Liberty Economics

Laissez-Faire News & Commentary

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: 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:

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: 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: 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.

Alan Keyes hits, Pat Buchanan misses

Let me preface this by noting that once upon a time, I chauffeured Pat Buchanan. I have no natural animosity towards Pat. It’s my objectivity that compels me to call Pat out for his economic nationalism. While Pat has been promoting economic quackery, Alan Keyes has been blazing a trail for liberty.

Here’s a snippet from a recent commentary written by Alan Keyes:

Like Mr. Trump’s instinctive opposition to North Carolina’s so-called “bathroom bill”; his desire to alter the GOP’s principled platform position on respect for the unalienable right to life; his disregard for the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s reference to persons, without regard to citizenship; and his eager disregard for the implications of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against compulsory self-incrimination and the Eighth Amendment’s intolerance for cruel and unusual punishment (which, taken together, more than eliminate torture from the list of actions the government can constitutionally perpetrate against persons not even accused of a crime), Trump’s willingness to consider William Pryor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court contradicts the principled, conservative course he now promises to take with respect to judicial appointments. -Alan Keyes, see: (bold text added for emphasis)

It was very refreshing to read Alan Keyes echoing exactly what I have been saying about torture (e.g. waterboarding, which Republicans claim isn’t) ever since I first learned of its use in 2004. This isn’t about Trump bashing or a personality contest. This is about the Constitution and standing in protest to its demolition. If the government can torture a confession out of a person, damning the Fifth Amendment, then the entire Bill of Rights be damned. Alan Keyes also makes a great point about not only does Trump advocate torturing people, but people not even accused of a crime. Until somebody is legally and officially charged with a crime to be granted habeas corpus, then that person hasn’t yet been officially accused. Thank you, Alan Keyes, for supporting and defending the Constitution. Alan hits a homerun. One thing I really appreciate about Alan Keyes is he really understands how abortion and the devaluation of human life begets things like torture.

Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan has been writing commentaries like this one: Several months ago, I wrote a mock endorsement of Trump. See: Little did I realize just how my satire would foreshadow a commentary by Pat Buchanan – only Pat is serious. For those who may laugh at me or believe I’m somehow inaccurate in what I write, it looks like I may get the last laugh.

Nobody distilled Pat Buchanan’s nonsense more skillfully than did my friend William Norman Grigg. Below is WNG’s response to Pat’s commentary:

As I learned from reading the fascinating (and, of course, self-serving) autobiography of heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, the expression “Great White Hope” was paired with the description of Johnson as “The Black Peril” — not because of his morally dissolute lifestyle, which he shared with many white athletes, but because of his incontestable dominance of a sport that was seen as the defining test of manhood.

If a black man — especially one who was literate and flamboyantly individualistic — could best a white man in a mediated boxing match, the myth of innate white superiority would be impossible to sustain. Johnson’s merciless beating of Jim Jeffries in 1910 set off race riots in cities across the country in which dozens or scores of people were killed, most of them blacks who were beaten, shot, or had their throats slit as punishment for being uppity in the face of resentful whites.

In Uvalda, Georgia, a vengeful white mob laid siege to a black suburb, lynching three people and driving many more to flee for their lives into a nearby forest. In Mounds, Illinois, interestingly, a black police officer was killed trying to defend persons and property against four local black residents who wanted to celebrate in much the same fashion as the white mobbers in Georgia.

When Jess Willard, the titular “Great White Hope” of Buchanan’s scabrous essay, beat Johnson in Havana five years later, white tribalists treated this as the validation of the social order, rather than the victory of one remarkable athlete over another. Willard was seen as symbolically beating back the dusky-skinned hordes whose mere presence in society was a threat to white dominance, which — it was feared — couldn’t survive in a society in which whites and non-whites were allowed to compete freely against each other.

That is the core complaint being made in Buchanan’s unabashed endorsement of what *he* sees as the white nationalist essence of the Trump campaign.

Yes, state-imposed schemes like affirmative action have done considerable damage to the economy and to civil society, and must be destroyed root and branch. But that consideration is ancillary to Buchanan’s central complaint — namely, the presence of “Scores of millions of third-world immigrants, here **legally** and illegally, who depress U.S. wages,” and the fact, as he sees it, that “The world has been turned upside-down for white children” because the education system and popular culture no longer validate the idea of white dominance.

Buchanan is an economic ignoramus, but even he must understand the role played by the Federal Reserve in destroying the middle class. People of any origin or description who perform honest work at agreed-upon wages are not the culprit here, and since the collapse of the Fed’s last speculative bubble nearly ten years ago immigration from Mexico has declined precipitously. But then again, Buchanan objects to *legal* non-white immigration, because he seems to think the United States should be a state-enforced safe space for white nationalists. -William N. Grigg

You got that? Pat is cheering on Trump for wanting to create a state-enforced safe space for white nationalists – literally. And people believe libertarians are extremists? Pat Buchanan swings and misses with his brand of race based mercantilism. Objectively, protectionism is state intervention to manipulate capital flows (i.e. capital controls). It’s marketed as a means to remedy capital outflow, yet capital outflow is a symptom of a disease called statism. Capital flows don’t determine economic conditions. Economic conditions determine capital flows. What Trump seeks to impose on the United States would be referred to as sanctions if imposed by any other government on the United States. Trump’s economic policies will actually precipitate an exodus of capital. While Alan Keyes has been echoing me on defending the Constitution, Pat Buchanan has been echoing my satire that demolished his calculus.

Rex Tillerson is a true patriot

Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s priorities are a bit inverted from a constitutional and legal perspective. Ms. Lynch has directed the FBI to investigate Exxon Mobil for not parroting climate change propaganda. See: Not only does the cartel want to enforce its price fixing scheme, but it wants to criminalize dissent.

While threatening people and companies with sanctions for dissent, torturers and war criminals who pose a serious threat to the national security of the United States remain free. Why are we seven years into the Obama administration and Dick Cheney remains free? That the Obama administration has failed to prosecute war criminals, committing new war crimes, is precisely why Obama bears some responsibility for Donald Trump. The real amnesty scandal that nobody in Washington is debating is amnesty for war criminals. Lynch is the quintessential example of Murray Rothbard’s law that people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. She’s one of the worst barristers in the country, so she becomes the Attorney General.

I’m reminded of a plea from a Congressman I saw many years ago encouraging people to report price gouging at the gasoline pump. If somebody saw a gasoline price that deviated upwards from some “normal”, they were encouraged to report it to some hotline. Simultaneously, there are regional committees that enforce regulations against undercutting on the price of gasoline. In other words, the real purpose of the central planners was to enforce the same price.

There’s only one reason to set similar prices amongst vendors, and that’s not to curtail price gouging, but to fix prices upwards. The market will naturally punish price gouging, driving gougers out of business. How so? If a vendor is selling gasoline 5 or 10 cents higher than other gas stations, that vendor will lose market share to other vendors. If somebody sees higher prices on the same gasoline, don’t call a hotline. Buy the cheaper gasoline. Furthermore, how do we know what vendors are price gouging and what vendors are undercutting? If half the stations have a price that’s lower than the other half, is one half price gouging or is one half undercutting?

That price gougers can’t succeed in the free market is why cartels must rely upon government intervention and support. All participants must raise prices in synchronization with one another. The moment one participant begins to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand, the entire cartel begins to collapse. The problem for the cartel is that even if all participants set prices pursuant to the price fixing scheme, vendors can’t short inventory at prices above what consumers are both willing and able to pay. Higher prices beget fewer consumers, diminishing the volume of sales.

The campaign against fossil fuels has nothing to do with saving the environment. It’s all about price fixing by erecting barriers for oil producers that benefit the big oil producers and big “green” energy companies that can’t compete against fossil fuels. It’s about the restraint of trade to curtail competition. Not only is it about price fixing, it’s about waging war against humanity. Restricting the supply of energy is most injurious to the poor. On one hand, the government offers subsidies to people with low income. On the other hand, the government pursues policies that raise the cost of living.

The key to an economic recovery does not rest in Washington. The key to an economic recovery is to put Washington through a recession. Any efforts by politicians to con you into believing they’re stimulating some kind of economic progress – again, bribing you with your own money – by promoting one form of energy or another should be detected as a ruse.

Some politicians have gone “green” in the name of curtailing “dependence on fossil fuels” and “foreign oil”. It’s a sham. Why not promote a certain type of underwear in the name of curtailing dependence on a particular foreign brand?

The fundamental problem is that most politicians and central planners view the economy as a blob to be manipulated, rather than a complex capital structure involving individuals making choices in exchanges, a process of production, and a price mechanism.

Last year, the United States imported about 4.5 million barrels of oil per day more than it exported. The reason why the United States is so dependent upon foreign oil is due to policies that have already been put in place. The solution, then, is to repeal and correct these policies – not creating new legislation.

Artificially low interest rates, brought on by loose monetary policy at the FOMC, drives capital overseas (by deploying unearned income from a printing press, disconnecting consumption from production, capital is also consumed). Capital naturally gravitates to cheaper, more efficient, higher-yielding economies. Rather than generating revenue and income, the nation spends beyond its means. That’s the short explanation. I hate to spend time belaboring the long answer, because I have already done so in previous commentaries.

Look at it like this: if a person, firm, or nation is dependent upon inflationary credit expansion (as opposed to credit expansion out of savings), then that person, firm, or nation is insolvent and inefficient. We are spending beyond our means, which – yes – engenders dependence upon cheaper markets to supply us with production.

If you want to reduce dependence upon foreign “anything”, then the Fed has to tighten, forcing up interest rates, and Washington has to abandon the spending orgy. Dollars that have been accumulating in foreign reserves will then come flowing back into the domestic loan market, begetting lower interest rates.

I know “clean energy” sounds so nice, so attacking it is very “environmentally-incorrect”. I will put everything I possibly can into layman’s terms. Let’s start with the following axiom: we consume energy in everything we do. If you’re that environmentally-conscious, you shouldn’t be online reading this right now because you’re using electricity which is consuming energy. That’s why I’m confident that everybody reading this agrees with everything I write in this commentary.

Solar energy sounds so nice. After all, it comes from the sun. But let’s not forget that there is a process of production. Take, for example, the solarization of a house. Solar energy requires panels, charge controllers, batteries, inverters, etc. And then let’s not forget capital asset depreciation. Energy is consumed during the process of production.

If “clean energy” has a positive yield, then it will be profitable and private enterprise will pony up the capital. The government need not encourage this. If “clean energy” has a negative yield, then this means that it is unprofitable and dependent on so-called “dirty energy” for its sustenance. It would be akin to consuming 1,000 blueberries for every 500 you are growing – nobody in their right mind would pursue that course absent government subsidies. Somewhere, you have to make up the difference.

I’m not arguing that solar power is necessarily inefficient, but that the market will naturally produce the most efficient and cleanest forms of energy. It’s the pursuit of profits on the free market that engenders efficiency. It’s government intervention in the marketplace that engenders inefficiency and the needless consumption of resources. Government subsidies enable firms to produce inefficient energy. By mandating inefficiency, only those with political connections can compete. Conversely, sound economic policies enable firms to supply efficient forms of alternative energy absent government support.

This leads me to the following axiom: the most profitable and economically-efficient form of energy, within the construct of the unhampered market, is also the cleanest form of energy. Also, pretending that global warming is real, does this mean we should rely upon government coercion to solve the problem? Cancer is real, but that doesn’t mean we should trust the government to run our healthcare. Rather than saying end our dependence on oil, if you support “clean energy” then you should be saying end our dependence on government intervention.

The best ecological hygienist is the unhampered market. Suppose a logging company owns a forest. That logging company can clear-cut the forest, say, tripling immediate income. However, this must be weighed against diminishing future income, or the capital value of the forest as a whole. Suppose, however, this is government property. This calculation no longer needs to be made, and the objective is going to be rapid extraction of resources.

No shocker, then, that government is the biggest abuser of the environment and waster of resources. Look at the atomic weapons tests done in the Nevada desert – and right on top of our own military service members. Or think about the government’s war policy, which both major parties support. Last time I checked, there are no CAFE standards on tanks. How are exploding munitions good for the environment?

The government does not sustain itself by satisfying consumer demands, but through compulsory taxation. Government subsidies to, and control over, industry diminishes the need to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand. Why? Because sustenance is no longer dependent upon having to satisfy consumer demands. Sustenance is disconnected from the satisfaction of consumer demands.

It’s the price mechanism that ensures resources are allocated and managed efficiently. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of the unhampered market, allowing for producers to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand (i.e. market-clearing prices). The scarcer the supply, the greater the demand, the higher the price. Consumption runs inversely with prices.

Government subsidies distort prices, interfering with the price mechanism, and cause prices to be set above, or below, market-clearing prices. There is a paradox in government policy in that the government encourages consumption without production (in the name of demand-side stimulus), tells us that we should conserve resources, while simultaneously punishing “price gouging”. Within the construct of the unhampered market, there can’t be price gouging any more than there can be wage gouging, since vendors can only short inventory at prices consumers are both willing and able to pay.

Prices send signals to entrepreneurs, telling them where to deploy capital. Prices tell entrepreneurs what to produce and what not to produce. Prices tell consumers what to buy and what not to buy. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of an unhampered market. There’s no need for the government to encourage or discourage the use of any kind of energy. And let’s not forget that tax credits are subsidies camouflaged as tax cuts. A tax credit merely allows a person to use a portion of their income for a specific purpose (i.e. indirect subsidy). See:

I write as a native-Minnesotan. Minnesota is one of the states that mandated the use of ethanol-blend fuels. I only purchase ethanol-blend fuel if there’s no other option. I will not purchase anything over E10. It’s “cheap” for a reason: it’s inefficient.

Only can politicians get away with turning efficient food into inefficient fuel. If politicians keep at it, we will soon be filling our automobiles up with corn and drinking motor oil. Maybe after installing those solar panels, the government can begin shooting those pollution particles – which supposedly ”clean energy” is designed to diminish – into the atmosphere in order to block the sun and “save” us from “global warming”. Sounds like the perfect plan. One only a politician in Washington can dream up. See:

As I wrote almost a decade ago, we will soon not only be dependent upon foreign sources of fossil fuels, but also so-called “clean energy”. That’s came to pass. Unfortunately, it was due to misguided policies coming from Washington.

It’s time for somebody to investigate Loretta Lynch for working on behalf of a price fixing cartel. If the government wants to threaten people for speaking truth, that will only prompt me to speak truth even louder. If the FBI wants to investigate truth, good. They’re more than welcome to ask me any questions. Somebody needs to look into the benefits of free markets – and take another look at 9/11 for that matter. I don’t care how tyrannical the government in Washington becomes, I will continue to stand up to an out of control and lawless government. The more tyrannical that government in Washington behaves, the greater is the fiduciary responsibility we all have to speak truth. Rex Tillerson is honoring his fiduciary responsibility as an American.

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.

Donald Trump will implement capital controls

Recently Donald Trump unveiled a plan to proscribe remittances sent to Mexico. See: Amazingly, remittances sent to Mexico were characterized by Trump as “de facto welfare”. Pursuant to the Trump calculus, money earned through productive work in the private sector is synonymous with welfare.

The purpose of Trump’s plan is to pressure the Mexican government into taxing its citizens in order to fund a border wall. In other words, Donald Trump wants to implement capital controls in order to get the Mexican government to pay for his cronies to build a border wall, which somehow isn’t considered to be welfare.

If Trump plans to impose capital controls in order to build a border wall, why believe a border wall wouldn’t be used to impose capital controls? With legislation like Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act that passed in 2010, why believe it would be used for anything other than trapping people and capital into the United States? Yet we are supposed to believe that Trump’s capital controls would be used only against immigrants and until the Mexican government ponies up the capital to build a border wall, at which time Trump will cease being a menace.

Supposedly, Trump’s plan will be limited to immigrants (somehow making it a good thing). Arbitrage has a funny way of holding lawless regimes in check. Desperate governments do desperate things, and if we can justify curtailing capital outflow to Mexico in one instance, then why not in every instance? By treating honestly earned money on the free market as “welfare” that the government can seize, this will discourage immigrants from performing honest and productive work. No matter where dollars earned flow, productive work is a benefit to the economy.

I didn’t have to read about Trump’s plan to know that Trump would impose capital controls. As I wrote back in 2010, immigration restrictionism taken to its logical conclusion is capital controls. See: The populist indictment of immigration is that immigrants “drive down wages.” Not true. This argument dovetails with arguments in favor of minimum wage law as an effort to fix wages. The welfare-warfare state drives down wages. The problem is not the immigration, but the welfare-warfare 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. If the government should proscribe remittances, then why not proscribe Americans from traveling to Mexico and paying Mexican nationals for goods and services?

Let me remind you that if the government can trap capital in, it can trap people in. Try leaving the country without your capital. If immigrants aren’t permitted to send money to Mexico, then how can they be expected to leave the United States? This means that Trump has, almost paradoxically, devised a scheme to trap immigrants into the country. Coming to the United States will be akin to checking into a roach motel. Furthermore, remittances to Mexico would curtail emigration from Mexico. This means curtailing remittances to Mexico would encourage emigration from Mexico.

We are being told that protectionism and capital controls are used to protect us, to protect our jobs. In reality, capital controls are a makeshift effort to remedy capital outflow engendered by loose monetary policy. Capital naturally gravitates toward cheaper, higher-yield, more efficient economies. The only way to repatriate capital is for the central bank to stop inflating, force up interest rates, and return to sound money. If we pursued the right economic policies, people would voluntarily keep their money in the United States. If the government in Washington seeks to curtail capital flight, then stop fixing prices and stop using the central bank to suppress interest rates.

Not only will capital controls not work, capital controls will beget greater problems. If we reject the free market argument against capital controls today, then the resulting chaos will be met with demands for tighter controls tomorrow. Trump’s plan is to turn the United States into an open air prison. Trump’s plan will actually precipitate an exodus of capital.

How would I approach the matter of immigration? 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. It’s time to legalize immigration. I say we deport politicians and bureaucrats instead.

John Piper contorts the meaning of Romans 13

John Piper, who has done some great work rebutting Word-Faith doctrine, takes a position on guns and the state that I believe is inconsistent with Scripture. See: In his commentary, he contorted the meaning of Romans 13. Objectively, he leads believers to amorality by using the “might makes right” interpretation of Romans 13. Pursuant to Piper’s calculus, an entity that calls itself government is ipso facto ordained by God because it has power and calls itself government. But not only that, non-believers would have a monopoly on the use of force if we followed Piper’s advice, since only non-believers would be armed.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

As we can see, verse 1 tells us that there is no legitimate power outside of that which comes from God. This says nothing about everybody who wields power on earth having God ordained power. If a big man knocks down a little old lady and steals her purse, he certainly had power over her. But did he have God ordained power? There’s legitimate power and illegitimate power. Verse 1 is saying that if God hasn’t given you power, then you have no legitimate power. The true source of power is not a secular civil government, but God. Might doesn’t make right.

Far from begetting lawlessness, this is all about lawfulness, recognizing that even governments can do wrong. There’s a higher power than civil government. Verse 1 tells us we are subject to higher powers. As Christians, we have an even higher standard than manmade statutes. Just because something might be legal doesn’t mean we should indulge.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Many government statutes conflict with Biblical Christianity. I don’t mean the failure to proscribe all sinful behavior with statutory law. I mean that there are unjust statutes that proscribe non-criminal behavior, mostly for the purpose of enforcing some type of price fixing scheme. The government in Washington engages in evil as a matter of policy. There are many instances in the Bible where somebody defied civil authorities in order to carry out the Lord’s work. The Apostle Paul even spent time in prison. Nowhere is verse 2 implying that we must obey whatever civil government commands.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Verse 3 actually defines legitimate, God ordained power. But by verse 3, it’s too late for John Piper. Why? His position is that Romans 13 is talking about secular civil government, and that we are to obey whatever it commands. In which case, there’s no room left for making moral decisions. Piper is stuck in a paradox. No longer is Scripture the authority, yet he uses Scripture to make the case that civil government is the authority. Piper needs to make up his mind. Do we appeal to Scripture or civil government to determine right and wrong?

And if there be no room left for making moral decisions, then why does verse 3 define legitimate power in such a way that requires us to discern the difference between good and evil? As verse 3 informs us, legitimate power must be a terror to evil, not good works. In other words, if it isn’t a terror to evil while buttressing righteousness, then it has no legitimate power. To the extent civil government complies with God’s teachings, then it ought to be obeyed. Statutes proscribing murder ought not be disobeyed.

Piper’s theology implies that there’s some sphere of life God is disinterested in or indifferent towards, as if He isn’t concerned about the righteousness or wickedness of governments. Yet, if Romans 13 is properly understood, it becomes self-evident that God is very interested in how righteous or wicked is the government.

For sake of argument, let’s run with the idea that Romans 13 is talking about secular civil government, and that it must be obeyed at all times. Pursuant to that calculus, it would be a sin to overthrow the government. But if a group of people succeeded in overthrowing the government and became the new government, then it would be a sin to disobey that new group of people. In that paradigm, might makes right. Or suppose the government banned the Bible and criminalized Christianity. Do we obey? If so, pursuant to what? Romans 13?

Or when it comes to war, I can’t think of a more compelling case against war than John Piper’s interpretation of Romans 13. After all, if secular civil government is sacred, then wouldn’t it be a grave sin for government leaders in one government to try to topple government leaders in another government? Think about it. Saddam Hussein was the government leader in Iraq. That implies he was ordained by God with power. He would have been the only one who could legitimately use any kind of deadly force in Iraq, and people were duty bound to obey him. And then it would imply that government leaders in the U.S. government committed a sin by attacking the God ordained government in Iraq. Or is the only government God ordained with power the one in Washington?

This begs the question: why aren’t men like John Piper calling out the government for its wars against other governments, the latest of which is taking place in Syria with the U.S. trying to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad? That’s right. We are supposed to submit to whatever the government does, even if it leads into a paradigm of paradoxes and contradictions.

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Romans 13 isn’t even talking about ungodly civil government. It’s talking about ecclesiastical governance, which has been usurped by secular civil government. It’s not saying we are duty bound to pay taxes to secular civil government. It says tribute to whom tribute is due. Custom to whom custom. This is where believers are compelled to use discernment, applying a Biblical worldview, in order to determine who has legitimate authority and who doesn’t. It’s not hard for me to discern that the government in Washington is a criminal organization that ought to be resisted by all believers.

Pacifism and self-defense aren’t mutually exclusive. There is nothing about defending human lives that’s antithetical to a spirit of Christian love. We must use discernment. Just because somebody wrongs me in some way doesn’t mean I retaliate. Our mission is to be effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. We ought not relish the opportunity to take a life. The goal should be to never take a life. But we do have a responsibility to protect human life. Romans 13 makes it clear we must be a terror to evildoers and buttress righteousness. Even if you aren’t a Christian, would you prefer godless, anti-human, amoral agents with guns, or people with the love of Christ? I can think of nothing that would make us all safer than if every Christian were armed. As Christians, we have a responsibility to own and carry firearms, that we be able to defend not just ourselves, but others. John Piper is evading his responsibilities.

Why I support Donald Trump

Let’s face it. Immigrants are destroying America. Some of them come here and commit crimes. But just as bad, a lot of them come here to work and steal our jobs. The Asians especially like to come here and work. Why is it every Chinese buffet I go eat at is ran by Chinese people? Not only are our jobs going to China, but the Chinese are coming here to steal our jobs! The only candidate with a serious plan to protect our economic wellbeing from these job stealing immigrants is Donald Trump.

There’s a narrow group of people who call themselves libertarians who say that immigration restrictionism won’t create or save jobs. I beg to differ. Donald Trump wants to create a deportation force. Just think of all the jobs he would create to round up and deport immigrants!

Overall, Donald Trump is on the right track by campaigning against arbitrage in the labor market. He just doesn’t go far enough. I mean think about it. By restricting immigration to the United States, the aggregate supply of labor hasn’t really shrunk. Lower cost labor is still available, but in other countries. The only way to truly shrink the labor pool – which everybody knows is the way to lift wages (not increasing productivity) – would be to bomb everybody in every other country. Donald Trump needs to get serious about bombing China back to the stone age, or else his campaign against arbitrage will be wholly ineffective.

Curtailing the ability of companies to purchase lower cost labor here in the United States would merely encourage companies to move their business abroad. Therefore, to effectively combat arbitrage in the labor market, Donald Trump has the right idea with a border wall. We need to implement capital controls so that businesses can only hire white males here in the United States and nobody else. If that means building border walls to trap people and capital into the United States, so be it! It’s time for a Berlin Wall of North America. Keep in mind that if we trap capital in, we trap people in. Try leaving the country without your capital!

If you are in business and somebody is selling the same product or service you are, but at a cheaper price, in the old days this would be settled with baseball bats. Now price fixing is so much better. We can just use government – militaries and police forces – to harass and imprison and maybe even kill our competitors! People even cheer on the price fixing schemes! At the very least, we can use government run healthcare to diagnose free market advocates who support a smooth functioning price mechanism as mentally ill. My favorite Chinese buffet is low priced compared to other restaurants, which just isn’t fair. All the more reason we need Donald Trump.

I really like Donald Trump’s waterboarding plan. That could create a lot of jobs at the Central Intelligence Agency. I myself would be very interested in one of those positions as an Enhanced Interrogation Specialist. When I was in the Marine Corps, I was brainwashed into believing torture is contrary to the law of war. But I am overcoming that brainwashing. We all know an accusation is tantamount to guilt and, just like Donald Trump, politicians get everything right and there could never be any mistakes. How can anybody claim waterboarding is bad without trying it on somebody once or twice? Only terrorists would disagree with Donald Trump’s waterboarding plan. It’s about time they be waterboarded.

I really appreciate the way Donald Trump wants to execute Edward Snowden. Only traitors would try to expose government wrongdoing. What would we do without the NSA protecting us? I mean we could end up with political figures openly plotting to implement torture programs becoming POTUS or something! I say we waterboard Edward Snowden before executing him. And what an awesome idea that is to wall off a torturing police state!

One thing that really pisses me off about China is the way the PBC has been devaluing the renminbi in order to cheat on trade. Everybody knows low prices are bad for the economy and devaluing the currency is the way to boost exports. It’s not like if China tightened that would create even more lopsided arbitrage opportunities and precipitate capital outflow at an accelerated pace due to loose monetary policy by the Fed. People just stop shopping completely if prices are too low. Donald Trump is so right on economics. Now he needs to call on the Fed to devalue the dollar by increasing the money supply a good four or five fold. Pour on the inflation so that we can take those jobs back from China! What’s really killing our economy is trade with China. China is killing us. Damn China for buying our dollars. We need to erect trade barriers so that American consumers can’t buy anything from other countries like China in juxtaposition with the Fed staying loose. Keeping the Fed parked in neutral in juxtaposition with implementing a protectionist package is such a great idea!

Of course, I write in jest to demonstrate the absurdity of Donald Trump’s platform. For some great rebuttals of Trump’s fallacies, I will be posting some links right here in the near future.

Open letter to Donald Trump

Dear Donald Trump:

In your op-ed to the Wall Street Journal, you tell us that China unfairly uses currency manipulation as a weapon against the United States. In other words, pursuant to you, renminbi devaluation is tantamount to an attack on the United States. (For the readers, see: )

Objectively, your complaint about jobs “going” to China and China “cheating” on trade can be reduced down to you have a problem with China buying dollars. How, pray tell, are jobs “going” to China other than the fact that dollars are going to China? How and why, pray tell, do dollars go to China? Your problem is with trade. To me, the tea party looks to be Bushism plus protectionism, which actually makes Bushism look good in some ways. The tea party is smuggling neoconservatism past the electorate by amalgamating it with protectionism, and marketing protectionism as patriotism.

You say nothing about dollar devaluation. From what I can tell, you want the Fed to stay loose, but you don’t want China to buy dollars. Having the Fed stay loose in juxtaposition with protectionism is very dangerous. You are ignoring the underlying problem while advocating more intervention to try to mitigate the symptoms.

I’ll assume that you are an honest person and that you are genuinely confused, rather than a delusional criminal like so many people in Washington. Your confusion has begotten error, and error begets error. As I articulated in a previous commentary, you are inverting the flow of capital. It seems like that might be the genesis of your error. See: 151111

Prevailing economic orthodoxy tells us that dollar devaluation is good for exports. But it’s impossible to devalue the dollar to manipulate exchange rates without impacting any other prices. It might be true that devaluing the dollar will enable renminbi holders to purchase a greater quantity of dollars, but it will require a greater quantity of dollars to purchase goods and services in the United States. Therefore, real prices haven’t been lowered for renminbi holders whatsoever.

Now let’s switch around dollar and renminbi holders. It might be true that devaluaing the renminbi will enable dollar holders to purchase a greater quantity of renminbis, but it will require a greater quantity of renminbis to purchase goods and services in China. Therefore, real prices haven’t been lowered for dollar holders whatsoever.

Suppose the PBC stays tight while the Fed stays loose. That would create even more lopsided arbitrage opportunities, in which case capital will flee to China even faster. The old axiom about buying low and selling high is true, except in the world of central banking and the bond market. But do you really expect China to buy dollars while the Fed stays loose in perpetuity? Far from China being an adversary, China has helped postpone the day of reckoning by buying dollars.

Suppose the PBC loosens. Far from giving its exporters an advantage, it would actually give its exporters a disadvantage. If the Fed stays loose, China’s best course of action for its own national interests would be to tighten and decouple from the dollar (not unpeg, but decouple). Should Washington have the exclusive right to “print” the world’s “gold”?

The idea that we can repatriate capital by adjusting nominal tax rates in juxtaposition with the Fed staying loose is a delusion. Does scapegoating China for our economic problems make it more or less likely you would be able to attract Chinese capital if you were POTUS? If you really want to repatriate capital, then you should be demanding the Fed tighten and force up interest rates.


Mark Alvarez

Closing up legal gaps

Recently, a Department of Justice spokesperson spoke about the need for “closing up legal gaps”. In this commentary, I make a case for closing up some legal gaps. Consider this my way of assisting the Department of Justice.

During boot camp, I was taught that torture is contrary to the law of war. My basic human instincts inform me that torture is immoral. My Commandant, whom I’ve had the privilege and honor of meeting, is opposed to the use of torture. See: Statutory law proscribes torture. See: The Constitution proscribes torture. See: and Unlike politicians in Washington, I’m not so cognitively deficient that I can’t read.

Call me an extremist, but I believe torture is illegal and has been illegal for quite some time. I’m against torture. Torture is an attack on due process. I support due process rights for everybody, including for politicians. Contrary to what Hillary Clinton said last year, we need no new statutes proscribing the use of torture. What Richard B. Cheney and George W. Bush did was contra-legem then and it’s contra-legem today. Richard B. Cheney incriminated George W. Bush by publicly stating that George W. Bush authorized torture. This is very serious misfeasance that must not go unpunished. I believe both Richard B. Cheney and George W. Bush need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They should have been on the docket years ago. There are several politicians in Washington who support torture. They need to be arrested immediately. That’s a legal gap that must be closed.

There’s another gargantuan legal gap that must be closed. Pursuant to the calculus used to indict Jesse Benton, I see no reason why Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, and almost every other politician in Washington can’t be indicted.

Jesse Benton was indicted because he paid former Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson around $70,000 to switch his support from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul. In other words, Jesse Benton has been indicted for vote buying.

If ever there were a compelling case for jury nullification, this is the quintessential example. It looks to me like one of the offenses was failing to disclose the payment, and that’s one of the charges. In other words, at least one of the charges was not for the payment itself, but that the payment wasn’t disclosed in FEC reports. But I’m uncertain what the exact underlying crime as alleged by the state is, since the state files a plurality of charges pursuant to a plurality of statutory narratives derived from the same underlying offense – a practice I believe is a detour around the legal principle of ne bis in idem.

It appears to me that the underlying offense which engendered the indictment is vote buying and/or bribery. As Murray Rothbard saliently articulated, there’s nothing inherently wrong with bribery. If you pay your neighbor to mow your yard, you’re bribing your neighbor. When an employer pays an employee to work, the employer is bribing the employee. If somebody pays somebody to kill somebody, that’s criminal and should 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. Is supporting and/or voting for politicians a criminal act? That it’s illegal to fail disclose a payment for an activity that’s legal is inexplicable.

If you voluntarily choose to exchange your own property (i.e. money) with somebody in order for that person to vote for a certain candidate, no matter how just the cause, that would be called “vote buying”, which is illegal. See: and However, candidates running for office can promise largesse from the public treasury (i.e. other people’s property) in exchange for votes, and that is perfectly legal. What is the objective difference, other than the latter inflicts far more injury since it is robbery?

What about government workers, government contractors, and paid campaign staffers? Could their votes possibly be motivated and influenced by financial incentives? The irony is that Kent Sorenson was, objectively, being bribed by the Bachmann campaign before he was bribed by Jesse Benton, et al. I guess if you sell your vote to a common man, whose interest may even be just, that is bad, but selling your vote to politicians who buy your vote as a matter of policy is fine. Politicians can bribe us with our own money, but we can’t bribe them with our own money.

Jesse Benton has been indicted for buying the vote of one person with funds raised on the free market. But politicians buy votes of millions of people with taxpayer money. Voters vote themselves subsidies (i.e. sell their votes) with impunity, as that’s perfectly legal. Not only that, we have no idea who’s selling their vote because voting is done by secret ballot. In essence, politicians have a legalized vote buying monopoly. Department of Justice needs to get a handle on this by indicting everybody – save a few – for the corrupt campaign practice of promising largesse from the public treasury.

Until we see some indictments of politicians like Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, then I’m compelled to agree with Paul Craig Roberts, concluding that the Department of Justice is a criminal organization. I have a fiduciary responsibility to stand up against injustice. The biggest national security threat to the United States is Washington. It would be in the best interests of the United States to avert a constitutional crisis by installing Rand Paul as POTUS immediately and sending the neocons in both parties and in government on a one way trip to Syria. Until then, any of the criminals in Washington are free to surrender to me.

MSNBC supports Congressman Joe Heck

MSNBC has a piece that proves what I wrote many months ago to be totally correct. MSNBC helped construct Joe Heck’s conservative credentials which were otherwise non-existent. See:

Last December, I wrote a piece undressing the bipartisan sellout, explaining how the establishment left and establishment right are firing blanks at one another. Not to claim accolades, but I did so about as well as anybody. See:  How right was I in what I wrote back in December? It wasn’t too many days later that the CRomnibus bill passed with Joe Heck’s approval.

One method the establishment uses to misdirect its opposition is to “attack” a faux opponent, helping to construct opposition credentials for an insider. While the establishment media will criticize Joe Heck, how often do you read about, say, Congressman Walter Jones? You see, criticizing Congressman Jones would be placing real opposition on stage.

The Welfare-Warfare Party maintains its death grip on the body politic by ensuring the stage is occupied by actors, and only actors. People who play-act like they are opposed to omnipresent government. Politicians who do things like call Social Security a ponzi scheme, to then later recant, helping to discredit the very idea. By singling out Joe Heck, MSNBC is helping to select members of the “opposition”, keeping the stage occupied with actors.

The word conservative implies an ideology. An ideology implies ideas. While people can disagree on what’s conservative and what isn’t, it’s impossible for two contradictory ideas to both be conservative. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be. Today, our political lexicon is a bit different. The word conservative has been used so promiscuously that it no longer has any objective meaning, other than wanting to grow government at a slightly slower pace than the other party – or maybe just in slightly different ways as the other party. That makes conservatism, at best, a relative position, impossible to define absent the presence of politicians like Harry Reid.

I can assure you that Joe Heck is doing nothing to downsize government. The points of criticism aren’t even nexused with reality. Josip Tito would probably be considered too “laissez-faireish” to MSNBC. In MSNBC’s paradigm, no matter how big government Joe Heck is, he can always be portrayed as a far right conservative. How? All that’s necessary is for Harry Reid to move further to the left than he was the day before. And since conservatism isn’t a stationary anchor, he tows big government Republicans like Joe Heck right along with him.

No wonder Harry Reid now runs around claiming that women not only have the right to get abortions, but to do so with other people’s property through taxpayer funding. I myself have written about how taxation undermines property rights, and how property rights are nexused with civil rights. The exact inverse of being a taxpayer is being a tax consumer. The exact inverse of being a tax consumer is being a taxpayer. If failing to grant somebody taxpayer subsidies is oppressive, pursuant to Harry Reid, then how much more so must it be to actually impose a tax? Does this mean Harry Reid is secretly with me on the issue of taxation?

Suppose I started some Republican version of Planned Parenthood. Rather than promoting abortion, say I promoted torture. After all, if torture works at bases overseas then I’m sure it would work right here at home to curtail crime. Suppose I started an organization called, say, Committee to Repeal the Fifth Amendment. There’s an issue Republicans like Joe Heck would agree on. I could even make Joe Heck the spokesperson, since I’m sure he could do a much better job at explaining why the Fifth undermines our security. Clearly, the framers had no idea what they were thinking by putting that Amendment into the Bill of Rights (facetiously). Would I be entitled to taxpayer funding for my organization? If I don’t get taxpayer funding, would that mean I’m being oppressed? Pursuant to Harry Reid’s calculus, yes.[1]

Of course, there is no right anybody has to taxpayer subsidies. Don’t believe that Harry Reid uses taxpayer money to fund abortion because Harry Reid cares about women’s rights. Harry Reid uses taxpayer money to fund abortion because Harry Reid is a eugenicist – a lot like Dick Cheney and Adolf Hitler.

In order to subsidize somebody, that requires taxing somebody else. But don’t expect the delusional criminal Harry Reid to sit down and confront these paradoxes in his paradigm. There’s no reason for him to do so, because Republicans like Joe Heck aren’t trying to stop him because they need him. Without Harry Reid, it would be impossible to see just how “conservative” Joe Heck is by supporting slightly smaller government. Joe Heck is a “conservative” only by juxtaposing himself with Harry Reid. Politicians like Joe Heck and Harry Reid are mutually dependent upon each other for survival.

This piece on MSNBC is not only an example of how the establishment left and right collude by fabricating credentials for one another, but it’s an excellent example of the gentlemen’s agreement between the two parties to not engage on the right issues. We’re supposed to keep ourselves occupied by discussing immigration, which is the same diversion used in 2010. The misfeasance of both parties is too great for either one to engage on the right issues.

If Democrats were serious opposition, they wouldn’t be helping Republicans buttress their support amongst the conservative base. Instead, they would be trying to cut into Republican support by exposing Republicans for being big government statists. It’s very easy to do. They can start by pinning Republicans like Joe Heck down on the issue of torture, which is an attack on due process.

If Democrats were serious opposition, they could be using arguments like the one I put forth in this piece right here:  I can’t think of a more compelling argument, from a libertarian perspective, for a big government Democrat in certain races to bring about divided government than the one I make. But in order to make the argument it requires disrupting the political paradigm. If you believe I am mistaken, that I am getting something wrong, then why won’t they listen to me? Why am I ignored?

Democrats could easily explain that as long as Republicans control the House, a Democrat controlled Senate can’t spend one dime absent the consent of Republicans. That undermines the hollow argument for Republicans from a free market perspective. And then they could capitalize on issues like torture, explaining why divided government would be preferable to a homogeneous government consisting of a neoconservative Republican White House, Senate, and House. Why isn’t that happening? Why is MSNBC, an ostensibly left wing organization, not making that case? Why does it seem as if the establishment left is on the verge of throwing 2016 to a neoconservative Republican supermajority?

If it isn’t Democrats supporting the murder of babies, then it’s Republicans supporting the use of torture. I’m convinced that the two parties have some kind of gentleman’s agreement on how politicians will support different evils, so any good a politician supports is offset by being amalgamated with evil. This makes it impossible to stop evil within the two party system. A Republican can be good on abortion, but then deviates on torture. Or a Democrat can be good on torture, but deviates on abortion. Both parties have given us a gigantic menu of different evils to select from.

Evil is smuggled past the electorate by being amalgamated with goodness. But the problem is we never get the good. Compromise doesn’t imply that Democrats abandon their support for abortion and Republicans abandon their support for torture. No. Instead, compromise implies we end up with both baby murdering and torture – torturing of babies even. Democrats abandon their opposition to torture and Republicans abandon their opposition to abortion. When they do raise objections to torture or abortion, it’s demagoguery to score political points, while the program is left intact and accountability remains elusive. Compromise means we end up with both a big welfare state and a big warfare state. Congressman Joe Heck will do nothing to stop the program of metastasizing government and hold people accountable. MSNBC knows that, which is why he has been selected as their “far right opponent”.

[1] – There actually is an organization the Republicans want to fund with taxpayer money to not just promote torture but to practice torture: the Central Intelligence Agency.

Liberty Economics © 2016 Frontier Theme