A LITTLE REBELLION

End The American Caliphate

The usual neocon chickenhawks in the media have been using the revolutions in Egypt and across the Middle East to once again bring out the "radical jihadist Muslims are taking over the world and establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate" bogeyman (Juan Cole has a great article on the anti Muslim Brotherhood paranoia).

My first response to this nonsensical fear-mongering is usually: what about the American Caliphate? For decades, the US government has used bombs, bribes, sanctions, coups, and assassinations to influence and control Arab governments and to get Muslims to bow down, kiss the ring, and submit to the might of the American military empire.

All of this is done, of course, in your name and with your tax dollars.

Muslims, like all of us, just want to be free and have a stake in the future of their own communities, cities, and countries, not live under the heel of a foreign power. As Laurence Vance at the LRC blog writes:

I note that the cry of the Muslim masses in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East is not for Islamofascism, global Islamic conquest, a global Caliphate, the worldwide establishment of Sharia law, a new holocaust, suicide bombers, and terrorists attacks, but for more freedom—something they supposedly hate us for.

But, some would say, their idea of freedom is not real freedom. Oh, then they must be Republicans.  Like Republicans in the United States that claim to believe in freedom as long as it is not the freedom to use incandescent light bulbs, smoke marijuana, and purchase Sudafed over the counter.

Instead of fretting over some nonexistant global Islamic conspiracy, we Americans could actually take a lesson from these Muslim (and Christian) protesters in Egypt. They gathered by the hundreds of thousands in peaceful protest, sick of Mubarak's torture-police-state.

Meanwhile, here in "the land of the free," our torturers and police statists get standing ovations and book deals, our government runs up trillions of dollars of deficits, and Congress re-extends the PATRIOT (haha) Act with barely a whisper.

Islamic Caliphate? We need to end the American Caliphate, DC's domestic and international killing, taxing, and looting empire.

The Bread-and-Circus Racket

I had an epiphany this weekend, and have seen the error of my anti-state ways. The United States of America, this bastion of freedom, truly is the indispensable nation. We are the world's sole superpower, policing the globe with warships and bases that liberate oppressed peoples and bring stability to a chaotic world. We are the new Rome; except Pax Romana was just an ancient and hollow shell compared to the near-holy blessings of Pax Americana.

After watching the Super Bowl yesterday, how can you blame me? Before the game, an over-serious spot ran where Colin Powell reminded Americans of our precious heritage and values. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, sealed in glass (like a dinosaur in tar or a mosquito in amber), sparked revolts against "a foreign tyranny" and laid the foundations of our Republic. Powell should know; he burned villages to the ground in Indochina in the name of these documents.

But they were just getting warmed up. Before kickoff, not one, but TWO state-and-war worshiping nationalist anthems were sung, while occasionally panning to the fatigued cannon fodder stationed in God knows where, soon to lose limbs for Lockheed Martin and their minds for Madam Hillary.

And then the jets. Ah, those theftillion dollar killer machines, wowing the crowd as they fly inches away from each other, spewing out tax dollars while some Americans are losing their homes and starving on the streets. Flags wave, medal-covered generals hold their hearts, and the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Can you blame me for being sucked into this madness? Instilling the citizenry with chest-swelling patriotism is, of course, the intention of this huff-and-puff racket. America is strong and mighty. Nothing to worry about, folks, it's all being taken care of by the experts. Freedom. Democracy. Pound it it in there, pound it in good to keep us coming back to those voting booths and consenting to our serfdom, begging for a longer leash or some free goodies.

Don't get me wrong. I love football, and I have ever since I can remember. I grew up watching old clips of Johnny Unitas inventing the audible, Gale Sayers making every one miss, Montana to Taylor, and then witnessed Young to Rice, Kurt Warner put on a show, and Brett Favre break every record there is.

But it has turned into the bread-and-circus of the Romans, the gladiator games on steroids (literally). An excuse for the state to show-off, to remind every one of the immense power at its disposal, and condition subservience. The Roman Empire passed out bread, the American Empire subsidizes it. The Romans sacrificed Christians and other slaves, we sacrifice our liberty and soverignty in tax-slave funded stadiums.

This year's state circus really seared into me as I came to the conclusion that every little aspect of American life is now soaked with military themes.The quarterbacks are field generals, leading his soldiers into battle. And like the actual soldiers we "support" with cute bumper stickers, their post-retirement trauma and injuries are swept under the rug. Man up, soldier, this is WAR.

You can't escape it. Military recruiters invade schools and lie to kids, promising them money and showing them war-soaked video games. Stores have "military discounts." Nearly every month has a holiday directly related to war, and even on religious holidays, we are reminded to "think of the troops who have died for our freedoms." Highways and streets are dedicated to killer generals. And nearly all of the money confiscated from us at gunpoint, or the threat of gunpoint, gets swallowed in the Pentagon's bloody vacuum.

Especially after 9/11, the event that "changed everything." You can see it in the language. The President is the "Commander-in-Chief." We now live in "the homeland," fighting "crusades," "long wars," and "existential threats." Torturing people to death becomes "enhanced interrogation," or what the Nazis called "Verschärfte Vernehmung." A million Iraqis liberated of their lives become "collateral damage." Raining death and destruction like cowards from the sky is "shock and awe." Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

And as George Orwell reminded us, the state's manipulation of language not only frames the debate in the state's terms, but are tools for power expansion. Since the Department of Bombing People Into Submission, or as some call it, "the Department of Defense," is busy liberating the world, there emerges the Department of Terrorizing Us Into Submission. I think Janet Napolitano refers to it as the Department of Homeland Security, but it really is little more than a large government program designed to wear down Americans' spirits by imposing draconian restrictions on liberty. Resist, and we'll only clamp down harder. Passive acceptance is the goal.

Scratch that. Passive acceptance is an unworthy emotion to the state, an institution that from it's Pharaonic inception has wanted to be God. Not even submission will do, for it is a jealous God. We are supposed to love our illusions of freedom and representative government, to embrace our chains, to risk our lives in foreign countries for its glory. This is why words like "courage," "honor," and "bravery" are attached to being ripped in half then flown home in a box covered in the red, white, and blue. It is the ultimate honor.

Just don't tell to that the dinner tables with an empty chair or the toddler without a dad or the parents who have to bury their son instead of the other way around. Or what about the ones that come back (barely) alive? So what if they can't sleep, go insane, can't get medical treatment, or are permanently scarred by what their medal-seeking officers told them to do? This is WAR, kill or be killed.

Whenever I ask myself: where has our liberty, the liberty that is at least theoretically recognized in the US Constitution, gone? I always find myself coming to one conclusion, the same answer I stumbled upon yesterday afternoon during the pre-game nationalistic nonsense: our liberties are buried under the weight of all this god damn state weaponry.

Buried under, both figuratively and literally. Entire cities are completely dependent on military bases for their livelihood. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Half of our incomes (the fruits of our labor, and therefore, our liberty) are stolen to build a hegemonic global empire of bases in other people's countries, a standing army, hydrogen bombs, F-22s, cruise missiles, those wonderful tools of domination.

And we are hardly safer because of it. In fact, our military-industrial-congressional-complex not only puts innocent Americans at risk through blowback, but puts the entire human race at risk. A true and prudent defense of this country would require a fraction of 1% of what the US government spends. Political neutrality, trade, and privately-owned firearms are the real defense of a free people.

But war and empire, like all government programs, must be funded by the threat of imprisonment if one does not contribute (textbooks call this phenomenon "taxation"). The state has the unique ability to offset the costs of its actions onto 300 million permanent "customers," so something so destructive of wealth and property like war comes naturally to government. People have to be compelled to pay for war; they have far better things to do with their money and would bring pitchforks if showed the actual bill of what the Pentagon actually does.

Economic liberty (and liberty in general) is antithetical to war, which is why we have so little of the former and so much of the latter.

But the circus goes on, at every professional sports event or campaign stop, uttering out the polished and euphemistic phrases that distract people from what really goes on in their name and with their money.

Buzzing jets, flag-soaked choruses, half-assed odes to "our men in uniform;" this is all window dressing and PR for the institutionalized looting, theft, fraud, coercion, and mass murder that is the modern nation-state. Smoke and mirrors, the velvet glove that is placed over the iron fist. The Empire is a lie, an empty suit, eating out the soul of the American Republic. A racket.

The US Empire, Unmasked

Watch this video about the largest wealth-confiscating, liberty-destroying government program in the history of the world: the US Empire. It truly is a monster, turning boys into killers, countries into mountains of skulls, and sucking out the soul of the last vestiges of true American liberty. War, as Randolph Bourne famously said, truly is the health of the state. 

We Need More Government

435 members in the House of Representatives is far too few to represent the interests of the people, argues Joe Wolverton at The New American. Why not 1,000? or 4,000? It would allow more common citizens to run for Congress, make statist and thousand-page legislation much harder to pass, and lobbyists and special interests would find it a lot tougher to buy off that many Congressman. We need more government!

Last Sunday the New York Times published on op-ed piece advocating an increase in the size of the House of Representatives. Not the chamber itself, mind you, but the number of representatives serving therein.The co-authors, Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens, assert that the House has “lost touch with the public and been overtaken by special interests.”

After pointing out that the current number of representatives — 435 — is set not by Constitutional mandate, but rather by statute, Conley and Stevens rightly present the cold, hard figures that strain the definition of “representation.”

First, perhaps one wonders how we arrived at the magic number of 435 to begin with. It is because of laws passed by Congress in 1911 and in 1929. At the time of the debate on the bill setting the arbitrary limit on the number of representatives, one clear-thinking congressmen made the following observation:

The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 … There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.

The opinion piece agrees:

The result [of the law passed in 1911 that set the number of representatives at 435] is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members – or 5,000 if we match the ration the founders awarded themselves.

State of the Statists

 

What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?

From Reason.TV:

 

A Real Budget Cut: Ending the Afghan War

(This is my first article as Contributing Writer for PolicyMic.com)

Now that politicians are being forced to deal with the realization that the U.S. government is nearly $14 trillion in debt, they are scrambling to find ways to tighten their belts. Congress is debating on whether or not to increase the debt ceiling and incoming Republicans have suggested trimming $100 billion from the budget.

Any substantial policy moves to address this debt will likely leave no one happy, especially if drastic reductions are made to social welfare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has a suggestion, and is patting himself on the back for vowing to cut $78 billion from the Pentagon budget. In reality, however, what these "cuts" mean is that Gates will stop increasing the Pentagon's already bloated $500 billion a year budget for the next few years. Gates' supposed "cuts" also will not decrease the amount currently being spent on U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Only in DC, Orwellian double-speak could a Pentagon "cut" that ignores hundreds of billions of dollars and multiple wars be considered progress. This immediately begs the question, considering 43% of every dollar Washington spends is borrowed: why not cut funding for the war in Afghanistan that is costing us $100 million a day?

The Afghan war is now in its tenth year, making it the longest war in U.S. history, and there is very little to show for the billions that have been spent. The justifications for staying are also becoming murkier.

According to the Obama Administration, most members of Congress, and the media, the U.S. military must stay in Afghanistan in order to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing a "safe haven" with which they can launch attacks against the U.S. But as CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted, "only 50 to 100, maybe less" Al Qaeda remain in Afghanistan. Plus, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany and Florida, which were the only "safe havens" Al Qaeda ever needed.

Not only is the Pentagon spending billions bombing an enemy that isn't there, U.S. intervention has been terribly counterprodutive. Former Afghan General Stanley McChrystal, in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, remarked "for every innocent person you kill, you create ten new enemies." Insurgent math, he calls it, and this can only lead to blowback and harm to U.S. troops.

What about the justification, held by loyal Obama-ites like Code Pink, that "women's rights" are being secured in Afghanistan by the U.S. military presence? The Revolutionary Association of the Women in Afghanistan (RAWA) would definitely object, and in a 2010 report detailed how the U.S. occupation has been absolutely detrimental for women's rights.

Even prominent conservatives, who have been staunch supporters of the war, are beginning to question it.

When held under a microscope, the reasons for staying wither under the pressure of logic and common sense. Corruption and waste are an integral part of the Afghan war, from it's pathetic justifications to the millions made by merchants of death, all of which are hitched to the backs of the American taxpayer.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security suffer similar problems; they are, after all, government programs, Ponzi schemes of debt and waste that make Bernie Madoff look like a frugal and honest businessman.

But before we cut programs that ocassionally help people, it's time to take a machete, not a scalpel, to the main source of our financial crisis: the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's military socialism, and the institutional structures of our unsustainable empire.

The Value of a Muslim Life in the Eyes of the US Empire

According the murderous and sadistic US government, Muslim deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia (and the other countries the US is sure to be intervening in) at the hands of the US war machine are nothing more than an ignorable statistic. Collateral damage, as the Politburo calls the mountain of skulls the US military leaves in its path:

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, now, as the U.S. is losing its edge economically, it has one clear comparative advantage. And that’s in killing. And it’s using it. Obama has increased the attacks on Afghanistan, Pakistan. Brookings Institution last year estimated that for every one militant, as they put it, killed in Pakistan, the U.S. drones kill 10 civilians. –Allan Nairn: As U.S. Loses Its Global Economic Edge, Its "One Clear Comparative Advantage is in Killing, and It’s Using It," Democracy NOW!, December 29, 2010

 How does The Drone Equation compare to other approved "collateral damage" equations? Well, during the Bush Administration, if a bombing strike was expected to kill more than 29 innocent men, women and children, the White House had to approve it. What would that be like . . . .

In the case of The Obama Administration, the acceptable "collateral damage" kill number has, apparently, been increased to 50 innocent civilians.

On the bright side, if you stay with groups larger than 50, the U.S. militaryindustrialcongressional complex may at least need a presidential order before it can kill you by mistake.

The Difference Between Libertarians and Republicans

I can't help but laugh at the incoming Rethugicans reading the US Constitution out loud on the floor of the Imperial Congress.

After all, these are the same guys who violated the document they swore fidelity to more times than you count expanding the size and scope of the state, as Laurence Vance points out:

So, the Republicans in the House are now promising to follow the Constitution. Does this mean Social Security and the federal minimum wage will be abolished, to name just two out of hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional federal programs? Don’t hold your breath.

I note also that Republicans in the House are going to vote on repealing Obamacare. Does this mean they will also vote to repeal Bushcare, otherwise known as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003? How about the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which makes criminals out of people who want Sudafed for their stuffy nose (see Jeff Tucker’s great article on this)? Again, don’t hold your breath.

And don’t ever mistake Republican hot air for “libertarian themes.”

But don't worry, lovers of liberty, the Republicans really mean it this time. Some of them even want to trim $100 billion* from a federal government that is $14 trillion in debt, and won't touch the trillion dollar a year empire budget of course. The Republicans are so devoted to their principles, in fact, that they just voted for the largest military spending bill in world history.

Sure, the Democrats are welfare-warfare, deficit-creating, liberty-stripping statists as well, but what is really frustrating about Republicans is that they consistently use libertarianish and limited government rhetoric in order to enact their big government policies.

But a real devotion to philosophical principle is more than just lip service and catchy platitudes. It requires the identification of the source and intrinsic cause of the problems with state power; striking the root as opposed to trimming the branches.

In contrast, here is Lysander Spooner --19th century abolitionist, entrepeuner, lawyer, essayist, and radical libertarian individualist-- concerning the US Constitution:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Spooner, and many libertarians who follow in his intellectual footsteps, see the US Constitution for what it is: an inherently statist document that gives the federal government far too much power, and those that support it as hopefully naive in thinking that a piece of paper can restrain a coercive monopoly.

The solution to the Constitutional Coup that gave our infant republic everything it needed to expand and grow into the tax-and-spend empire it is today? The Articles of Confederation.

*Predictably, the GOP is beginning to back down from this pledge, and that's just fine and dandy to former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Fascist Congressman Says America is at Risk of Fascism

In the most recent piece of irony coming out of the Imperial City, Representative John Hall (D-NY) told the New York Observer that America "is at risk of fascism."

"I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism," [Hall] told the New York Observer. "So that's really the question-- is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?"

The court decision he is referring to is Citizens United, the controversial Supreme Court ruling that led to greater corporate spending in the midterm elections, much of it anonymous. In the wake of the decision, Democrats tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have mandated that corporate donors identify themselves in their advertising, but the measure failed amid GOP opposition. Ads from groups with anonymous donors were particularly prone to false or misleading claims.

Hall said the influx of corporate money in the wake of Citizens United handed the House of Representatives to Republicans.

"The country was bought," he told The Observer. "The extremist, most recent two appointees to the Supreme Court, who claimed in their confirmation hearings before the Senate that they would not be activist judges, made a very activist decision in that it overturned more than a century of precedent. And as a result there were millions of extra dollars thrown into this race."

Congressman Hall is right, of course, but for the wrong reasons.

First of all, to claim that America is "at risk of fascism" is to say that a cancer patient is at risk of having some terrible health complications. America is fascist, Mr. Hall, and has been for decades.

Hall defines fascism as the merging of corporate and state power, and even if we use this soft and mealy-mouthed definition, all one needs to do is open up the Federal Register to see that this fascist phenomenon is not new.

Nearly every federal regulation that exists today is the result of large corporate interests using the coercive power of the state to restrict competitors. This is where licensing, tariffs, subsidies, eminent domain, and most taxation stems from.

But a more accurate and thorough definition of fascism makes Hall's comments look very unprincipled to say the least.

Fascism is more than just private-public partnerships. It is the doctrine that the citizenry be allowed to own a certain amount of property and have relative freedom to act with that property, but that every transaction, exchange, and use of that property be subject to intense state regulation and monitoring. Freedom with chains, and not very long ones either.

Using this definition, Congressman Hall is guilty of the same fascism that he hilariously decries.

Just take a look at his "legislative achievements" in the House.

He has voted to increase the minimum wage law and voted in favor of state-funded stem-cell research. Both of these propositions are fascistic at their very core: in the former, the government is violently interfering with the voluntary negotiations of individuals in the marketplace. In the latter, the government is restricting the liberty of citizens by forcing them to hand over a portion of the wealth in order to fund something they may or may not agree with.

And in Hall's most ironic act of fascism, he voted for Obama's "healthcare reform bill," a bill that was lobbied for and monetarily supported by large healthcare, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. It's as close to both definitions of fascism as you can possibly get.

So Congressman Hall, I have a suggestion. Before you pout like a little girl that you're party got pummelled in the last election because of the same dirty tricks that you and your party have employed for decades, look in the mirror.

The irony and parody that comes out of DC truly knows no bounds. It's almost like having a President who criticizes his predecessor's reckless spending while running up kajillion dollar deficits. Oh wait...

The United States of Venezuela

You ever heard of the "SDN list?" Me neither, until I stumbled upon an article at the Cuba blog about it. The SDN list (Specially Designated Nationals) is basically the "US version of Iran and China's state censorship machine."

Initially created with good intent to inform the world (and US entities, persons) of Terrorists, Rogue regimes and other wrongdoers. It slowly converted into a censorship list to block free speech on the Internet. You see, by adding a website to the list the U.S authorities could then evoke a closure order on the registrar where the domain is registered.

This, the article claims, is how the US government could possibly shut down Wikileaks.

I am still skeptical that the US government or any government could effectively stop organizations like Wikileaks entirely, but it's not for a lack of trying.

Senator Joe Lieberman has been one of the most ardent supporters of an "Internet kill switch (like China!!!!!)" and has bullied retailers like Amazon to try to starve or wound Wikileaks' access to leak information. Here is the crooked, warmongering Senator in his words advocating censoring the web:

 

And here is our Vice Emperor Joe Biden calling Julian Assange a "high-tech" terrorist.

 

Other members of the Imperial Court in DC and the Beltway media have also called for Julian Assange's capture, to be tried for treason, and even his execution.

Weaved into these calls for Julian Assange to be tortured in one of the US's many, many gulags are the calls for "net neutrality" that many in DC are supporting. Net neutrality? Who could be against that? Our government is simply just looking out for the safety and interest of all, and should be applauded for serving the public interest in this way.

But they're in good company, as the AP reports:

Chavez defends plan for Internet regulations

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez defended plans for a law that would impose broadcast-type regulations on the Internet, saying Sunday that his government should protect citizens against online crimes.

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

Government opponents and press freedom groups have been critical of the plan, saying it is one of several measures being considered that could restrict freedoms in Venezuela.

Ah, yes. The United States of Venezuela. It has a nice to ring to it, doesn't it?

UPDATE: The Chinese and the Saudi governments are calling on the U.N. to establish a world government body to "police" the Internet. There is some resistance at least, but it's good to know the US is on the side of these wonderful bastions of freedom and openness. (Via Antiwar.com)

(Not So) Happy Bill Of Rights Day!

Today is Bill of Rights day in the US, and I'm sure you have been bombarded with stories all over the mainstream media about how radical and revolutionary the first ten amendments to the Constitution are, how they were intended to preserve our liberty and provide restrictions against the power of the government. No? Ya, me neither.

This is probably because they exist solely as a remnant on a piece of paper preserved, like an ancient artifact, at the National Archives and Records Administration.

So in honor of this day, let's take a look at what they say and what they mean today in 21st Century America.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free-speech zones. Journalists who do real investigative work are smeared and attacked, and a Pravda press that repeats the state line. Sedition Acts. Peaceful protesters thrown in jail without trial. Yes, there are the John Hagees and Pat Robertsons of the world, but freedom of religion is actually one of the few aspects of the Bill of Rights that has been maintained, and the US is one of the most religiously diverse countries ever to exist. 

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nearly every state and the federal government has incredibly strict restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, from licensing to regulation of ammunition. The media manipulates the language by referring to some guns as "assault weapons." Unless you are a special state employee, of course, where you will be allowed to carry massive firepower to enforce the Empire's edicts against Arabs abroad as a soldier and against Americans at home as a police officer.

Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This one has not been really violated...yet.

Fourth Amendment:

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

Warrantless wiretapping. Omnipresent state security cameras. Entrapment by police as well as outright theft...excuse me, "asset forfeiture." The TSA. Citizens who are encouraged to spy on their neighbors and anyone acting "suspiciously."

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just ask Bradley Manning about being locked up in a cage before "a indictment of a Grand Jury" or being "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Or the thousands of immigrants deported each year by the Gestapos at the INS. Or the array of tickets, fines, and breaches of regulations that bury people in debt without due process. And every time I see a hideous strip mall or large government building, I think of the private residents that were either coerced or bullied out of their homes. For "public use" of course.

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Speedy and public trial? That phrase alone should make anyone who has ever been to court laugh out loud. But hey, I don't really blame the feds for this one. After all, can you really except a coercive monopoly to provide the speedy provision of law, justice, and dispute resolution? Or any service?

Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Sure, we technically have "trials by jury" in this country, but what about the concept that the provision of jurors is compulsory? For some great analysis on why sub minimum-wage jury slavery is inefficient (and immoral), see Lysander Spooner's "Trial By Jury" and Murray Rothbard's essay from The Ethics of Liberty on the issue.

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This one is too easy. For decades the US government has engaged in unspeakable torture, including torturing some people to death.

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In my opinion, this is the most important, though underappreciated, part of the Bill of Rights. It basically says that just because a right is specifically not mentioned in the Constitution, it does not mean that you do not have that right. Although it has been invoked to defend abortion, it was supposed to be a check on the federal government denying new rights from people on issues that emerged with time. And even if the Second Amendment didn't provide for the secured right of private self-defense and gun ownership, the Ninth does. Ditto to all the rights that have currently been stripped in the name of the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs."

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one comes in at a close second (although I'm sure many would argue it's the most important). The federal government is given a very few basic, and specific tasks, and the rests of the power belongs to us. It also justifies the right of secession, nullification, and provides the framework for a decentralized order. Unfortunately, the Fascist Lincoln pretty much declared this amendment null and void, and succeeding presidents have followed suit with the centralization of the state.

But as much as the American state has trampled all over our constitutional rights with its wars, its police state, its taxation, its top-down imposed order, this is really what the Constitution has allowed. It has been completely impotent in preventing the growth of the federal parasite. The Constitution gives the federal government waaaaay too much power. Instead of this document representing our "founding," it more resembles the coup of 1787, where the Hamiltonians established the strong-man state whose legacy we see today.

So the way I am going to celebrate Bill of Rights is by honoring the document that truly represents the spirit of the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation.

The Big Government TEA Party Caucus

They were against earmarks before they were for them. Or was it after? Who knows. The end result: $1 billion added to the federal budget.

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

What 'Free' Healthcare Looks Like

This chart that shows Obamacare's web of bureaucracy and corporatist lobbying was prepared by a Congressional committee, straight from the horse's mouth. Via LRC:

 

The Story of Spending

From FDR to Obama, this is how we got into this mess:

 

NYT Torture Euphemism Generator

Boingboing.com has discovered an easier (and hysterical) way for the New York Times to do what it does best: excuse and apologize for the crimes of the US government.

The Bailouts Are Working

It turns out that the trillion-dollar bailouts of the auto and banking industries that have been passed in the last two years are actually working.

The federal government exists to spend massive amounts of other people's money on itself and its friends, and the job of politicians is to spend this money and their time getting re-elected.

According to the Washington Post, the bailouts are serving their intended purpose beautifully:

Companies that received federal bailout money, including some that still owe money to the government, are giving to political candidates with vigor. Among companies with PACs, the 23 that received $1 billion or more in federal money through the Troubled Assets Relief Program gave a total of $1.4 million to candidates in September, up from $466,000 the month before.

In other words, the bailouts were not to "save the economy" or "save jobs," but the classic political con: spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect.

And even though the TARP program was passed under the evil Democrats, the evil Republicans are reeping the benefits:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) was a fierce critic of the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler last year, saying he could not "ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure."

But GM doesn't seem to hold a grudge.

The political action committee formed by the company, which is now largely owned by taxpayers, cut McConnell a $5,000 campaign check in September, a small piece of the $190,000 it donated to campaigns in the past month.

So let me get this straight. A vote for the Democrat snakes will give us corporatist bailouts, and a vote for Republican crooks will give us corporatist bailouts.

No thanks. This is one of the many reasons to vote for NO ONE in November.

Manufacturing Hobgoblins

I have always been skeptical of trendy panics that (intentionally?) generate mass hysteria, especially when it's brewed up by the government. When it comes to the motives of politicians warning us about "terrorism," "Islamic extremism," or "global warming," I have one simple rule: guilty until prove innocent.

Because as the great H.L. Mencken said:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary..."

And there's a quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Mencken was speaking with more than just hyperbole. Political rule is the art of manufacturing fear for the purpose of instilling controls, consolidating power, centralizing wealth and property, and expanding the size and scope of the State. A scared population is easily lead, and since government ultimately deprives its authority on the consent of the governed, resistance begins to wither.

Plus, it's downright unhealthy. Remember the big, scary "swine flu" panic? That turned out to be a predictable bust. But you can bet the pharmaceutical industry made a killing poisoning people with antivirals trembling Americans subjected themselves to because "their" government told them to. Ironically, this is the same government that waged chemical warfare by dropping the pig flu on Cuban cities.

Creating panic and disorder is what States tend to do, and in that panic,  coercive and draconian laws are passed to give the illusion of order.

Here's Dr. Mercola in a recent article concerning the dangers of antivirals and vaccines:

Following a Lancet Infectious Diseases report of the spread of a new drug-resistant superbug spreading from south Asia, news agencies have reported "panic" over the germs' possible consequences.

Writing in the Guardian, for example, editor and columnist Sarah Boseley said:

“The era of antibiotics is coming to a close. In just a couple of generations, what once appeared to be miracle medicines have been beaten into ineffectiveness by the bacteria they were designed to knock out.”

Take the issue of healthcare in our country. Last year, American public debate was dominated by President Obama's "health care reform," spewing daily scare stories about "rising prices," "greedy insurance companies," and "the uninsured." These are legitimate concerns; however, the problems of healthcare are a direct result of State intervention dating all the way back to the early 20th century, not the free market. Obama's plan? Pass a bill that was lobbied, written, funded, and supported by the ugly pharmaceutical and insurance industry that government policy (through medical licensing, subsidies, regulations ec.) created.

As Mises pointed out, State intervention is always cyclical, stepping in and "fixing" problems it is usually responsible for, and it is no coincidence that the solution usually requires restrictions and taxation. So this winter, I will avoid flu shots, hand sanitizers, or any other trendy corporatist-Statist products and do what I always do: wash my hands, rest if I get sick, enjoy my dignity and some of the last bit of liberty I have.

Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell!

It's time to finally end one of this country's greatest injustices, the US military's official policy of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to civilian casualties. Just in this century, the Empire has killed at least a million Iraqis and thousands of Pashtuns in Afghanistan, with barely a murmur from the State-stenographers in the media. This policy is intentional, of course. As war criminal Tommy Franks once said, "we don't do body counts."

Because if a majority of American were aware, or cared, about our killing fields all over the globe, they might start to question some of the nauseating cliches that are indoctrinated into our minds by State schools and the mass media. Like how the U.S. government is "exceptional," "benevolent," bringing "liberty and democracy" to backwards people everywhere.

People might just come to the conclusion that the State is NOT a public servant, but a parasitical monster, looting, taxing, controlling, coercing, and killing in service of its political interests and the interests of those who cozy up to it. This is why it spends millions of dollars every year convincing you otherwise, the manufacturing of consent.

Without these myths, without the consent of the majority of the population, the State falls apart. For the sake of peace, individual liberty, order, and the free production of goods and services, it won't come soon enough.

On a side note, I just can not comprehend the national attention given to the other "don't ask, don't tell" policy concerning gays in the military. Why would ANYONE fight for the right to participate in the slaughter and destruction of villages, cities, and entire countries, to come home with missing limbs so that Lockheed Martin's stock goes up a few points? Gays have been persecuted for far too long by governments; they deserve better than military slavery.

Ted Stevens, RIP

Now why can't this happen to the current warmongering, torturing, and looting gang of thieves  in the U.S. Senate?