, but we can’t bribe them with our own money.

Ask yourself why anybody would spend, as Ventura would say, “hundreds of millions of dollars” on elections. It’s being spent in the pursuit of power. The problem is the power. Donors are spending a record amount of money on protection from political candidates. And why is that? They are buying protection from a government that’s the biggest it has ever been. Big government creates demand for protection. The way to solve this is not to rein in campaign expenditures, but to rein in government power. It would be undesirable to rein in campaign expenditures while keeping government intact.

By advocating tighter campaign finance regulations – which Harry Reid advocates as well – Jesse Ventura plays right into the hands of the power brokers. What I found to be very amusing was seeing Reid go back to Washington arguing for tighter campaign finance regulations after the entire Whittemore thing came out. As if that was his way of “atoning” for his transgressions. But just think of the government as nothing but a gigantic conspiracy in restraint of trade. Not to claim accolades, but I wrote a great commentary in which I demolished Ventura’s position about as well as anybody could.  It would be fun to debate Jesse Ventura on this issue.

From my commentary where I demolish Ventura’s position:

I will never forget the time when I was in Tijuana with a few other Marines in the 1990s. Tijuana wasn’t a place I went to often. It’s not the nicest place in the world and, sadly, that’s largely due to what Americans have helped do to the place. If you want to see what a total gun ban looks like, go to Tijuana.

I was with two other Marines. We had just left a bar and were outside. A Mexican national ran up to one of the Marines I was with and handed him a cup of beer. My Marine friend began to drink down the beer and as he was in the middle of doing so a Tijuana police officer came over and threatened my Marine friend with arrest for drinking a beer in public. That had to be the least of the problems going on in Tijuana at the time. We soon figured out why my friend was targeted.

The same Mexican national who handed my Marine friend the cup of beer appeared to “negotiate” with the police officer to not take my Marine friend to jail. The terms were my friend would hand over $20 to the police officer in order to evade arrest. My friend handed over the money which we noticed afterwards was split with the same Mexican national who handed my friend the cup of beer. In the end, we made it back just fine.

Of course that Tijuana police officer was abusing his authority and engaging in petty corruption. But you know what? The issue wasn’t the money he received to not arrest my friend for doing something so many others were doing. The issue wasn’t that he let my friend “walk”. Whenever I shared this story in the past, I would remind people that it’s not really a bad thing you can buy some justice in Mexico for twenty bucks. Cracking down on police officers who sell justice for twenty bucks will merely raise the cost of a bribe (i.e. justice).

Here in the United States you wouldn’t be able to buy justice like that. You would be arrested, hauled off to jail for a few days, miss work and maybe lose your job, and then get fined a few hundred dollars. After all of the other middle men in the criminal justice system get involved, the price of justice goes way up. I’m not one to say all police officers are anxious to use force, but it does seem nowadays like there’s a chance somebody might get tased over an offense like that. And people would go along with the narrative that’s real justice because the police officer strictly enforced all statutes and ordinances created by politicians.

This brings me to the case of Harvey Whittemore which I felt compelled to write about after seeing the front-running Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in a different state promise to ban members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists. The more I think about that, the more I get the proverbial butterflies. A proposal like that should send chills down everybody’s spine.

Think about this one. Harvey Whittemore has been prosecuted for skirting campaign finance laws. Is the United States any better off because of that? This should prompt questions. We ought to ask ourselves what, exactly, campaign finance laws beget? In my estimation, campaign finance laws are all about giving the government more power while also curtailing the ability of the people to influence that same government. It’s called power consolidation. Meanwhile, the crimes of the government continue to metastasize.

There’s a paradox in campaign finance laws. While it would be perfectly legal for a wealthy person to self-finance, donating, say, $500,000 to their own campaign, it becomes a crime to donate the same amount of money to another person’s campaign since it’s necessary to use strawman donors due to contribution limits. That wealthy person could run with those funds but they couldn’t use those same funds to help somebody else run. As if the government so cares about donors like Whittemore it had to create these laws to help level the playing field in their own favor.

Let’s take campaign finance laws to their logical conclusion: criminalize all campaign contributions. If all campaign contributions were criminalized, is that going to fix anything? No. The corporate media would have more power to determine the outcome of elections as people find themselves unable to support the candidates they want while the media continues to enjoy its First Amendment right to support and oppose candidates. If somebody wants to run for office they will need to be very wealthy so that they can self-finance. Campaign finance laws are most injurious to the poorer candidates who need to fundraise.

Campaign finance laws are also injurious to candidates who strive to follow the statutes, which places those candidates at a disadvantage compared to candidates who violate campaign finance statutes. In other words, it’s statutory law that created the very system to be gamed. Eliminating donors also centralizes the sources of campaign funding into fewer and fewer hands, compelling politicians to tap more establishment and elite sources of funding. That would beget politicians becoming more and more like carbon copies of one another.

Perhaps that’s why politicians in Nevada who are guilty of far greater crimes than Harvey Whittemore don’t oppose campaign finance laws and have said nothing in Whittemore’s defense. Politicians who even took Whittemore’s money. They’re indifferent to the corruption. What they like is the weaponization of laws, using them selectively to ensnare their political opponents and to remind people they have no business trying to buy some influence. Or maybe prosecutions of people like Whittemore are meant to send a signal to other donors that their contributions better not taper off or else they’re next.

The problem with Washington is not lobbyists per se. We should all be trying to lobby Washington. Restrictions on lobbying and lobbyists drive up the cost of lobbying, putting the less connected lobbyists out of business while also driving up premiums for the services offered by the more connected lobbyists. If we’re so worried about members of Congress being lobbied or becoming lobbyists, then why trust them as members of Congress? Why not just ban what members of Congress are doing to us through legislation and policy? Ban the federal government? Maybe people ought to recognize campaign finance laws were constructed by Congress to keep power entrenched. Which brings me to the real issue: government power.

It’s kind of like government run medicine. It’s inherently inefficient. The solution isn’t for Congress to exercise more oversight over the VA or to get better VA caseworkers. The solution is to get the government out of healthcare, and then veterans can’t be blackmailed with their healthcare. And then there’s no having to decide which candidate, which member of Congress, I must support in order to get the eczema treated.

When it comes to lobbying, I would make the point that if a lobbyist pays a politician $X to do XYZ on their behalf, it’s impossible to say who was bribing whom. Perhaps it’s the power-wielding politicians who play political games, who can threaten companies and people with sanctions, that are bribing people in order to sell their “protection”. Is the campaign contributor buying “protection” or is the politician buying campaign contributions with “protection” from the very schemes that politician creates? Let me distill this even more sharply, and this is “Mark original” writing. Are campaign contributions being used to buy favors or are favors being used to buy campaign contributions?

If you want to curtail lobbying, then curtail government power. It’s not that people try to influence power. It’s the power. The people who prosecuted Harvey Whittemore had the wrong person on the docket. Instead, it should be politicians who are prosecuted for what they are doing to the country as a matter of policy. This is why I’ve never written about alleged kickbacks and payoffs to Reid in exchange for him to do somebody a favor. If Reid can help somebody in exchange for some kind of compensation – no matter how in violation of a statute it might be – it could actually be in the pursuit of true justice. The issue isn’t Reid personally or individually. The real issue is the entire system – a system Reid supports. That’s what makes Harry Reid a criminal.

If you believe that politicians should run everything and that the solution to how everything is being ran straight into the ground is to lock up campaign contributors, you are totally delusional. Things won’t change until we demand governmental agencies and departments get shut down and abolished. For starters, let’s shut down the Department of Homeland Security which trains with paper targets of children. Let’s shut down the VA medical system which is unable to take care of veterans. Let’s end the promiscuous foreign policy of war all over the globe which creates more disabled veterans when we can’t afford to take care of the ones who already exist. By following the Constitution, this would curtail the practice of politicians using favors to buy campaign contributions.

While there are many legitimate reasons to criticize and even prosecute Hillary Clinton, selling protection to UBS bank isn’t one of them. It’s the wrong barrister with the wrong indictment of the right suspect. Reichsführer-SS Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be more mistaken. It’s not the crimes that matter to Reichsführer-SS Giuliani, but that people would sell protection from the crimes. Let’s not forget Reichsführer-SS Giuliani defends Trump on tax avoidance, and I agree with him as it is certainly not in anybody’s interest that billionaires pay taxes to empower government even more so. Tax fairness should not be defined by taxing the rich, but by eliminating taxes on everybody.

This is another example of how Republicans and Democrats engage on the wrong issues in an effort to thrust us deeper into a constitutional crisis. It reminds me of Clinton’s email controversy. Pursuant to the Reichsführer-SS, it’s not the matter of policy crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, but that she isn’t good at securing information which can lead to us mere mundanes finding out about those matter of policy crimes. Hillary Clinton’s carelessness with state secrets might be her main excellence. Call it unintentional transparency. The perfect solution to the Clinton Foundation is to liberalize laws on bribery. If Reichsführer-SS Giuliani can claim accolades for knowing that he could successfully prosecute Hillary Clinton for selling protection to UBS, then I will claim accolades for knowing I could successfully defend Hillary Clinton on those particular charges.

Damning information about Hillary Clinton ‘leaked’

I’m “leaking” damning information about Hillary Clinton right here.

If you have read anything I’ve written in the past, you would know that at times I’ve been soft on Clinton. Albeit, I have made it clear that she is a neocon who belongs in prison. My issue is with the duplicity of Republicans. I believe it’s a mistake to throw energy and resources into defeating a neocon with another neocon who may even be worse than the one being defeated. As bad as Hillary Clinton is, it’s very possible Donald Trump ends up being worse. If a person supports torture, as does Trump, that person is a neocon. Just because one opposes the use of torture, while commendable, doesn’t make the person not a neocon.

To save the world, I have decided to “leak” some very damning information about Hillary Clinton which should cause her to lose the election. No. I don’t support Trump. I support Gary Johnson. Hopefully, this information “leak” will help Gary Johnson defeat Clinton. Unfortunately, many Americans miss crimes carried out as a matter of policy that are “hidden” in plain view. It’s like people become myopic as they search for the esoteric. Some people even cheer on matter of policy crimes as they quarrel over sexual exploits and lewd comments. This means my “leak” most likely won’t have the intended effect.

Hillary Clinton has supported the failed drug war. Not only does she support the drug war, which is a price support mechanism for the medical and pharmaceutical industrial complex, she also supports the government’s war for mandatory drugs from the medical and pharmaceutical industrial complex. I’m not saying using marijuana is good, but by what right can the government jail somebody for voluntarily using marijuana while psychiatrists at the VA promiscuously prescribe a plurality of dangerous drugs simultaneously to veterans? I’ve said before that veterans may live longer by not receiving care at the VA. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/family-of-marine-who-died-at-wisconsin-va-center-files-suit/2016/08/29/ef4a6948-6e54-11e6-993f-73c693a89820_story.html If you actually care about what happened to that Marine and his family, you are the “bad” one who the VA tries to drug. The drug war has never been a war against drugs, but for certain drugs. How drug warriors can speak with a straight face while simultaneously advocating throwing more money at the VA is breathtaking.

It was Bill Clinton’s administration that first implemented the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, which was going to inoculate all military service members in all four branches and in both active and reserve components. Hillary Clinton did nothing to stand up for the troops. Instead, she supported mandatory vaccines for the troops, just like she supports mandatory vaccines for the people. It would be bad enough for local and state government to compel people to take vaccines. But there’s absolutely no excuse for the federal government to compel people to take vaccines. Vaccines shouldn’t even be a federal issue, period.

On a peripheral note, when I opposed the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program under Bill Clinton in 1999 and 2000, I was considered a “right wing conservative” for doing so. But a few years later, when the Bush administration resurrected the same program, I was considered a “left wing liberal” for opposing the same exact policy. If that doesn’t crystallize how fraudulent the political paradigm is, then I don’t know what would. That’s what happens when people conflate conservatism with supporting Republicans while failing to exchange in real ideas.

Some have argued that the government can order troops into battle, and so, too, can it order troops to take vaccines. Some have compared mandatory vaccines for the troops to wearing body armor. But let’s not forget that the anthrax vaccine, when forced on the troops, was a completely experimental vaccine. I’m far from the only person who believes the government was violating the law by compelling troops to take the anthrax vaccine. Senator Richard Blumenthal authored similar opinions while he served as Connecticut State Attorney General. See: Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal Statement On Anthrax Vaccine.

Furthermore, there’s enough anecdotal evidence to conclude that the anthrax vaccine isn’t safe. Formal evidence is hard to come by, because the very authorities who compile that evidence have deliberately ignored the evidence. There are so many examples of service members who were once healthy, but then ended up with health problems or even died posterior to receiving the anthrax vaccine. One particular case that sticks out in my mind is that of Rachel Lacy, an African-American, whose story I read about at the time. I even spoke to her father briefly to extend my condolences. Unlike politicians in Washington, I actually care about the troops. See: http://www.upi.com/Father-of-dead-soldier-claims-Army-coverup/37551060294351/

Even in combat, the goal is to survive. Everything done during combat is designed to mitigate risk while amplifying strength. If you are on the battlefield, you don’t try to make yourself a bigger and easier target. Even if you disagree with me about the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine, for sake of argument, let’s say the anthrax vaccine isn’t safe. Would it be wise to compel the troops to take something that is detrimental to their own health? How would enhancing risk be tantamount to wearing body armor, which is designed to mitigate risk?

Even if you believe vaccines are safe and effective, there’s no legitimate reason for any level of government to compel people to receive vaccines. If vaccines are safe and effective, people will voluntarily receive vaccines. There is no need for the government to create market demand. Military service members are no exception to this rule.

By using the force of law to compel people to receive vaccines, this undermines safety and efficacy. Why? It disconnects sustenance from the satisfaction of consumer demands. The most efficient quality control mechanism is having to meet a profit-and-loss test on the free market, where firms have to earn income by satisfying consumer demands. With compulsory vaccines, consumers haven’t the power to rein in products of inferior quality.

Vaccine manufacturers have been granted liability protection from the government. That makes it impossible to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable in any way whatsoever. Under no circumstances should an industry that enjoys liability protection be able to force its products on consumers. If one is going to support compulsory vaccines, they should at least oppose liability protection. Or if one is going to support liability protection for vaccine manufacturers, they should at least oppose compulsory vaccines. On a peripheral note, guess what justices support liability protection for vaccine manufacturers? See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-vaccine-ruling-parents-cant-sue-drug-makers-for-kids-health-problems/ But we “need” Republicans to control the government so they can push through their Supreme Court picks!

Why reduce the matter of health down to vaccines of questionable safety and efficacy? If one is going to accept the health police, then at least be logically consistent. There should be no debate about whether or not vegetables are good for the health. Why not compel people to eat vegetables? After all, poor diet could make one more susceptible to communicable diseases and consequently a “health risk”. That the government would rather compel people to take vaccines of questionable safety and efficacy than compel people to eat vegetables should make it self-evident that it has nothing to do with advancing health. What would be the reaction if I ran for POTUS and advocated compelling people to eat vegetables? Of course, there’s no money to be made in compelling people to consume something that can come from non-politically-connected sources.

If we’re going to have a health police, why not ban risky sexual practices rather than turning them into protected civil rights? That’s not my position, to make clear. I’m merely illustrating the paradoxical nature of permitting risky sexual practices in the name of upholding civil rights, but then trampling civil rights by denying people choice over what goes inside of their bodies. I’m saying if we’re going to have the health police, then be logically consistent. It’s politically correct to compel people – including gays – to take vaccines that may be unsafe and ineffective, but it’s politically incorrect to compel people to abstain from risky sexual practices.

There is no such thing as the public health. There is the health of individuals. If vaccines really work, then all one must do to be protected is to take the vaccines. Those who choose to remain unvaccinated would pose no risk but to themselves.

Not only is there no legitimate reason to compel people to receive safe and effective vaccines, but there’s an abundance of evidence that vaccines are actually unsafe and ineffective.

Medicine isn’t an empirical science. Medicine is a science based on historicism, not empiricism. Orthodox medicine certainly has its value, especially in the area of acute trauma. Orthodox medicine might be very good at fixing broken bones. But does that mean we have already discovered the most effective way to fix broken bones? Should we discount the possibility that one day somebody might develop an even better method to fix broken bones?

If ten people receive the polio vaccine and none of those ten people contract polio, the medical establishment will tell you that’s because of the efficacy of the polio vaccine. But the real question is what would have otherwise happened to those ten people had they not received the polio vaccine, with all other variables remaining static? There is no way to go back in time and see what would have otherwise happened. That’s why medicine is based upon historicism, not empiricism. One can show correlation, but not causation. Pursuant to the calculus employed by the medical establishment, one could likewise blame every illness a vaccinated person has on vaccines.

I had to receive the first three shots out of the anthrax vaccine series shortly before my End of Active Service date in the Marine Corps. My unit’s policy was to make us start on the shots even though we were about to get and I was so close to getting out that two of the shots I received were administered after my final physical. Posterior to receiving the anthrax vaccine, I ended up with some health problems. I have learned from first hand experience that nobody is keeping track of adverse reactions. If I hadn’t filled out and submitted a VAERS report, it wouldn’t have ever happened. I can assure you that medical authorities aren’t studying adverse reactions to vaccines.

The best response I have received from doctors in the VA medical system is that they aren’t there to discuss the anthrax vaccine but to deal with the health complaint. When a local television station in Minneapolis ran a story on my experience with the anthrax vaccine in 2001, the reporter contacted the VA medical facility and asked if anybody there knew anything about the anthrax vaccine. The response? Nobody knew anything about the anthrax vaccine. Simultaneously, it was all over in my VA medical records that I was somehow delusional and/or psychotic for believing the anthrax vaccine could precipitate health problems! In fact, I have a memo from early 2000 that literally says the VA needs to start a psychosocial profile on me ASAP because I believe squalene was put into the anthrax vaccine. It really was!

For writing a commentary like this very one, people at the VA would love to try to push some dangerous psychiatric drug on a veteran. At the very least, conflate any question of vaccines with some type of anxiety disorder. That’s how the place operates, which is why I haven’t been to the VA in nine years.

Medical practitioners will also use circular reasoning to ignore adverse reactions. Rather than letting the data determine the statistics, they use faux statistics to manipulate the data. Early on, there were times I was told that there is no way any of my health problems could be from the anthrax vaccine because there’s no evidence (i.e. the statistics don’t show a problem with the vaccine) to indicate the vaccine causes health problems. Therefore, there was no reason to even consider a nexus and document the health problems, passing the information onto the proper medical authorities. That was early on, before the product insert had to be redacted showing a much higher adverse reaction rate and before more information came out because the truth could no longer be contained.

I have been vaccine free since I had to receive the anthrax vaccine in 1999. I’m pleased to report that I don’t get the flu vaccine and I don’t get the flu. Conversely, I have heard people tell me that they knew somebody who had gotten a flu vaccine and then became incredibly ill or even died. Like my experience with the anthrax vaccine, I am told that nobody seemed to be keeping track of these adverse reactions.

On a peripheral note, the biodefense stockpile for the United States, which includes the anthrax vaccine, is numbered 666. I’m not making this up. Don’t believe it because I say it. Go look up the information yourself. You can even go to the website for the biodefense stockpile and look up different vaccines and check out the stockpile number. See: http://www.biopharma.com/ From that website, go to the Product database link towards the top of the page. In the search box at the top of that next page, type in US666 (just like that with no spaces). Click on any of the vaccines that come up. Scroll down to the bottom of the page under Regulatory/Status Index. I don’t mean to sound eccentric, but just wanted to throw this tidbit of information out. Even if you aren’t a believer in Christianity, isn’t that enough to make you pause before getting a vaccine?

When Hillary Clinton supports mandatory vaccines, she is defending the indefensible. Anybody who believes the government ought to compel people to receive vaccines is supporting fascism and the violation of people’s human rights. This makes Hillary Clinton unfit for the White House. The only question is does her support for Senator Richard Blumenthal atone for, and offset, some of her past transgressions? I don’t believe so, because I don’t believe she has done an about face on mandatory vaccines. Gary Johnson takes the position that upholds civil liberties and human rights. He’s the only candidate who has said he would shut down any part of the federal government. The government in Washington is after our rights in a plurality of ways. It’s a criminal organization that must be wiped out. We are under attack, and I believe Gary Johnson is the best candidate to mitigate these attacks.

Good people don’t vote for Jeff Sessions

Senator Jeff Sessions recently said that good people don’t smoke pot. Keep in mind this is the same Jeff Sessions who has campaigned with Dick Cheney and very recently with Donald Trump, both of whom are adamantly pro torture. In this commentary, I make the case that good people don’t vote for Jeff Sessions. To make clear, I’m not defending pot use, as it impairs cognitive function, engendering Sessions-style thinking. It’s Dick Cheney – not me – who is nexused with major drug smugglers.

Let’s start with this axiom: an accusation isn’t tantamount to guilt. To say that only terrorists will be denied habeas corpus and tortured would require evidence of guilt anterior to the use of torture. The alleged purpose of torture is to extract evidence. Pre-existing evidence defeats the alleged purpose of torture. More importantly, torture is unreliable to collect valid information.

That the United States government can do whatever it wishes to foreigners runs contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Just because citizens of, say, Canada are not protected by the United States Constitution does not permit the United States government to confiscate the firearms of Canadian citizens. The Constitution follows the government wherever it goes. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and right of habeas corpus applies to foreigner and American citizen alike.

When I was in the Marine Corps, I was not only taught that torture is illegal and that Marines don’t torture, but also that a prisoner of war is sacred. POWs are not to be tried for conduct on the battlefield. Upon conclusion of a war, POWs are to be released.

In the present paradigm, the United States is at war against terrorism. It’s akin to having a war against sin. Sin will always be with us. So, too, will terrorism. There’s no finite enemy and a “war on terror” can never be won and is never ending. Terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement matter, affording suspects due process without demolishing the rule of law. Anything other invites encroachment by the government upon the rights of American citizens.

The “war on terror” is global, which includes the United States. Keep in mind the definition of terrorism seems to be more dynamic than static. I happen to support the Second Amendment. There does seem to be somewhat of an anti-Second Amendment trend and I could see how one day if you believe in the Second Amendment, you could be accused of being a terrorist. Pursuant to Jeff Sessions’s calculus, if you’re accused of being a terrorist then you should be waterboarded until you confess to being a terrorist. The Second Amendment is not safe without the Fifth Amendment and vice versa. Those two Amendments mutually support one another.

Some people might remain skeptics. But think about this. If the government is to completely demolish habeas corpus and implement a domestic torture program, what would the government want to do first? Disarm the people. There are politicians who really do want to disarm us. That’s not a conspiracy theory. Once guns are banned, is it inconceivable that gun owners could be declared terrorists? There are politicians who really do support torturing accused terrorists and denying them habeas corpus. That’s not a conspiracy theory.

It’s unfortunate that so many alleged conservatives are unable to recognize that denying accused terrorists habeas corpus is incompatible with small government conservatism. Many conservatives are too cognitively deficient to figure out the injustice of creating a new class of prisoner that doesn’t quite match the definition of a POW or a terrorist suspect. They are POWs without any rights in a never ending, global war.

But not only that, many conservatives believe an accusation is tantamount to guilt. Conservatives embrace the idea that anybody the United States government decides to capture and accuse of being a terrorist is one, therefore it’s morally acceptable to torture the accused into confessing to crimes while denying the accused the right of habeas corpus. Even if this treatment is reserved exclusively for foreigners, it’s still reprehensible. Torture is wrong when foreigners do it to American citizens and it’s wrong when American citizens do it to foreigners.

The use of torture makes battlefield opponents much less likely to surrender, thereby jeopardizing the safety of troops in harm’s way. Practicing torture undermines the legitimacy of the government itself. How can any reasonable person justify a government that practices torture incarcerating people over much more minor and technical infractions of statutory law? Let’s not forget that innocent people died under Dick Cheney’s torture program, i.e., they were murdered. Pursuant to Jeff Sessions’s calculus, pot smokers are worse than torturers and murderers. In other words, it’s okay to jail pot smokers while torturers and murderers remain free.

Torture is notoriously unreliable for collecting legitimate intelligence. Torture is an effective tool to extract false confessions. Denying accused terrorists due process, using tactics that result in false confessions, is something that terrorists would do. Terrorists kill and torture people extrajudicially. Terrorists don’t like due process. I believe that politicians who seek to jettison due process are themselves terrorists. Therefore, I am accusing many politicians, including Jeff Sessions, of being terrorists. Pursuant to Jeff Sessions’s own calculus, an accusation is tantamount to guilt. It’s why good people don’t vote for Jeff Sessions.

A prediction on police body cameras

As if there’s no problem that can’t be fixed with a government program and money, President Obama is requesting funds to equip police officers with body cameras in order to curtail police brutality. If politicians in Washington told us they needed to fund a government program to make certain the sun rises in the morning, you could take it to the bank the sun will stop rising in the morning.

One reason I am opposed to President Obama’s idea is because the Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to exert this kind of control over local LEOs. Even if funded and initiated entirely at the local level, I would disagree with the government usurping the role of private citizens.

Historically, government has been incapable of holding itself accountable. The video of Eric Garner’s murder demonstrates the inadequacy of cameras as a means to achieve accountability. Body cameras are not the end-all solution to a morality problem and could engender a false sense of security for the citizenry. I’m all for private citizens having the right to record police, and it’s they who need to hold government accountable. I also support the right of individual police officers to record themselves in order to defend against spurious accusations. But a government camera will hold police accountable to the government, not the people.

If the government’s track record is any indication, body cameras could worsen the problem of police brutality. To believe that body cameras, imposed on officers by a flawed system, will morph bad police officers into good ones rather than good ones into bad ones requires a certain amount of naivete.

Consider the case of Eric Garner. His murder was captured on video – the evidence is about as empirical as it can get. The murderer will not be held accountable. Contrast that case with the case of former police chief Willie Lovett. See: Supporting the police who enforce Sheldon Adelson’s racket. For doing the right thing, Lovett is going to jail.[1] The trend is not for the government to administer justice but to drive up its cost (i.e. drive up the cost of a “bribe” or protection). My rule is to look for the means to further that trend in every political plan.

How will body cameras impact officer discretion? Suppose an officer wants to be courteous by not enforcing an unjust statute – say, letting somebody off with a warning – will that officer be unable to deviate from policy? I believe it will be less likely that body cameras will be used to curtail brutality than to enforce compliance with prevailing policies, which will compel the use of unnecessary force.

I see the proposal for body cameras as the new front line in the battle for our civil liberties. If the plan for police officers proceeds, this will be merely the first step of an Orwellian scheme on steroids. Here’s my prediction: The program, if implemented, will only metastasize. Why not compel everybody to wear cameras? If people have nothing to hide, then why not? If we can place body cameras on police officers, why can’t we “help” veterans by compelling VA employees to wear them? (I would be opposed to such a scheme.) Why not compel all government employees to wear body cameras to ensure they are properly executing their duties? We will then have one huge government full of employees being held accountable by the government.

But then what do I know? Pursuant to the VA, everything I wrote above would no doubt be charted as the manifestation of extreme delusional thinking. Perhaps I can overcome this “delusional” thinking by getting with the program and calling for cameras on all government employees (jestingly). And then the government will be able to ensure VA employees comply with prescribing dangerous psychiatric drugs to veterans for having impermissible beliefs (e.g. believing the profit and loss test on the free market is the best way to ensure accountability to consumers).

[1] – Lovett’s “crime” (he had no victims) was functioning as a de facto tax collector independent of the regime, while Garner’s assailants were functioning as de jure tax collectors on behalf of the regime. From these two cases, one might conclude that violating policy to protect liberty without inflicting injury upon anybody is a greater “crime” than is needlessly taking a life if done in service to the state.

Supporting the police who enforce Sheldon Adelson’s racket

Recently, Senator Harry Reid criticized the Koch brothers for being motivated by the pursuit of wealth while defending his nexus with the billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Senator Reid’s apologia of Sheldon Adelson is that Adelson is not motivated by the pursuit of wealth. Adelson doesn’t seek money. Money seeks Adelson. See: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/harry-reid-don-t-pick-on-sheldon-adelson

Let’s start with this axiom: there’s a distinction between what’s illegal and what’s criminal. In other words, just because something is illegal pursuant to statutory law doesn’t make it a criminal act. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it lawful or moral. In many instances, enforcing a statute is itself a criminal act. When the government does whatever it wants, that’s called lawlessness.

Gambling is not a criminal activity. If it were, then Sheldon Adelson has a lot of explaining to do. If something is a criminal activity, it shouldn’t be legal under any circumstances. The government ought not selectively grant permission to people to rape one another through a licensing scheme.

I’m not saying gambling is a good thing to engage in, but it shouldn’t be illegal. Gambling is legal in Nevada and on Indian reservations. Apparently, the former police chief of Savannah-Chatham, Georgia, agrees with me that it would be immoral to enforce anti-gambling statutes. For that, he is now being prosecuted. See: http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2014-06-05/former-savannah-chatham-police-chief-indicted-federal-gambling-extortion

Former Savannah-Chatham Metro police chief Willie Lovett is being prosecuted for having taken payoffs from an “illegal” (i.e. non-government-accredited) gambling enterprise to not enforce anti-gambling statutes. He received money in exchange for protecting the enterprise from the LEO that he ran. Repealing anti-gambling statutes would remove the demand for the protection services sold by the former police chief.

Let’s establish another axiom: as Murray Rothbard saliently articulated, bribery isn’t inherently wrong. When an employer pays an employee to work, that employer is bribing the employee. If somebody pays a neighbor to mow their yard, that person is bribing the neighbor to mow their yard. If somebody pays somebody to murder somebody, that’s totally immoral and criminal and needs to be stopped. The consequential issue is not that a person paid somebody to do something. The consequential issue is what the person paid to have done.

In the case of Willie Lovett, his “transgression” was in not enforcing anti-gambling statutes. From a moral point of view, it would be wrong to jail people who voluntarily engage in a victimless activity. Unless somebody was forced to gamble against their will, it makes no sense to call gambling a crime. From an economic point of view, shutting down the gambling enterprise would not be in the interest of the local government. Instead, it would make more economic sense for the local government to leave the enterprise intact and collect taxes – kind of like what the former police chief was doing. Objectively, the former police chief is being prosecuted for behaving like a tax collector rather than a kidnapper.

Prosecuting Willie Lovett for doing the right thing by not enforcing unjust statutes against gambling makes sense only from the point of view of Nevada casinos. Objectively, Nevada casinos benefit by having the federal government wage a war on gambling in other jurisdictions. The real racketeering is the prosecution of Lovett, suppressing competition for casinos in other parts of the country.

Pursuant to Sheldon Adelson, statutes against online gambling have nothing to do with his own economic interests. Instead, online gambling exploits vulnerable people. To prevent that exploitation, people should travel to Las Vegas and visit one of his casinos. See: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-adv-adelson-online-gambling-20140521-story.html#page=1

But then Adelson does say that he’s in favor of gambling. It’s just that online gambling he’s against. Then perhaps Adelson can use his political pull to help repeal anti-gambling statutes in Savannah-Chatham and then cover the legal defense of the former police chief. Or does he only support the police who enforce his racket?

My problem with Brian Sandoval, Mike Montandon, and Governor Jim Gibbons

My intention in this piece isn’t to make the constitutional case against Arizona’s immigration law – i.e., appeal to authority. Suppose the law is constitutional, the statute still fails to pass my morality test. Instead, I make the moral case against the immigration law.

The events that took place on 9/11 have been used as a battering ram against the civil liberties of Americans. Since that horrific event, the federal government has implemented CAPPS II and the “No-Fly List.” What is the “No-Fly List” for? Supposedly to prevent terrorists from boarding flights. This is a perfect absurdity. Why would terrorist suspects be told they can’t fly? Wouldn’t – and shouldn’t – a terrorist suspect be apprehended? Apprehending a terrorist suspect would also suspend the right to freely travel, which means it isn’t necessary to suspend particular freedoms without due process of law.

It is self-evident that the “No-Fly List” was never aimed at terrorists. Indeed, politicians, political activists, and tax delinquents have all ended up on the list. Objectively, their right to freely travel has been suspended contra legem. Travel restrictions are the hallmark of totalitarian governments. Does anybody remember the Berlin Wall?

Now, in the name of stopping the “brown peril,” right wingers agitate for deporting Mexicans and building fences. In light of the travel restrictions already in place, it would be a legitimate concern that a border fence and heightened border security can be used to trap people in – a far more dangerous prospect than living amongst individuals who don’t carry their federal papers.

The populist indictment of immigration is that immigrants “drive down wages.” Not true. This argument dovetails with arguments in favor of minimum wage law. The welfare-warfare state drives down wages. The problem is not the immigration, but the welfare state. Furthermore, let’s take this argument to its logical conclusion: capital controls.

The government could inflict injury upon every employer of Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal). However, this would do absolutely nothing to create or save a job. If employing inexpensive labor at home is curtailed, this begets one of two possibilities: the job is destroyed altogether, or the employer flees the country altogether.

What next? Criminalize capital flight? Pursuant to the statutory case against hiring illegal immigrants, the de jure case for capital controls is already in place. If it’s illegal to hire an illegal immigrant at home, then why is it legal to do business with “undocumented” workers abroad? (In that case, one becomes the de facto employer of foreigners living abroad.) For the sake of logical consistency, outsourcing should be criminalized. All international trade and commerce should be criminalized. Let me remind you that if the government can trap capital in, it can trap people in.

How would I approach this issue? Let property rights prevail. If two people wish to engage in peaceful, voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange, whose right is it to interfere? That somebody is an “illegal alien” is a faux concept constructed by statutory law. Unlike politicians and bureaucrats, most Mexican immigrants hold real jobs. (Maybe we should deport politicians and bureaucrats instead.) I will never again travel through Arizona until that law is repealed.

Recently, I was down in Puerto Vallarta. It’s a beautiful place and Mexicans are some of the most wonderful people on the planet. When Americans travel to Mexico, they see themselves as – and are treated as – tourists. When Mexicans come to the United States, Americans see them as invaders. I plan on moving to Puerto Vallarta. Don’t forget that there are plenty of American expats living in Mexico. Just wait until the Mexican government goes tit for tat and decides to expel American expats. And what would Americans say if Mexicans decided to do just that to the gringo? Maybe I’ll take that idea to…”my Congressman in Puerto Vallarta” (I say that jestingly). Let’s send all them silly Americans back to…Arizona.

Puerto Vallarta is peaceful. The crime is along the border. Why? The drug war, which empowers drug cartels by fueling demand for cross-border transportation. Last time I checked, there are no problems with cigarette smugglers at the border. End the drug war and you end the violence.

Liberty Economics © 2016 Frontier Theme