Skip navigation

IRS on the Hot Seat by Jeffrey Tucker

jeffrey tucker“I have not done anything wrong,” Lois Lerner, head of the IRS’ nonprofit division, told a congressional hearing. “I have not broken any laws.” Then she invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to be second-guessed by the Congress that is supposed to be watching over all agencies of government.

Seeing the IRS grilled like this is something many people have waited for their entire lives. It’s lovely and a sign of the times (government has never been this unpopular). But contrary to Ms. Lerner, it is possible to not break laws but still do wrong things.

The truth is that there is nothing right about an agency that routinely and legally loots the public of a third of private income and presumes the right to take what is left if we, as citizens, fail to comply with every jot and tittle of the regulations.

Sadly, that is not the scandal Congress is interested in. The scandal is that the IRS seems to be discriminating against groups based on their political outlook. And truly, it is alarming to see it all so clearly and to know that the practice was so widespread. Let’s hope these hearings on Capitol Hill are part of a larger project in which Congress takes on the role of actually looking into what the government is doing to the people.

Let’s consider the larger context. In most any authoritarian regime in history, most people felt free, and they enjoyed that freedom as long as they never crossed a (sometimes invisible) line.

Talk to anyone, for example, who lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Everyone knew the rules. For the most part, the regime would leave you alone. You could go about your life raising a family, working and enjoying various luxuries. If you minded your own business, it didn’t feel anything like tyranny.

But if you became interested in politics and actually sought some kind of change in society, matters would be very different. At that point, you became a threat. You could be woken any night by a knock on the door and dragged off, never to be heard from again.

In other words, in any authoritarian regime, the main goal of the government is to protect itself from outside threats and maintain its monopoly on power. So long as you didn’t disturb that monopoly, all was well. (For more on how this works, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s The Great Fiction.)

Read the rest of this article at the Laissez-Faire Bookstore online.

Let them eat… insects by Simon Black

In what may go down as one of the most obtusely out-of-touch policy memos ever written, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recently released a paper entitled “Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.”

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf

For 171 pages, the paper argues for insect-based diets, explaining why governments should “[d]evelop a clear and comprehensive legal framework” to ensure that we all start eating insects.

So what’s the UN’s reasoning behind this? How could the organization possibly justify such an idea?

Simple. Because it’s better for the environment.

As the paper states, “[i]nsects… emit considerably fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than most livestock,” and, “eating insects is not only good for [our] health, it is good for the planet.”

Sounds disgusting, no? But it’s all good, according to the report, because the Tukanoan jungle village (population 100) in Colombia eats invertebrate insects. Therefore, so should we.

Read the rest of the article at SovereignMan.com

Is this what prosperity is supposed to look like? by Simon Black

As I’ve been traveling across Asia recently, one recurring theme I’ve been seeing are these constant headlines that ‘inflation is under control.’

Across the region, and in fact across the world, the official statistics tell us that inflation is moderate, so it’s OK to continue printing more money.

Aside from being one of the biggest scams in modern finance, there are some serious flaws with this line of thinking–

First, central bankers almost universally focus on ‘preferred’ inflation metrics which typically ignore price increases for food and energy.

This may work fine and dandy in the developed world where people often spend less than 10% of their household income on food.

But in poor countries… where the other 90% of human beings live… people can easily spend upwards of 50% on food and fuel.

That central bankers willfully eliminate these important factors from their analysis effectively ignores 90% of the world’s population. It’s disturbingly out of touch.

Being on the ground in some of Asia’s poorest countries, it’s clear that inflation has not moderated… and that tens of millions of people’s lives have been turned upside down because the price of onions and turnips and chickens has gone through the roof.

Read the rest of the article at SovereignMan.com

Billy Sol Estes: Swindler, but Outclassed by Government

estesThis morning, “notorious” Texas swindler and fraudster Billy Sol Estes was found dead in his home in Granbury, Texas. The 83 year-old man had led an interesting life, one full of success both in business and of defrauding the federal government of millions of dollars.

Despite other things he may have been involvement, those millions of dollars make Estes a hero.

Billy Sol Estes was a scrupulously moral man in his personal life, preaching against dancing and other perceived immoral behavior as a Church of Christ lay preacher, but on the other hand he is remembered mostly for his wildly successful efforts to defraud the federal government’s cotton subsidy program for millions of dollars.

Of course he is vilified for this, but what is a few measly million of dollars, which were stolen money to begin with, compared to the untold trillions of dollars seized by the federal government from individuals and companies over the years? An article at the time of Estes’ conviction stated that his paradoxical behavior was worse than that of Dr. Hyde, of Jekyl and Hyde fame, but compared to the career criminals in the federal government, Mr. Estes is almost cherubic in his uprightness. Read More »

Happy Birthday, Professor Hayek!

95d39/huch/1889/09

Today would have been Friedrich August von Hayek’s 114th birthday. While my political views differ somewhat from those of Professor Hayek’s, he was nevertheless a foundational figure in Austrian Economic theory, and is the only Austrian economist to have received a Nobel Prize (not that they mean anything anymore).

Happy birthday, Professor!

 

Sheriff Bradshaw and the Palm Beach County Psihuska by William Norman Grigg

“What does it hurt,” asked Sheriff Ric Bradshaw of Florida’s Palm Beach County, “to have somebody knock on the door and ask, ‘Hey, is everything OK?’”

The answer to that question obviously depends on the identity of the “Somebody” who is making that inquiry. What Sheriff Bradshaw had in mind was a strike force composed of deputies, social workers, and “mental health” professionals from a “Behavioral Sciences Unit” (BSU) who would be on-call twenty-four hours a day, ready to be deployed to visit the homes of what the Soviets used to call “socially dangerous people.” In the Soviet Union, such people would often be involuntarily committed to a psihuska, or psychiatric prison.

“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,” Bradhsaw told the Palm Beach Post in describing the BSU, which would be funded through a $1 million grant from the state government. That grant hasn’t been formalized, but if the state legislature balks, it’s quite likely the Feds will chip in: In a speech last February 6 to the Alliance of DelRay Residential Organizations, Bradshaw said that he would prefer to fund the unit “through a federal grant.”

This is precisely the kind of pilot program the Feds would find worthwhile – indeed, it represents a model of “preventive intervention” that the federal government has been promoting for at least two decades.

In 1993, another law enforcement personality with roots in Florida, then-Attorney General Janet Reno, proposed the creation of specialized units composed of police and social workers who would fan out in troubled urban regions, knocking on doors, conducting “safety” evaluations, and connecting residents to government “services.”

During her reign of terror as Dade County Prosecutor – in which she displayed unalloyed viciousness in tearing children from their homes and persecuting innocent parents – Reno created “Neighborhood Resource Teams” teams composed of “community-friendly, highly respected police officers, social workers, public health nurses, [and] community organizers, working full time within a narrow neighborhood,” she recalled in a May 1993 speech to the National Forum on Prevention of Crime and Violence.

Read the rest of the article at LewRockwell.com

The Police State Hates Tinted Windows by Karen de Coster

Just recently, a friend of mine was stopped by the Michigan State Police for having committed the insidious crime of driving her vehicle that has tinted front windows. Tinted windows are regulated by individual states, and in the era of vehicle customizations for artistic purposes, they have become immensely popular, and thus they have also become a favorite target of the police harassment state. You can read an overview of the individual state laws here.

My friend was given a hefty ticket, and she could only avoid the monetary punishment by producing a prescription or a note from a doctor. She only recently bought the car, in used condition, with the windows already tinted. So she immediately reached out to two doctors she sees regularly, and she obtained, yes, a prescription from one doctor and a ‘doctor note’ from her second doctor. It’s easy to make crap up – these docs can spin it any way they want. She sent me copies of the doc note and the prescription, and I found both of them to be hilarious and heroic.

I have another friend who lives in the city of Detroit, where he has been ticketed numerous times for his window tint. He usually gets stopped by the same couple of cops. He is black, a large man, and he is a Muslim – and with his facial hair one can certainly tell that he is a Muslim. Each time he is stopped he is needlessly harassed, and still, he has refused to get rid of the tint. He is a very security-oriented person, and he likes his privacy, especially for his wife when she is driving alone.

On that note, I’ve always wanted a dark tint for both of my front windows, but I haven’t wanted to bring on the harassment that is sure to come with it. When I am stopped by bully cops for other reasons, the results have never been gainful. I have a Honda Element that has the rear windows tinted dark at 35% (legal in Michigan), with no significant tint on the front windows. Quite frankly, I am tired of being ‘checked out’ by strangers in vehicles next to me, especially at red lights.

Read the rest of the article at KarenDeCoster.com

Germany and World War 1: Consequences Ignored

I prepared this response to a post on the internet. Ignore the personal references, and appreciate the research.

Just as you alluded to the trite “we’d be speaking German or Japanese” defense of American involvement in foreign wars during the 20th century, Americans have become immune to thought when it entails the actions of their government in foreign wars and occupations. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics because the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan. Well, well, how the tables have turned. (Of course it’s different when “we” do it.)

In 1914, the continent of Europe was teetering on the precipice of instability. As a result of the incredible advances in technology brought about by the Industrial Revolution, nations had been engaged in a “cold war” of an arms race. This crowded and dangerous situation was exploited by secret societies and their agent provocateurs. As a Serbian man assassinated Prince Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, the entire continent of Europe ignited into a conflagration beyond the comprehension of previous generations, as a result of endless “entangling foreign alliances,” which Washington had warned America against in his Farewell speech.

Upon Austria’s declaration of war against tiny Serbia (because of course the entire nation was responsible for the actions of one assassin), the defense treaties of the nations across Europe were enacted, leading the entire continent into an armed conflict. It must be remembered that Austria-Hungary, and not Germany, started WW1; it only became a “German” war after Austria withdrew because they could no longer continue fighting.

It must also be recognized that Britain herself bears a significant amount of blame for the development of the diplomatic conditions that led to the start of the War. Far from being simply a  defensive war, Britain had been seeking to strangle Germany’s supremacy on the sea in trade, and had engaged in a naval build-up that forced Germany, out of concern for Britain’s Triple Entente, to also expand her navy extensively.

Thus, with the start of the War and the ensuing declarations of war on all sides, Germany’s only role was that of fulfilling its obligation to defend its allies.

The issue of the British cruise liner Lusitania brings yet another widely-believed myth into question. The general story is that Germany launched an unprovoked attack on the ship, bearing American passengers, and sank it without provocation. The reality is that 1) the ship was bearing munitions for Britain, making it a military target, 2) the German Embassy took out full-page advertisements in US newspapers warning Americans against traveling on the Lusitania due to it being a valid target, 3) the Lusitania was not given a Destroyer escort as was customary for cruise ships (ibid), and 4) the ship’s route was not changed, even though it was to go through an area where a German U-boat was known to be operating at the time. The only conclusion that one can come to is that Churchill and the Admiralty acted upon Churchill’s statement that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

Further, Wilson’s milquetoast claim that U.S. involvement in the War would “make the world safe for democracy” was a complete smokescreen and lie, since the U.S. allied itself with colonial, imperialistic powers to help them win a war of their own making. In fact, the only thing that the War made the world “safe” for was central banking, which was a great boon to the British Rothschild family, which came out of the War even vastly more wealthy then when it started. It’s hardly a coincidence that the War started less than two years after the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law. (Coincidentally, there were only seven nations in the world without Rothschild-controlled central banks in 2001. There are only three now. The four? Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya. The remaining three? North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.) Read More »

No, I Have Never Been in the Military by Laurence M. Vance

It happens every time I write an article about war. It happens every time I write an article about the military. It happens every time I even mention war or the military.

The question may take a variety of forms but it is really always the same: “Have you ever been in combat” “Have you ever been in the military?” “Have you ever served?”

Because I have never been in combat, been in the military, or “served,” my answer is, of course, always in the negative.

Those who ask such questions have one purpose: to discredit everything I say about the military. In their mind, it is either that I can’t possibly have sufficient knowledge of what it is like in the military to be able to criticize it or I have no right to criticize the military because I have never been in it, or both.

But rather than hang my head in shame and sheepishly acknowledge that I have never been in the military, I lift it up high and shout No, I have never been in the military. I have never experienced the “glories” of combat. I have never had the “honor” of serving. Thank God I was never in the military.

No, I have never been in the military. I have never sung filthy cadences that glorify rape and killing.

No, I have never been in the military. I have never put my family through unnecessary hardship.

No, I have never been in the military. I have never helped to carry out an evil, reckless, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

Read the rest of the article on LewRockwell.com

Gun Ownership: American Exceptionalism by Gary North

In response to an attempt by a handful of liberal politicians in Congress to enact laws against the ownership of assault weapons, meaning semi-automatic AR-15′s, we are seeing the most remarkable American resistance movement that I can recall in my lifetime.

Websites that run articles in favor of gun ownership and against gun control find that these articles get a high number of hits. Therefore, the sites run even more articles on the same topic. This is only sensible. You give the customers what they want.

The rush to buy ammunition and anything connected with assault rifles is like nothing I have ever seen. In the state of Georgia, one pro-gun group is giving away in a raffle a semiautomatic AR-15. Its membership drive is more successful than anything it has ever done in the past.

It is not just in Georgia that this is the case. Across the South and in the Midwest, there is a kind of mad dash to get involved in organizations that promote Second Amendment liberties.

Activists on both sides of the question have drawn a line in the political sand. The difference is this: the gun control politicians do not have the votes to get anything through the House of Representatives. They know this. Senator Feinstein is pursuing this as a matter of principle. She is a left-wing ideologue. She is getting a lot of publicity for her stand, but she has been completely undermined by Harry Reid, who is staying discreetly away from Feinstein’s proposed legislation. He knows better than to attempt it, since too many Democrats will break ranks with him if he pushes this. It would make him look like a poor leader. It would also reveal the fact that Democratic politicians are subject to the desire of wanting to be reelected, and they know that on this issue, if they vote in favor of Feinstein’s bill, they risk not being reelected.

I do not think the people who have become active on this issue in the last month are likely to be willing to surrender their guns unless there are policemen at the door with a warrant. There will not be. There are not enough policemen to enforce anything like a comprehensive gun ban. Furthermore, there will be resistance in smaller counties, in both the South and Midwest, to any such enforcement. Police chiefs do not want to antagonize the local voters.

Read the rest of the article at LewRockwell.com