This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Gonzalo Lira

But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

For example, if the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State—decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech—nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks—including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses—would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines—unilaterally—who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not—and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.

And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:20 | Link to Comment Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

I have no doubt.  The high chancellor told me to not doubt it.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:39 | Link to Comment masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

When and if the US junks freedom of speech, like the UK, Canada, and most of the decaying European world, then it will be a police state.  And there will be major civil unrest, since, unlike the foregoing, US citizens remain heavily armed and many recall that we are nominally protected by the Constitution, the greatest document ever written.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 09:22 | Link to Comment Regina Phalange
Regina Phalange's picture

Civil unrest cuts into America's Got Talent, so that won't work. Anyway, your freedom of speech is long gone. Just have a look at the PATRIOT Act. Unless of course you're a corporation, well then you're golden.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 17:05 | Link to Comment BobWatNorCal
BobWatNorCal's picture

I don't have the heart to read all 350+ comments...did someone post this quote yet?
After the portentous German novelist Günter Grass once warned that the “dark night of fascism was falling on America,” the American novelist Tom Wolfe riposted “Why is it that ‘the dark night of fascism’ is always falling on America — and always landing on Europe?”

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:31 | Link to Comment TeddyRoosevelt
TeddyRoosevelt's picture

Civil unrest cuts into America's Got Talent, so that won't work.

exactly.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 10:13 | Link to Comment Sabremesh
Sabremesh's picture

You are massively in denial. The Constitution is routinely abused by the White House, Congress and SCOTUS, and a complicit media doesn't challenge them. Like you, most US citizens either don't want to know or refuse to accept that your country is no longer a democracy. This guest post clearly demonstrates why the concept of freedom of speech in America is a fiction.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:26 | Link to Comment TuffsNotEnuff
TuffsNotEnuff's picture

Denial ??? Yes, indeed.

For example, the Citizens United ruling created a New Class -- a new definition of what is human and what citizenship entails.

This New Class are "more equal" than any ordinary citizen, apart from the billionaires.

Ordinary citizens are limited by law in their efforts to pay for political favors.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:55 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Sabre,

Yes we are aware of the abuse, and we are not going to take it much longer.

As for the statement we are no longer a Democracy, we NEVER were.

You have freedom of speech, we're freely speakng NOW.

And against the Gv't...............

I have been doing it for years, and will not stop.

Their are sites that are chock full of military,ex-military,LE, ex LE,and regular Amercians,that are armed to the teeth, and are law abiding citizens, and if the time comes....they will come,they will not go easily into that goodnight.

But, they do not rant and rave about starting a Civil War.

We will know when, there's no choice..............so will all the other  millions of trained, armed, and proficient soldiers of the Republic that time is not now.

Until then, live in peace, enjoy life as best you can, prepare for the worst, and pray for the best..........lifes short.

When the straw that breaks the camels back hit's ALL will know it.

No one will need to be told.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment Hdawg
Hdawg's picture

Like it DosZap!!

 

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:28 | Link to Comment velobabe
velobabe's picture

i didn't know much growing up as a kid, except to listen to my intuition.

i knew from the get-go this country is a fascist police-state.

obey the L A W, or get arrested or who knows what else.

woman especially don't want to get stopped by policemen. cause when i was young no policewoman.

never gotten a speeding ticket, least i can charm my way out. that is as far as i ever pushed doing crime. in fact i think my two life missions were not to get arrested or raped. never possessed weed, until recently either.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 12:09 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Exactly.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:56 | Link to Comment A_MacLaren
A_MacLaren's picture

your country is no longer a democracy

It never was. 

Constitutional Republic is what it used to be.  Now, I'm not so sure.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 09:39 | Link to Comment Vix_Noob
Vix_Noob's picture

Its still a republic, but now in new and improved Banana flavor!

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 12:51 | Link to Comment A_MacLaren
A_MacLaren's picture

Constituted of plantain mush?

Bananas Foster for everyone!

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 10:22 | Link to Comment FourWude
FourWude's picture

The constitution has been pissed on for decades, and yet I hear very little murmur by the American people. In fact the only things they tend to get angry at is when someone stands up to and questions the Govt. They get more angry when someone declares one of the US's  many wars "illegal" than they do over the actual wars themselves.

 

You're living in a crafted fantasy where "ideals" will be fought over. The reality is they won't. The only fighting will be when the electrictity is switched off and some lard ass gets angry that his two fans pointed at his manboobs are no longer cooling him down and gets sweaty and decides to voice his anger on the streets.

We all have a breaking point. For the average American it will be when the comfort runs out.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 05:36 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Amen 4wude.

Your post would be hilarious if it was not a statement of these sad times.

When I read all this talk of lead and lead delivery systems, I can only shake my head.

Having been a military officer, I'll tell you this, soldiers are trained, day and night, to obey orders, not their conscience. That is why military mis-adventures bring out the worst in seemingly normal humans. Abu Gharib is a classic case in point.

Better by far to find true fortitude and the calm that the Tao Teh Ching speaks of, so no tiger's claw can hurt you, no spear-tip can find you.

And if per-chance it does, then to merely revel in the transition of phase you are in.

 

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Things are likely to be different for Imperial Grunts on their own soil, facing their own people. Everyday brings less to lose.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 10:42 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

master,

We already are, re-read what he wrote........you stir up enough poop, you are told to shut up, and if you do not, your a terrorist.

DHS tried to brand the Tea Party a terrorist org, the NRA a terrorist org.....if that's not a Police States tactic, I do not know what one is.The right of supporting/reporting on a Political candidate 60 days prior to an election, has been an ongoing fight fopr over a year..........the Gv't is trying to make it ILLEGAL!!!!!

But, he said it, you said it, there are 80 million plus armed, well over 200 milllion weapons, and trillions of rounds of munitions........if only 5% of that 200 million decide to say FU, then the Gv't is dead meat.........Federal troops will not fire on the People,they hold their oaths to a high std.

Local LE, and other agencies WILL however, but they will be outnumbered 2000-1,,,,,,,,,,

If things to do NOT change course politically after November, and the economy tanks further(planned), then it won't be long before the SHTF.

Mao was a murdering Commie Bastard, but he got one thing right..in the end, "ALL POLITICAL POWER COMES FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN".

Let's hope we do not see this...........no one in their right mind does.But, this administration is pushing,hard.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:04 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Rag,

Uh Huh, and who are they, where they training, this is wishful thinking.On Barry's part............

Things like this take time, money, and willing members.......

Unless we have had our last free election,this will never come to pass............we have no need for this, nor them.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Let's hope so, but I think Barry will use the unions and race to stir up a lot of violence in the years ahead.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:59 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Rag,

Yes, but...............

Violence and War...are two different things.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:26 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

"Federal troops will not fire on the People,they hold their oaths to a high std."

 

Kent State, Pat Tillman, Ruby Ridge, Waco and foreign troop manoeveres on American soil say you're wrong and living in a world of make-believe.

 

Maybe Murrah Building, 9-11 and TWA 800 too.

 

Every week growing armed cops, courts, IRS and numerous government agencies deny civil constitutional rights with impunity and the tacit acquiesence, compliance and enabling of the citizenry and media.

 

If peaceful citizens surround the White house, Capitol Hill and Supreme Court Building with lawful assembly to exercise their right to petition for redress, just see what happens.

 

America has the largest prison population in the world, bar none. Just check out Martin Armstrong, held for contempt without trial 7 years, almost beaten to death in prison, driven into a plea bargain, not given credit for time served and still in solitary confinement. His Judge, related to Prescott Bush, never disciplined, let alone disbarred, new bishops of the secular humanism age of technetronic inquisition...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:00 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

ATG,

Your off the chart bro..........

Kent State was an Accident-National Guard (not Reg Military)

Pat Tilman was FF.(lied about), but not murdered on purpose)

Ruby Ridge was FBI agent -Lon Horiuchi( Gv't lost the case, paid Millions)

Branch Davidians- FBI-Local LE-Military vehicles loaned to BATFE-FBI(on a lie to the Governor that drugs were being sold/distributed there).Went to trial,and most if not all were freed.

Murrah-800?...........Consiracy theory.

Peaceful citizens surrounded the White House ( Fired On?, Dream on), would be the end of the US Gv't.

Martin Armstrong- I do not know about him except their are conflicting stories,(not saying your not spot on) and YES abuses take place, and YES, we are losing legal rights, by Illegal Fiat Laws.( this will not continue,without repercussions).

Prison Poulation- Take out the marijuana and small drug dealers, it drops by a third.Ethnic minorities, Causcasions, are in there for reasons..........they broke real legal laws.........most MANY times.(some innocent?.sure, but mistakes are made in all cases in life.)

Reg US Gvt Agencies- IRS,BATFE-EPA-DHS, are not regular Military, and have their been abuses?, yes.If they intensify, the SWHTF,Americans are peacful people, we believe in the Rule of Law,we are long suffering, but..IF pushed too far.
GET the hell out of dodge.

 

That's why I said, if it continues, the SWHTF...........

Your arguments have stil not dealt with my statement,that Regular Military would not.........it would mean breaking their Oaths,(they take it VERY seriously,if the Constitution is being trampled on, they would likely join the people, or at worst STAND DOWN) and they are Americans just like you and me,our friends, and neighbors.

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Dark Space
Dark Space's picture

Branch Davidians - "most if not all were freed" - what about the 82 dead men, women, and children & 4 ATF agents? I guess they were freed too, but probably not in the way they wanted.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:13 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

*

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:50 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

DosZap

How many 'accidents' does it take for some people to wise up and stop the tragedy of big bad government?

Do you think 9-11 was just another 'accident'? 100 million Americans don't.

To better help you do your homework bro'

Pro Football draft partriot Tillman was fragged because he was going public re civilian deaths. His brother who enlisted and served with him said so.

McChrystal covered it up by signing a false report and was promoted out and up like Lon Horiuchi, a West Point Graduate turned FBI murderer.

FBI crime labs were criminal. J Edgar Hoover was a transvestite blackmailed by the mob to deny Cosa Nostra and collect dirt on judges and politicians to control them. He also smeared Martin Luther King Jr and other leaders, Ever hear of Cointelpro bro'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

After taking Swiss money from the PRC Red Army, Hillary Clinton and her bartender used 900 raw FBI Files illegally to keep the Senate from ending their term after the House had the integrity to impeach her disloyal husband, not for treason, but for sex.

The CIA, DIA and NSA were supposed to only operate abroad and the FBI domestically, according to their charters and the law. Guess what?

Randy Weaver was entrapped by the BATF because he refused to snitch on a white separatist.

His hunting dog and son were killed by US Marshalls from a Blind Ambush with crazy rules of engagement that allowed them to fire first on civilians. His wife was shot in the head while holding their baby when she came to the front door after the sniper shot on her husband's spine, while he was paying repects to his dead son in the outside cooler, shattered his elbow when he moved.

If Bo Gritz had not shown courage and negotiated a truce, the entire family would have been wiped out without justice or fair press coverage.

The FBI head of the Ruby Ridge operation was promoted to number two in the FBI by Clinton and Reno for his dirty work coverup. It was only the local sheriff and courts that had the integrity to find justice and award damages. Thanks to internet transparency, the FBI realized their control of Higher Courts and Presses would do further damage.

Obama Bills from Congress and Executive Orders allow the President to tax access, shut down the internet or even apply the fairness doctrine determined by yet another government bureaucracy beside education, energy, Fed, healthcare, homeland security and IRS which basically add nothing to the GDP but add to consumer costs and the real CPI.

WACO was BATF PR stunt informer blowback, with helicopter snipers on lawful Davidians tipped off by local law enforcement and journalists who knew the Davidians from their regular trips into town where they could have been quietly apprehended and tried in a couert of law by a jury of their peers.

After months of loudspeaker psychological torture by 'save the children' Janet Reno and her FBI, who also took Elian Gonzales from his family at pre-dawn SWAT gunpoint to return him to worker's paradise in Cuba with his remarried father, which his mother died fleeing with her son, Wesley Clarke dispatched AFB military tanks and troops armed with howitzers and incendiary lethal gas to finish them off with no witnesses.

People of all ages running from a burning building with their arms raised were gunned down by government agents.

Clarke's violation of posse comitatus was the reason he was unelectable and withdrew from the 2004 Presidential Primary to endorse Vietnam Purple Heart Swiftboat 'Hero' Skull & Bones Kerry.

The Press Secretary to JFK and LBJ covered in depth Lockerbie Pan Am 103 that killed an airline and 270 people. He voiced evidence TWA 800 was taken down by a Navy Stinger Missile. An experienced Naval Crash Investigator called the NTSB report a whitewash and died of a brain tumour after Congress and the media ignored his and FBI findings.

http://twa800.com/

You call facts conspiracy theory? 

You think the governor of Oklahoma when Murrah exploded and his brother were conspiracy nitwits?

WACO Operation records were stored in the Oklahoma Murrah Building along with a lot of war materiels on domestic soil for renegade black special ops.

Governor Keating was former head of the ATF via Treasury Enforcement and oversaw US Interpol activities. He was a special agent with FBI for left wing terrorist operations on west coast in 1969.

Gov Keating's brother Martin wrote a book about the bombing of a Federal Building with an antihero named TOM McVay, copyrighted almost 2 years BEFORE the OKC Blast.

It is now available as "The Last Jihad" ISBN 0964704811, changed from the original manuscript. M. Keating also published a book in 1988 called "The City that Refused to Die" wherein a group of Oklahomans blew up buildings.

Frank Keating, a Robert Novak sponsored presidental candidate in 2008, was a ranking member of the Knights of Malta since 1988 and resigned without apology from the Catholic Review Board after comparing the leaders of the Catholic Church to the mafia:  "to resist Grand Jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church."

There are any number of facts Timothy McVeigh was a patsy setup like Oswald:

Driving away from the scene of a crime without a license plate, seen on a McDonald's security cam far away just before the purported Ryder Truck rental, photo of the Ryder truck in a secured Army compound, like 9-11 eyewitness reports of special ops personnel going and out secured doors near structural supports, 8 second blast on the seismographs equal to later controlled demolition, clearly not caused by a single fertilizer bomb, concealed evidence including cordoning and promptly razing the buildng without forensics, 3000 FBI files the Judge on the case refused to admit as evidence, though they reportedly showed a Iraqi liked with German intelligence. Soldiers are trained to follow orders.

The McVeigh case never put him on the stand and was prosecuted by the same Chicago US Attormey Patrick Joseph Fitzgerald who was National Security Coordinator in NYC, investigated Osama bin Laden, embassy bombings and prosecuted politically sensitive cases on the Gambino Family, Illinois Governor George Ryan, Mayor Daley Aides, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahmanand Valerie Plame. Interesting PJF never prosecuted Robert Novak at WaPost who first blew her CIA cover and ended her career.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html

Do you really think Oswald and Sirhan used a single magic bullet to kill the Kennedys without accomplices, or that JFK Jr's plane crash after he decided to run for President was another accident?

They no longer teach real civics in illegal alien PC Public Schools after Courts overruled Prop 187 Law, the primary reason CA is bankrupt with one third of their budget Public Education the lottery was supposed to fund before it got criminalized.

Why not complete your education and learn about Martin Armstrong here?:

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/economic_projections.htm

Learn about Court Corruption here:

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/

Suggesting a third of the 7 million in jail, parole, prison or probation are just in there for pot or accidental mistakes is like asking Mrs Lincoln how she enjoyed the play.

Prohibition empowered criminal untouchables and Elliot Ness. Still does. The number one item on Obama's election website was decriminalizing marijuana and taxing it. Then government would have to invent another war, maybe obesity.

Government privatised the criminal justice system and military with mercenaries like Blackwater, HalliburtonKBR, Wackenhut, Xe or other contract hit firms to avoid accountability, transparency and break their own laws, the most recent example being the BP spill stonewall with lies, liability releases, no respirators and security sealing the area from factfinders:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/bp-hires-mercs-to-block-oily-bea...

Your implication the regular military would not violate posse comitatus is absurd fantasy.

They already have, with numerous documented military manoevers, operations and hits on American citizens and foreign powers abroad and here on domestic soil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Obama called 1700 National Guard to camp by the border doing nothing to provide him political cover for amnesty and illegal voter registration.

If the National Guard is not part of the military called up to kill and be killed overseas and domestically by black special ops, who is?

The IRS was repeatedly used by Nixon and other administrations for political suppression.

Ask why NPR and PBS under Clinton continued to spew their tax-exempt bias while the Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson Christian Coalition of America lost theirs?

Ask why Clinton continues to enjoy tax exempt-foundation status while campaigniong for his wife and running off to North Korea to negotiate government matters as a civilian, for which Jimmy and Billy Beer Carter got into deep trouble with Libya.

Ask why have government agencies assumed military police powers with no squeal from the government monopoly media?

Why are Federal Buildings armed and barricaded against American citizens while the Constitutional right to carry arms is routinely infringed by confiscation, eg Katrina?

Why should a forest ranger or IRS agent carry a concealed gun?

Read up on FEMA, Homeland Security, HUD, Iran Contra or Mena sometime to learn who was on the skim and take while violating posse comitatus.

Better yet, read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution against quartering standing armies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Acts

Why should a detective, forest ranger or IRS agent carry a concealed weapon while government disarms civilians?

Since when did government officials honour their sacred oaths to preserve protect and defend the Constitution? At least not since the War of 1812, Civil War or 1913.

The German Jewish population believed in the rule of law too. How far did that get them under the National Socialists?

Those that do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.

Or keep on covering their eyes, ears, head and mouth with that tin foil.

Big bad government Constitutional due process is long gone.

Vets who survived up to six tours of senseless war duty were considered potential criminals by big sister Janet at Homeland Security.

Are you a government agent apologist or collaborator?

Just sayin' and askin'...

 

 

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:56 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

ATG,

I am aware of most of what you wrote, that said, doesn't mean I believe it.

I will totally agree with you that our Gv't, and it's Institutions are almost all totally corrupt.

As for the TIN foil..................I suggest you make your own hat also. Because several of your items are just theories..........

Until they all can be proven,(beyond a shadow of a doubt) then it's a theory, or conspiratorial.

Your beliefs are yours, mine are mine.............

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 09:08 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

DZ - I'm experiencing Cognative Dissonance.  You had some pretty good posts.  What happened?

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:18 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Off the chart, eh DZ?

Always enjoy a profitable rollicking breakout to new highs or lows.

Re "Peaceful citizens surrounded the White House ( Fired On?, Dream on), would be the end of the US Gv't." snip

Perhaps you did not hear of the Bonus Army in Spring and Summer of 1932?

Seems Woodrow Wilson promised soldiers GI benefits for offering themselves up to trench warfare artillery and mustard gas.

When these compound interest benefit IOUs were not cashed by subsequent Administrations, popular war hero U.S.M.C. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler encouraged a peaceful march on Washington to focus their attention on the folks who saved Europe and the Republic after fighting for freedom.

It was Smedley who became famous later for denouncing war as a profiteering racket by bankers and industry at the expense of loyal soldiers and their families.

43,000 unemployed veterans, families and friends marched and camped out peacefully in the DC bog.

On July 28 Attorney General Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. The DC police came, shots were fired, and two armed veterans were killed.

Then Hoover called out the cavalry, infantry and tanks on Army veterans, led by none other than Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, Major George Patton and Dwight D Eisenhower as liason to the DC police.

The infantry used fixed bayonets and the cavalry dispersed adamsite gas, a vomiting agent made with arsenic. The tanks crushed tents and the families cowering inside. Two more peaceful veterans died, and the entire encampment was burned to the ground.

When FDR was elected, he still refused to pay the Service certificates before 1945. Eleanor Roosevelt urged desperate veterans to apply to the Works Progress Administration building the Key West Highway.

Several hundred more vets were killed in the Florida Keys Hurricane of 1935. Congress overrode the FDR veto to pay the bonus in 1936.

MacArthur, Patton and Ike went on to become World War II heroes after firing on fellow Americans, one a President, hardly the end of US Government.

We could go back to the Whiskey Tax Rebellion put down by General Washington for bastard Treasurer New York Banker Alexander Hamilton who redeemed Continental scrip in silver for his cronies, but what the heck?

What if Social Security wimps in the White House say we can no longer pay you for a hamburger today, but will glady pay you on Tuesday in thirty years?

It pays to learn history and think out of the box.

For the rest of the details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 14:46 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

DZ, you're lost in space too:

 

Drugging America: A Trojan Horse by Rodney Stich on www.scribd.com

 

and Michelles Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" on Youtube

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:49 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

Did we read the same article? This clearly shows that free speech is and can be junked on 1 person's say so and there is no redress. Although I am not a lawyer, you sir appear to be deluded.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:00 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

It’s symbolic that Rolling Stone’s bombshell on the McChrystal comments occurred on the same day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to support upholding the ban on peaceful support by Americans to groups and organizations the government identifies as “terrorists.”

Both developments are part of the tragic path the United States finds itself in with an undeclared, open-ended, continuous war on “terror” a seemingly never ending list of enemies that the government will define.

There’s little doubt that “terror” has come to be identified primarily with the enemies of Israel and it’s becoming a tough sell in the world for NATO allies of the U.S, for commanders such as McChrystal and for an increasing number of Americans.

The controversy isn’t helped by key personalities who carry the U.S. foreign policy to the regions, such as Vice President Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Holbrooke, being Jewish and with a long history of pro-Israel stances and bias, is an obvious problem for a diplomat in the region; and Biden is an embarrassment with outspoken bias.  Recent speech: “Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as Vice President of the United States,”    reminding listeners, “Were I a Jew, I would be a Zionist…you need not be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

And now comes the U.S. Supreme Court decision to back all the details of the “war on terror,” and make no mistake, it is a decision that supports the interests of Israel over the freedoms of U.S. citizens.

The “terrorists” groups identified by the government are the enemies of Israel.  But strangely enough, the Supreme Court ruling has more to do with the freedom of speech, and freedom of action, of Americans citizens than terrorism.  Dismissing the “missed messages” from the 9/11 attacks, America entered continuous war, not against nations or armies, but against an enemy all over the world that would be identified by political decisions on a day-by-day basis.

This undeclared war on “terror” received immediate support from an AIPAC-controlled Congress, too timid to even pass a declaration of war. And, now, no less that lifetime Supreme Court justices issue ruling after ruling wiping away Geneva conventions, supporting torture, enabling government crackdown on completely new categories of uncharged, un-indicted, and occasionally unidentified, enemy combatants.

This New America has the stench of a police state and the ring of tyranny all around its leadership.

You doubt me?  Why didn’t Congress pass a formal declaration of war before the extremely aggressive attack on Iraq?  Why did the military and the CIA with congressional support refuse to treat enemies, either under the Geneva Convention or return them to U.S. soil for indictments?  Why, without even formal war declarations, has the Supreme Court tailored its rulings to wartime retaliations and measurements?

Here is why there is no declaration of war: it is so that the Administration, with the support of the court, can target, at will, any enemy, individual, charity organization, foreign financial institution, without identifying a state of war.   In short, there is no living person on this planet that an American can give money to or offer support for without threat of punishment for helping an enemy that the government selects; an enemy almost assuredly an enemy of Israel.  Such is indefensible tyranny.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle’s article June 22, Giving Peace Advice to Terrorists Can Be Illegal by Bob Egelko:  During arguments in February, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now President Obama's nominee to the court, defended the law and urged a broad interpretation that would allow prosecution of a U.S. citizen who filed a legal brief on behalf of a terrorist organization.

"What Congress decided," Kagan told the court, "is that when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs."

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:55 | Link to Comment velobabe
velobabe's picture

JR you are incredibly educational for me. i learn a lot about this country and the world, i live in reading all of your well constructed posts. you put a lot together that i can understand. so thanks. embarrassingly i didn't really care about all this. i was very radical in the 60's. then dropped out, forever. i do want to learn now, cause it is exciting to be educated and enlightened, to reflect on all the crap i was raised with and believed. i guess i have been some what of a traitor. always wanted to live in europe since H.S. but i am so bad with languages just wasn't possible. hardly know the english one very well. i am my own anchor.

know Ø about israel. isn't that horrible. i wasn't aware of the jewish religion until H.S. went to austria for semester and they took us to a concentration camp for a weekend outing. i never in my life knew. who said ignorance isn't bliss. i did read rolling stone magazine all my life, that was my priority† hey, someone has to have all the fun!

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 16:43 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Thanks, Velobabe, for taking the time to respond!  Among your endearing charms—even when you’re being “tough”-- is your innocence; and one of your greatest qualities is that you have an open mind, a quality which makes Zero Hedge a magnet for people like us. Combined with a bit of Tyler Durden fighting spirit, that’s a winning combo in my book—and not too many people have it.

And still, "ain't we got fun"? You betcha, Red Ryder!

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:54 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Hear ye Hear ye all sovereign citizens who value their liberty, prosperity and lives...

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 09:17 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Great post JR. 

There’s little doubt that “terror” has come to be identified primarily with the enemies of Israel

We've all been pressed like unwilling conscripts into wars that will never end on behalf of the Zionist entity.

Money is protected speech for the PTBs while speech is banned, material support when the people reach out to the oppressed.  How can this be so?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:29 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Dont take it back but you misportrayed freedom of speech.

In nearly all regimes since dawn of times, people are free to tell harmless stuff.

When a guy was too vocal, he was sent to the desert so he could speak.

The Internet is no different save it is a desert people choose. They go on the Internet, vent their frustration and seem surprised they can do something that is absolutely not threatening to the power.

Get back to Earth. It has been the norm.

An other side is that people can tell true facts without them bearing consequences. Why censor a guy who can indict another as a criminal with evidences and stuff if it is known that telling will not trigger a trial?

If a guy has robbed and knows that others can tell and prove he has robbed with no consequences for him, no needs to try to suppress freedom of speech. Let people talk. The guy is out of reach for law. Why should he bother about freedom of speech?

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 11:15 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

?

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 19:36 | Link to Comment doublethink
doublethink's picture

 

Sooner Than You Think?

 

In eagerly awaited rulings, the nation's highest court is expected to decide the constitutionality of a national board that polices auditors of public companies and whether gun rights extend to every state and city in the nation.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65Q0ND20100627

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:42 | Link to Comment dcb
dcb's picture

wanted to add this from huff post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html

title is:Internet 'Kill Switch' Approved By Senate Homeland Security Committee

can't have thos pesky wikkileaks people and zero hedge people communicating about how we are robbing the public blind

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

 Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

 

Is a bear Catholic?

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

No.

but i think you catch my drift....

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 04:35 | Link to Comment Amish Rake Fighter
Amish Rake Fighter's picture

first they came for you people....and I said nothing

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:01 | Link to Comment dabug
dabug's picture

I got it (swap bear for pope, pope for bear), am I alone?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"am I alone?"

 

yea. except for that glossy of megan fox....

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:22 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

"You people?"  WTF?  I have an Eagle Scout.  Bite me.

 

BTW, I'm not the one who junked you.  Just so you know.

I save all my junks for Augustus.  But not to worry;  he (she?) only trolls on GW's missives.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 09:23 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

I don't think I have ever read a comment by a person more deserving of the future that they are going to get than this one.

Enjoy your hell on Earth.

Edit: You know, I really wish when junk disappeared, it would leave some sort of trace, rather than just making all the replies that went with it look like they were replying to the person the junkie was replying to.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:48 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

TMosley, that is why I ALWAYS respond to suspected future "junk ghosts" with a QUOTE of their original comment --- that way, the thread is not left muddled and confused when their comment is junked and disappears.

Please, everyone, PLEASE always respond to potentially junkable comments WITH A QUOTE!

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:28 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

(Lord, this site sucks in the frequency of its lockups and glacial responses!  Somehow I managed to TRIPLE-post this time!)

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:45 | Link to Comment MurderNeverWasLove
MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Evil much?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:18 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

May be redeemed for one (1) "un-junk"

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 02:42 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

sorry i missed that one.  must have been a doozy.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:54 | Link to Comment Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

It was already gone by 2:42? Doozy indeed. JWinFL has talked openly of sniper killing people with pro-life bumper stickers during a power outage - and lasted longer than that.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:57 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Why post on a forum that disappears free speech?

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:19 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Or junks it anonymously?...

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 11:17 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:54 | Link to Comment Transor Z
Transor Z's picture

We were good till your second paragraph. BTW, SCOTUS denies cert to 99% of appeals.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:10 | Link to Comment Transor Z
Transor Z's picture

Junk? wtf?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:15 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Yeah.  No, seriously...  WTF?  I think it's because you brought facts and logic to the table.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:16 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

He's a coward.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:59 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Not junk.

Snails and Trolls can't handle the truth.

Why not publish who is junking whom

and leave all posts up for the disinfectant of

community light? 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:18 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Look everyone, a mental cripple.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:51 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

Themo; "you people"? Too funny!! You don't know me. Maybe.... Lol!  Beware of generalization.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:32 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Thank you for this post.  I have a related question I've been itching to post here:  How long, seriously, before a state government simply tells the federal govenment to pound sand?  And what does it look like when this happens?  If AZ's new laws are declared "unconstitutional," (whatever that means),  and AZ just goes right on its merry way id-ing criminals for legal residency, what do the feds do, then?  Do they send the army?  Cut off federal subsidies?  Start viscious rumors about Arizonans?  OOooo.

And what if Jindal just decides to keep building barrier dunes, regardless of what the Coast Guard says?  Just says "Screw You..."  and keeps on building? 

What does it look like when US States declare their own sovereignty?

I'm really serious.  I want to know.  Because I think it's going to happen.  At least, I sure hope it does.

 

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:34 | Link to Comment themosmitsos
themosmitsos's picture

States have rights and jurisdiction over their own functions and territories that supercedes that of the Federal goverment and the second amendment and militia clauses are EXACTLY about your question. The states *choose* to cede that jurisdiction to the Federal governement as a condition and function of the Union. (U of USA). Nonetheless, the US Federal goverment HAS used force to prevent secession, aka the civil war. However, a vote by a State's constitutional assembly is a legal secesiion recognized in law by the US Federal goverment.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:04 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

therm,

"However, a vote by a State's constitutional assembly is a legal secesiion recognized in law by the US Federal goverment."

Link Pls..............I think your dead wrong.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:21 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

"therm,

"However, a vote by a State's constitutional assembly is a legal secesiion recognized in law by the US Federal goverment."

Link Pls..............I think your dead wrong." sic snip

 

Try the tenth amendment of the US Constitution for starters.

http://california.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/the-beauty-of-the-ten...

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:45 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

The Feds have the printing press, so any attempt to secede would have to coincide with the destruction of the currency.

But even if the dollar hyperinflates, the Feds would retain the privilege to print new currency - albeit with a reduced level of influence, due to the dollar collapsing in value as a unit of international trade.

I would recommend that any secessionists wait for the right time to strike. Seceding while the dollar retains its purchasing power would be self-destructive. Secession also requires the tacit support of the military and a general disillusionment among the public intellectual classes with the dream of federation.

Reference the fall of the USSR - this is not unprecedented. Soros himself has said that this era is comparable to the fall of the Soviet Union. I see that as a sterling example of a peaceful breakup. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:13 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

Well...  I wasn't really thinking about secession, although it sort of sounds like I was.  I'm more interested in the part BEFORE...  The part where the state just keeps on doing what the Supreme Court told it NOT to do...  What happens then?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 01:18 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

What happens is the Feds make it clear through back-room channels that any state opposing their will could risk being cut out of important Federal programs. They can easily crumple an oppositional governor and rabble-rouse to make any independent initiatives more challenging.

You see it with Arizona. The entire flap was designed to lobby the Federal government for more aid. The Feds responded by organizing media hysteria and pushing for electricity boycotts.

It's like trying to destroy the Matrix by shooting at an Agent or something. The dude will just dodge the bullet and kill you from seventeen different directions. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:57 | Link to Comment Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

and pushing for electricity boycotts

Which just goes to show how stupid Skynet really is...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:18 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

See Wyoming and the age 21 drinking age. They held out for as long as they could until they were denied highway funding. At which point the state caved.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:26 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Apostate,

Get your facts straight before you post.

The Feds did not do shit except commit deriliction of duty, have been for years.

The electricity issue was Arizona's response to Commiefornia, threatening to cancel contracts.......AZ, Rep said, Ok we'll cut off the power to Kali,and see if you like that.......

These were state squabbles.The Feds are guilty of ONE thing, NOT protecting our Borders.One of the few delegated responsibilities they have.

Then, with this admin, as usual bad mouthing AZ's proposed law, when it is less egrigious than the Federal Laws.

There are 3500 Acres of AZ that are OFF limits to Americans due to danger from Cartels, the Feds, Natl Gd,needs to go in and clean the place out.............and make sure it stays clean.

Phoenix AZ, has the 2nd highest kidnapping rate in the world, 2nd only to Mexico City.

It's a nightmare, and AZ needs relief, not chastisement and lies/lawsuits, from the Feds.

But, it won't happen as Barry needs the votes.........

 Newsflash, 20 more staes are now lobbying to pass the same laws as AZ, so this issue is not going away.

American legals are sick and tired of jos being taken, and social services given out for free to illegals...............esp when we are in a FISCAL disaster.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 10:06 | Link to Comment Snidley Whipsnae
Snidley Whipsnae's picture

The Feds can cut off funding for roads, education, stop funding Medicare or sending SS checks to the residents of the offending state, stop funding food stamps, set up road blocks and stop interstate traffic at the state line, etc.

iow...the Feds could make life so miserable that the residents of the offending state would probably move out.

I agree with poster that said 'wait for a currency collapse to take action.'

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Translational Lift
Translational Lift's picture

"The Feds can cut off funding for roads, education, stop funding Medicare or sending SS checks to the residents of the offending state, stop funding food stamps, set up road blocks and stop interstate traffic at the state line, etc."  Fuck the feds.....This all sounds very attractive to me.  Most states get back less fed funds than they contribute anyhow. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 23:44 | Link to Comment ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

Exactly.  A state could create their own currency.  Make it law that all income tax is paid to the state in that currency.  No need for FED.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:21 | Link to Comment Rebel
Rebel's picture

Better yet, eliminate income tax. Texas has no state income tax, and no sales tax on groceries. Be small enough in government size, that income tax is not needed. Privative education. 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 15:03 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

Texas as an example? Where the majority are black and brown yet most officials are white? where they have more prisons (private prisons) than schools?

 

Nah!

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 18:56 | Link to Comment Rebel
Rebel's picture

Yeah, but we have a Black President. How's that working for you?

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Bush was black too. Because I judge the color of a man's heart, not his skin.

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:43 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

mesquite,

That link you gave has ONE sick puppy running it.......it's borderline farcical.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:10 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture
mtomato2

They file another lawsuit.............

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:37 | Link to Comment arnoldsimage
arnoldsimage's picture

we gots to snatch that there printin press.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:13 | Link to Comment I need more asshats
I need more asshats's picture

No, encourage the state to use gold as the currency and watch the rose bloom.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 03:12 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Apo I believe the states have the printing press they just won't know it or say it yet.  If not, then what are California's vouchers?  Isn't that a CRN?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 03:25 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

Yes, they can print as well, but that fiduciary media has limited purchasing power outside the state.

The dollar is so powerful because it's acceptable internationally.

When the dollar flops over, we may have to use gold for international trade.

The FOFOA/freegold crowd are certainly the most sophisticated gold bugs I've ever encountered - that state of affairs sounds very plausible.

When big hedgies are going into gold in such large amounts, I don't really see it as an investment for them. It's just what they're using as a cash substitute, because now the dollar is a risk asset, and gold is relatively stable. 

So, you're not necessarily glomming onto gold for the returns - you hold it as a cash substitute. It's just as liquid. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:12 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

+1 For FOFOA and Freegold, it covers a lot of bases if you accept the premise that your gov't won't come iron fisted after everything during the transition.

 

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 16:42 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

"When the dollar flops over, we may have to use gold for international trade....

gold is relatively stable. So, you're not necessarily glomming onto gold for the returns - you hold it as a cash substitute. It's just as liquid." snip

We already use gold for international trade.

So a commodity that went from $255 to $1265 in a decade is stable and liquid like cash?

When was the last time you took your Gold Eagle to the corner grocer for a loaf of bread and change?

Franz Pick fans quoted him longer than most posters here alive:

'Only government can take a valuable commodity like paper and make it worthless by using it as currency' and 'Bonds are guaranteed certificates of wealth confiscation.'

When does the reedemer finally come for true believers?

In their lifetimes?

A year ago (Sir) Harry Schultz predicted wheelbarrow money in 90 days from a reliable embassy source.

Gold bugs forget we were on the international gold trade standard at $42 an ounce after Bretton Woods until August 1971, even after FDR confiscated gold in 1933 and devalued the dollar 75% from $20 to $35 an ounce of gold with a 7% blip in the CPI, so gold never was a hedge against deflation.

Gold miners profited after 1933 only because the US Government still bought gold at a guaranteed $35 while labor costs and prices went down.

Today gold goes down with market pullbacks and margin calls as it did every six months or so since 1999. Gold went down 20 years after January 1980 from $1000 to $255.

Some cash substitute.

Gold bugs blithely ignore the reality of $755 Trillion of unsecured debts, derivatives, global GDP, and unfunded government mandates with the fantasy they can be settled by $5 T of central banker gold and a few billion of US Gold Reserves that have not been audited since Ike was President.

Gold hoarders pay a premium plus shipping and storage costs or run the risk of theft.

Gold is a rigged market that goes down during the day and up overnight.

Caveat emptor gold.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:58 | Link to Comment fearsomepirate
fearsomepirate's picture

The only difference between what you said about gold and paper money is that paper money never, ever comes back up.  And gold has never, ever been hyperinflated.  Ever.

Also, way to pull the ol' "let's compare everything to the peak of the bubble in 1980" canard.  And was it really a "bubble" in the classic sense?  You forget what the Fed was doing in the 1970s--inflating like mad.  You forgot what economic orthodoxy was in the 1970s was--inflation and unemployment are inversely related.  The smart thing to do was to bet that the Fed would keep inflating until the dollar was ruined.  Any normal Fed chairman would have destroyed the dollar.  But Paul Volcker was the wild card.  He was no ordinary Fed chairman.  He did the unthinkable and, by the standards of his time, irrational--jacked the discount rate into double digits and arrested inflation.  

Buying gold was the smart thing to do.  Volcker was the black swan--or white swan, really.  But don't expect something like Volcker to happen again.  When the disastrous effects of QE finally get so bad that even the federal government can't propagandize that there's no inflation, 20% interest rates won't save us.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:20 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

paper money never, ever comes back up.  And gold has never, ever been hyperinflated.  Ever.

Thanks for a reply fp.

Never ever trust arguments that use 'never ever.'

To juxtapose and paraphrase Franz Pick and Mark Twain, advance obituaries of the dollar, most recently in March 2008 and November 2009, were vastly exaggerated before the almighty In God (not pyramids) We Trust dollar recovered 19 and 26%.

If gold has never ever been hyper-inflated, ever, what do we call the move from $20 an ounce to $1265 an ounce. Chicken liver?

Surely dollars, donuts, real and financial assets did not fall 500% while some of us were dozing this last decade.

Tulips? Canard? Maybe duck liver pate'.

Re canard, never ever said 'let's compare everything to the peak of the 1980 bubble.'

Speaking of pirates, there were gold bubbles throughout history, for instance after 1492 when New World Gold and jewelry fattened the coffers of Queen Isabella and Alexander got all the gold before he was poisoned and robbed by Ptolemy.

Now we have a putative New World Order falling flat on its face because there are only $5 Trillion dollars of gold offsetting $755 Trillion of global GDP, debts and derivatives that are collapsing, making scarce dollars more valuable, not for a brief counter-trend rally, but perhaps for a long time until the dysfunctional Central Banks, Treasuries and their recumbent incumbents are replaced and their assets are reclaimed by the peoples from whom they were stolen via derivative money-changer usury games that inflated shadowbank stocks like AXP, FNM, FRE, GM(AC) and GE (Credit) before the fall.

Take a good look at the 115 Point & Figure Target of the US Dollar versus the $1310 P&F target of gold. Which has more upside?

http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?s=%24usd

http://stockcharts.com/charts/gallery.html?s=%24gold

Does anyone truly believe in their heart of hearts that gold is a magic beanstalk that can grow to the sky in price to fetch the canard goose that lays the golden eggs? Are they willing to bet their life savings on a one-trick pony?

There is nothing magic about gold that makes it immune to demand and supply.

People who bet on the destruction of the dollar in 1980 lost 75% of their money until 1999.

People who bought in 1999 when most, including the headline grabbers, said they were selling, made 500% on their money. Not bad. Anyone overstaying a crowded trade may get their head handed to them after their wallet is emptied.

Right now, because there are a lot of people following Mark Faber, John Paulson, Jim Rogers and George Soros (remember reflexive Soros said gold was a bubble while he was buying - wonder what he will say when he's selling?), people who would rather follow than think, or put two and two together with a reductive 83.8% money multiplier, monetary base slowing at -90% and M3 contracting at -7% since March Equinox, gold remains a crowded greater fool trade.

Speculating that Harvard Winthrop House classmates Bernanke, Blankein and Geithner can keep playing the funny money game indefinitely may be hazardous to wealth.

In no way forgot the Phillips curve - like Laffer and Reagan, knew its limitations - or what the Fed did after Nixon closed the $42 Bretton Woods gold window in August 1971 when everyone was on vacation.

Major difference between then and now was we still had baby boomer debt slaves working and running on the living standard engineered decline hamster wheel to service the central banker debt deficit usury inflation.

Now we don't.

We agree we still have the 10% real CPI using 1980 metrics. Now it is a third lower than the 15% inflation back then. Unlike then, we are in a debt default deflation that began in the Jubilee Year of 2000 and cannot be papered over indefinitely.

Turning off the printing presses and virtual money does not destroy the cash dollar in hand, but exalt it. Try pulling $10,000 cash out of your bank now and see what happens.

CPI was always the hidden cost of government disguised by Fed funny money usury.

Now, unlike 1980, Boomers are busted, laid off or retired, hoping against fact the raided Social Security Trust and Medicare can somehow keep paying out despite paying out more than they take in, this year, not 2017 or 2029 as promised.

From 0Care on, any government program passed by incumbents who created this mess, like 'Financial Reform' or Cap & Trade, may be disguised tax hikes, period, a good argument for dismissing failed incumbents and electing a loyal Constitutional opposition.

Most of us, unlike government bureaucrats, know red tape and tax hikes mean even lower tax revenues and economic productivity, and we can't borrow, spend and tax our way to prosperity.

Unless the present failing 1913 Fed and IRS schemes are replaced by Milton Friedman's money supply growth computer and Keynes', Summers' and Tobin's once upon a time 28 basis point uniform Constitutional APTax replacing all other taxes, that worked from 1914 to 1965 until derailed by Wall Street, we may witness the collapse of government in our times.

http://www.apttax.com/execsummary.php

$19 Trillion Bond and mortgage markets may not absorb BSB doubling the monetary base and diluting them $5 trillion again after tripling the Fed balance sheet from 2008 to 2010.A quarter higher interest rate would bankrupt the US government.

Service on the national debt is the third largest budget item, depending if we lump Medicare and Social Security, and the average Treasury duration is around four years.

If BSB starts printing again after laying off for a short while, bond vigilantes like PIMCO, China, Japan and Korea may start dumping US Treasuries and make Volcker look like an ugly duckling.

Already the Jubilee Prosperity Big4 are giving notice of a trend change on the Five Year Treasury note.

When/if BSB actually follows through on his talk, followed closely despite repelling the thorough Fed, Mint and Treasury gold audit, rates may begin to rise again to reflect insolvency, despite debt default deflation.

Fearful pirate and many more gold believers still have not acknowledged that we are no longer on the gold or silver monetary standard that made gold go up during the deflationary Depression of the 1930s we are in... 

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:03 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:02 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 12:48 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

You pay your money and you take your chances.

 

c'est la vie, c'est la métaux précieux

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 09:03 | Link to Comment SteveNYC
SteveNYC's picture

Good points. I would add that the states are as debt-addicted and riddled as the Feds, therefore the states better stay the fuck in-line or they'll be trading sea shells for currency. This is how debt captivity works, it does not discriminate, all who owe shall be slaves.....until they say fuck it and man up to the consequences.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:49 | Link to Comment fearsomepirate
fearsomepirate's picture

Under the Constitution, states have the power to issue gold and silver-backed money.  If the D.C. thinks destroying the dollar is a weapon it can use against the rest of the population, they might be surprised at what happens.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:29 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Awesome point.

So far they have restrictwed themselves to issuing commemorative collectibles...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 01:03 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

Great question, Mtomato. Didn't seem to get answered here. I suppose it depends on the issue. Seems as if the Feds will soon challenge Az's immigration law through the courts. I think the courts are the key. Many state issues can be challenged, let's see what is successfully challenged. In FEDERAL court.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 05:08 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

It is called NULLIFICATION.  Google 10th Amendment foundation.  Tom Woods has a new book out specifically about nullification.  Many states have already or are considering numerous nullification actions.  Most involve the tyranical abuse of the 14th amend. which should be eliminated along with the 13th and 17th.  Won't happen tho.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:06 | Link to Comment Mesquite
Sat, 06/26/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Mesquite
Mesquite's picture

Ok..Thank you..

Useful, non-msm info links appreciated here..

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:29 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Not to worry.

0 thinks he's channeling Lincoln...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:05 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Many already have, with many bills before State legislatures...

Check out Tenth Amendment Nullification Movement:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

 

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:01 | Link to Comment eccitante
eccitante's picture

"There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs—it’s called Nullification."

"Nullification is not just a book—it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans."

http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/15...

*How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny—and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again

* Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws * Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all

* Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws

Tom Wood's wrote the bestseller "Meltdown" - this is his next book, I think I will read it as it going to become very relevant in the near future.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:28 | Link to Comment Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

to clarify...

"farscist bitches"

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:45 | Link to Comment albion hamlin
albion hamlin's picture

you are clearly an idiot who did not even bother to read the decision by the Supreme Court - or if you did, don't have the foggiest clue what it means.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:57 | Link to Comment Transor Z
Transor Z's picture

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/38509ae6-5b8e-4bef-bf83-c6a0c5448632/2/doc/06-4216-cv_opn2.pdf

 

Nah, try the Second Circuit's opinion. It has dissenters who weren't shot in a soccer stadium and everything.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:16 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Does it mean anything at all that SCOTUS overruled Sotomayor's New Haven Firemen appellate decision denying promotion by merit, and then the President and Senate appointed and confirmed her without blinking?

And the current brisket has no Juducial experience, but is 0's equivalent of Harriet Myers?

Time to vote out all unConstitutional incumbents...

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 20:23 | Link to Comment Mesquite
Mesquite's picture

Time to vote out all unConstitutional incumbents...

Yup...

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:46 | Link to Comment svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

Yes. It is.

Fri, 06/25/2010 - 23:49 | Link to Comment weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Is the US a fascist state?  Yes.

This is very much where Liberals and Liberatarians agree 100%.  Sadly, the PTB are extremely effective in getting folks who share very similar values to fight on and on without ever getting the big picture.  (ie., 'let's you and him fight.')  One of my pet projects is 'net neutrality' for example.  Libertarians and Liberals should fight to allow equal access for all to the net. But it does not happen.  For some reason, Libertarians seem to think that Comcast and AT&T are equal to people.  Liberals think that on a level playing field, all providers should have an equal opportunity to distinguish their services.  A poorly explained difference, but i hope Libertarians who also like a few Lienenkugels will cut me some slack.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 00:56 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

Net neutrality is not a simple issue.

And many libertarians are just as confused if not more so as liberals about how the government, finance, and corporations function.

Here's a great video interview/debate on net neutrality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zw9aFVr4o

I think it's really a red herring. The states, los Federales, and the pathetic quisling telecom companies will do everything in their power to prevent technological advancement.

Why are we still using copper wires when fiber optics have existed for decades? Simple: political corruption. Net neutrality is a typical non-issue concocted by NGOs looking for lobbying buxxx, dividing the smartest among us and fogging our vision.

I've no problem with other people and countries practicing socialism or running a liberal state - as long as I'm permitted to opt out of it. In fact, I would support any secessionist effort by liberals who wanted to create an ideal state.

I think that socialism functions beautifully on a small scale in a heterogeneous global environment.

I hate most of what Reason puts out, but they recorded a great video on Sweden that explains why that model doesn't work for the US:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/23/reasontv-sweden-a-supermodel-f

That socialist state enjoys broad support among a highly homogenous population. It's similar in Switzerland. The Swiss have subsidized agriculture, but the food is a gazillion times better than in the US. The subsidies there are primarily a form of self-defense against American agricultural dumping - which is, in my opinion, tantamount to war.

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 01:38 | Link to Comment weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

"Net neutrality is not a simple issue."

Yes it is unless you are wilfully stupid.  Do you think Comcast, (or AT&T, or whomever) should be able to control the 'tubes' or not?  This is not hard.  You have completely missed the point.  Do you support Comcast's right to shut off your internet service, (or reduce your speed) because it's 'their' pipe, or do you think the people who use the pipes have some sort of common interest in the pipes? 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 01:55 | Link to Comment Close 2 the Edge
Close 2 the Edge's picture

I thought that bill I pay every month was their compensation for my using their pipe.  I didn't think (nor has it ever previously been) that I asked them to control that pipe for me.  If they need to adjust their billing tiers to account for usage fine - but I'd rather be free to do what I want without corporate\government back room deals over what should make it to my screen, or even if I can get somewhere with the speed I contracted for because they think I’m watching too much you-tube or Hulu..

Or do you want your provider to be able to tell 0-hedge to pay up or go away?

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 23:58 | Link to Comment ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

He just explained it to you and you do not get it.  You have it exactly backwards.  Net neutrality is about preventing Comcast from being able to determine what you have access to or providing different quality of service in reaching different locations on the internet.  it is not about the government cutting a deal that will limit your service.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 02:01 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

It is their pipe. But it's only their pipe because they've bribed the municipality to protect themselves from competition and technological development.

So yes, it's a complex issue. If your argument was as strong as you claim, you wouldn't have to resort to personal insults.

Why do you trust the government to regulate and control the web? How is that better than Comcast? At least Comcast doesn't torture people. I don't get how lefties can get angry at Coca-Cola for killing workers overseas (and they should be angry about it), but they don't make the connection with their own government.

The ultimate solution is to cut out the artificial scarcity built into the system by FCC regulations of spectrum and municipal wrecking of any serious telecom infrastructure build-outs on the "last mile" to the customer.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 06:26 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

gotta step in here...

there are two basic bandwidth-product models and unless you distinguish between them, the above argument is kind of circular.

1 - either you buy "common internet services", as *defined* by your vendor/ISP.

most folks consider this to be timely access to 'common' services - email, http/web, maybe some specialized services (trade-station protocols, etc.)

e.g. the Comcast-like company buys a generic 'data-pipe' and does some usage profiling and over-allocates usage, under the assumption not everyone will use it all the time. then some users start to break the profile and run video/bit-torrents, etc. always on, 24x7 always busy. the rest of Comcast customers suffer cruddy response time. Comcast throttles the heavy-use protocols. FCC cries foul. Comcast says "we buy the pipe, we can sell the parts of it that are cost-effective and throttle the rest. our pipe. go away."

only place for legal intervention is if Comcast mis-represents their product and claims "all services", but only opens some. misrepresentation is NOT the issue here.

 

2 - or, you buy a "direct connection" to the internet. all protocols allowed, you get some guaranteed level of service (bandwidth), perhaps more is available in bursts.

it's what most people *think* they have.

but - because of the guaranteed service/bandwidth agreement, it can't be oversold as easily. it therefore costs more. but you can count on it and *nobody* tells you what you can and can't do with it. (within the content laws - kiddie-porn, copy-right stuff, etc.) very small residential audience. much more common in businesses. entire basis for "real" ISPs

 

the argument here is whether or not you have really bought a raw "data-pipe" (all protocols available) or a sub-set service. (Comcast describes the product and you buy it. FCC go away - not your business.) FCC wants all of number 1 to be like number 2. pretty much destroys the #1 business model, and bandwidth capitalism...

BTW - iphones and the like are actually #1. even hacked and tethered, the ATT net doesn't (didn't?) do GRE/IP tunnels... auditably not an open pipe... still does what 99% of folks want. no problem till FCC changes rules.

 

not a new issue - same in late 1800s with telegraph. when fed subsidized early lines, they said all traffic must flow, in the order it is submitted (no service priority/favorites allowed) - with government traffic first if in national interest... it's worked pretty well for 150 years. but notice this is *with* fed subsidy. Raw 'datapipes' are products and where tariffs are already paid, lines between carriers are not-necessarily subsidized.

Comcast is buying a 'pipe' at full price and re-selling 'stuff' to 'average' users, the products they want. FCC has *no* place determining usage, once the 'pipe' is bought at full fare.

extreme examples - say religious group wants to buy a 'pipe' and put a front-end filter for traffic to be 'kosher' to their audience. audience buys service. no problem, right? FCC says no. courts (so far), say yes.

there might be a place where FCC says all ISPs must offer open pipes as alternative to customers that ask, but ... what gives them that right is a different conversation.

FCC needs to create a parallel public network, or pay business costs to ISPs if they want to control that use. very much an eminent domain issue.

 

BTW, the arguements that somehow google-like companies on the other side of your pipe are somehow monopolizing or controlling things is specious. it's like saying a guy with 200 cell-phones is monopolizing your ability to call your mom. if google or yahoo or amazon just fell off the network, this issue, and your interaction with the net would not change a bit. just a few less services available. i heard that crap on CNBC a couple of weeks back... no surprise. goofballs.

 

along the lines of the original article, conspiracists believe the FCC wants to guarantee all net users can see the "us.gov" domain... but don't want to pay for it.

great article, btw. read it on naked-cap last night.

sorry for the disjointed prose - don't really want to do a white-paper tonight.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 06:53 | Link to Comment brian0918
brian0918's picture

i.knoknot: good post. You are right in what you cover, however Apostate did not claim that Amazon/Google had a monopoly on the pipe. He specifically cites Comcast, and I agree with him in that respect. Part of freeing up the system should involve opening up the public lands connecting private property, to allow competing providers to lay their own pipes down. Sure, it is redundant, but that is a good thing for security and reliability to the customer. Sure, it costs a lot to start laying the pipeline, but the most lucrative areas will get it first, and help drive down the costs for everyone else. The additional needs for competing pipeline will incentivize lower the costs for laying that pipeline.

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:15 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

tnx - i didn't mean to come across as critical of *either* speaker - or imply that either speaker was asserting such.

my intent is to clarify that the argument isn't what most people think it is. i also believe that the administration is encouraging that confusion.

i actually think both folks are correct, but are viewing the elephant from differing sides.

in this specific case, Comcast does have a monopoly, and many folks cannot get that direct line yet. i don't like that situation (monopoly), but it's not really Comcast's fault or responsibility to provide this luxury. if it essential, the government/PUC types need to build the public version. i believe we're dependent enough these days that such a proposal would not be met with that much resistance. money better invested than unemployment extensions.

your suggestion re: parallel pipes - i could see the government sponsoring *those* kinds of pipes and insisting that a percentage be used for 'open' access. i don't have any problem with the inneficiency of multiple pipes either, because that way you minimize points of failure, and maximize competition. and each new line is 100 times faster, it seems.

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:14 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Compare and contrast with the so-called Fairness doctrine on so-called public airwaves.

Corporations pay government for monopoly franchises literally invented out of thin air.

If airwaves are constitutionally public, then why does the fairness doctrine seek to regulate free speech content?

And while you're at it, check out the Patriot Act indemnifying telcoms for violating civil rights without due process?

And when yer done with that, learn that deathstar AT&T et al routinely patched private emails, faxes, internet traffic and telephone calls to government agency computers for data mining without warrants before Patriot Act, Quest being one of the few that said No and suffered loss of government patronage.

 

Then check out WEB Robertson et al financed LVLT railroad right of way business model owning the conduit-pipes....

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 15:04 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

good questions all.

re: the airwaves, definitely a case where no guiding oversite would render the airwaves useless but to the guy with the biggest amplifiers. i look at how much of the spectrum is actually public (wi-fi, etc.) and laugh (with you).

re: AT&Ts sereptitious monitoring... it's wrong. and i don't think the nature of their pipes had anything to do with their cow-towing to the gov. it was the political position they found themselves in that led (leads) to that (mis)judgement. don't doubt that google is already doing far worse.

re: fairness doctrine. no argument. when the protector of order on the airwaves delves into the content on those airwaves... we are in a world of hurt. and the sheeple go on munching.

i'm not sure we're in argument here, and don't get me wrong on NN. i buy my own line and have full access (so far). i pay more. this is what the FCC wants for everybody (paid or otherwise!). in principal, i should support NN. but, i think it's short-sited. i cannot begrudge Comcast, from reselling their fully-paid line in a way that suites them.

if i build a toll-road - on my land - between two towns... then the towns get together and say people with bikes can use my road for free - or walkers, or firetrucks... a wrong is being committed. i would destroy my road.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 16:50 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

We agree, for what it's worth...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 21:41 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Comcast has a monopoly and doesn't want me to use YouTube (for free) or netflix for $9.99 a month.  They want me to buy their cable package for 10x that.  Without FCC comcast *could* limit my access to netflix and YouTube.

On the other hand, I suspect the government does not want each individual to have their own web server.  I don't think we can trust the government to control the services that everyone can and cannot provide.  It will lead to a person needing a permit to use a new service (for example some new encrypted communication that isn't susceptible to man in the middle.)

It is trivial for an ISP to identify a service and shut it down despite what port it is running on and to setup man in the middle on all encrypted traffic.  I suspect the NSA has that in place already.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:37 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

in that perfect world, we would be able to replace comcast with a 'real' service providor.

many can, and do, skip on comcast. for those that have no choice... time and a 3g PC-card?

that the FCC forces their hand still bothers me. the internet is pervasive and important, but it is not like electricity or water.

if they did force open-ness *while* they were putting in their *own* public network, i'd find that tolerable... but to just grab the reigns of a running business and break their business model... who's next?

and FYI - i have *no* love for comcast.

 

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 00:10 | Link to Comment ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

"but to just grab the reigns of a running business and break their business mode"

If their business model is to have a monopoly on consumer's choice and to force the consumer to user their products when there are others available on the internet; I do not think this is something that deserves any protection.

You have no love for comcast?  It kind of sounds like you work for them.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 06:08 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

so when is it OK for the government to *force* Safeway to sell Purina? seriously, when?

when is it OK to force McDonalds to sell salads? or 'healthy food' (sooner than you think)?

and you, yes you... think this is OK? we are lost! it is NOT NOT NOT OK. it never was OK. whoever led you to believe that comcast owes you ANYTHING more than they indicate in their contract with you was WRONG WRONG WRONG. what you WANT is of virtually NO consequence (not a personal thing, that reality). you can build it or buy it, but cannot force it - else you are a thief - stealing their viability and efficiency. and liking them or not has nothing to do with this issue.

go back to my toll-road example and you may better understand my actual position.

evil comcast buys a raw pipe and resells a filtered access it to their target audience. no crime. they're throttling products (protocols) that compete with their in-house stuff... no crime. good business? no. so buy a raw pipe of your own and tell them to f--- off.

sigh... you choose to buy comcast then hate them? don't buy them... it's really that simple. *forcing* them to sell what you want is so.... nevermind.

the FDA doesn't go into a bakery and tell them to use the flour they just bought to make more donut-holes... what's the difference? if they don't have what you want, you find another friggin bakery.

i definitely don't and wouldn't work for them. i just see that to patch this perceived 'leak' in this way eventually sinks the entire ship.

it's not that subtle a point. i'm starting to believe there's a gene involved here.

 

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:06 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

As JD Rockefeller learned with Standard Oil, now partly owned by BP, when you are the only game in town you can charge what you want...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 12:09 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

We just switched carriers for the very reason that ours was "down" all day after many outages, a form of unwarranted censorship...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 22:47 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

I wish we could make that jump.

Our ONLY Internet choice is the cable weasels. Telco can't provide DSL any faster than dialup because we're too far from the office and they're too cheap to put in a repeater for a fairly sizeable neighborhood.

Once upon a time we had a T-1 connection, but when the business folded, we had to choose between lightning Internet for over a thousand fiat bucks a month, or food.

We're nice and fat now, but our Internet sucks. It's a choice, but not a good choice.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 02:05 | Link to Comment Rebel
Rebel's picture

There are other examples that make the case. A founding principle of our country was the right to trial by jury. Ultimate decisions in such matters were to be determined by your peers. If the IRS decides you owe them money, they take your stuff away, and I don't think you have any real recourse. If the government decides that your farm should become a super-walmart, I don't think there is a clear path to defend your property rights before a  jury of your peers. If the EPA decides that your farming operation in Ca. is endangering some minnows, they shut your water supply off (even though you "own" water rights). If a judge decides that property tax revenue from one county should be taken away to pay for schools in a different county, those told to pay up have no recourse. Child protective services thinks you should not swat your kid for mouthing off, and they take the kids away. No trial, no jury, no peers.

The power of embedded bureaucrats to utterly destroy you is unfettered, as far as I can see.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 02:59 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

and just accused of drug trafficking and you lose assets, much less convicted.  convicted of certain sex crimes and there is no sentence that is certain to "pay your debt to society".  and my favorites, cited/alluded to above, the "terror card":  accused of terrorism and you can be assassinated anywhere, doing anything, by non-recourse executive order or imprisoned without appeal or representation, or sent to another country for torturing and, if proven innocent, have no redress of grievance.  yeah, the scotus denies 99% of certiorari pretty much settles it, not. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 08:48 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

It seems we all exist "at pleasure", and that is the definition of a police state, isn't it?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 17:05 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Consider fathers' rights in family court like a snowflake in hell.

http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/...

http://stoptyranny.info/

Especially a high tech father whose company threatened the Federal Reserve monopoly, had his kids taken away, was jailed and shot at by Sheriffs Deputies, all without due process:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?Info=0032799

Currently hassled by IRS claiming ridiculous numbers, fines, penalties and they did not think the example of their Boss Geithner not paying timely taxes, fines or penalties relevant.

Take your money to the bank and learn it is no longer yours. Banks and Treasury limit withdrawals and even steal your money without warrant notice or due process.

 

Agencies, Banks, Government, Law Enforcement, Judicial System apparently now all part of the same evil matrix web of secret databases accountable to no one.

 

Wrote representatives for redress, since they oversee an IRS avoiding their own due process and lying to get collections and promotions.

After Bailout, Financial IrReg, 0Care and QE, one might be forgiven for realizing they no longer represent the people who elected them.

Still willing to give them the opportunity in an election year to prove otherwise. 

 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 17:23 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Call him a nutter for his comments on Concentration

camps, Habeas corpus and Rothschilds, or learn it's

time for serious government reform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3jR6FXjxo&feature=player_embedded#! 9:41

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 10:28 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

They seized his mansion for standing up to them...

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Rebel,

These agencies get away with this simply because we let them.

But, a correction Pls,"were to be determined by your peers".

"jury of your peers".............

Is incorrect, trial by jury, yes, but not by peers.

That stacks the deck, against the outcome.

Juries are a big problem, they do not know how much power they have.

IF they decide that a law is a bad law, they can overule the Judges instructions on their options of penalization.

Trouble is, they do not know it.

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 11:08 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Most people try to get out of jury duty, thus disempowering themselves and disenfranchising their peers.

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

The Jury Nullification Movement is alive and well.

http://www.jurybox.org/

Juries must know how much power they have.

http://fija.org/

Judges and commissioners do their best to curtail and deny Constitutional rights to trial by jury (of peers), under the theory America is too crowded with uneducated illegal aliens and little people to be a Democratic Republic. Let them eat bananas.

Commisioners, Judges and Bailiffs kept cameras and observers out of their courtrooms. They delayed or altered court transcripts, imprisoned those who did not knuckle under with indefinite contempt of court. They invented laws, refused to admit or consider evidence, laws or witnesses, returned favours to favoured attorneys, took bribes and kickbacks while owning conflicts of interest allegiances, properties and stocks, twisting the law to suit their purpose.

Very few cases actually came to trial, as most were intimidated into plea bargains by crazy penalty risks and threats in the legal lottery. (Matthew 5:25)

Of those that did, outrageous decisions favoring the Corporate State over the consumer producer individual were rarely appealed, due to costs and connections.

Most decisions, no matter how absurd, were upheld at the appellate level.

Class action suits in the billions benefitted judges and lawyers, not plaintiffs.

Remember a Judge was once a lawyer, taking care of the Guild at the expense of everyone else and the economy.

Unlike representatives, the decision records of most Judges were rarely up for public media scrutiny, and if they did face election, it was usually unopposed.

Federal judges sat on the bench for life, some playing with themselves under their robes or issuing crazy decisions, senility and all.

Why else did Judge Smelzer single handedly ignore the will of the people with Prop 187 stopping free rides for illegals and Judge Wanger worship the Delta Smelt, turning the California breadbasket into a three year dust-bowl allowing foreign corporations to buy valuable ag land at pennies on the dollar?

Ask 'honest John' Edwards who made his millions and mansions on wild medical malpractice ambulance chasing and teared up for the poor to become President.

Judicial misconduct was very rarely adjudicated by a system that prefered to go along to get along rather than rock the boat or make waves.

I know someone who won five suits in a row for unfair trade practices by Volvo, who appealed one all the way to SCOTUS. Volvo got the Treasury Department to file a friend of the court brief so the case was assigned to an ACLU "Justice" with cancer unfamiliar with business.

The minority opinion, a former corporate attorney for Monsanto, pointed this out. 

Not many people know a former Supreme Court Justice defended the father-in-law of a Senator who was indicted for the second time after being found guilty of mob-related racketeering falsifying ABC and IRS records. The father-in-law got off and the son-in-law used his father-in-law's cash and influence to run the Senate to confirm the Lawyer Justice and run for President twice.

The CJ SCOTUS died of cancer.

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seventh+Amendment

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 16:04 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Rebel,

You do not have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers......

You have the right to a trial by jury.

To allow a trial by peers, would stack the deck in favor of the defendant..........

That said, Attorney's routinely screen candidates to get the most favorable for their cases.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 02:58 | Link to Comment Escapeclaws
Escapeclaws's picture

Great post, Apostate. I'm so glad you participate in Zerohedge, because you really bring a lot to the discussions (unlike me, I must confess). I watched both videos even though the second was long. Fortunately both guys have a sense of humor! However, I'm not sure I totally buy into Stephen Molineux's idea of violence. There some sense to it, but I have trouble with the analogy violence:philosophy::solar-centricism:astronomy. Though he does not mention libertarianism per se, he seems to be coming from that direction. He seems to have grafted his idea of violence onto the libertarianism. Aside from the its claims as a philosophy, it seems to be a *universal* truth that all people who have worked in the software industry espouse the libertarian point of view. This "creed", if I may be so bold, seems to have sprung up in Silicon Valley like a mushroom in the grass. It never struck me as a compelling philosophy because it seems to me, at least, to be one of those schools of thought that translate all questions into its own terms and then spits out an answer--ie, a philosophy that functions kind of like software.

My favorite speaker who tries to bring philosophy to the public is Alain de Bouton. I don't believe he would totally agree with Molineux's violence-centric point of view, though he would undoubtedly give it some credence. His series on status anxiety is a must see for anyone--beautifully done and quite nuanced, with a lot of irony thrown in for humor.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 03:44 | Link to Comment Apostate
Apostate's picture

Thank you for the compliment. I like to bring an independent and reasoned voice to the debate. I try to be as respectful as I can in disagreements, because I've been all over the map myself in the past.

Stefan is an ancap.

It's common in libertarianism to equate taxation with force, because many reject the validity of the social contract. 

Not everyone in tech is a libertarian. I'd actually argue that most engineers and software types are extreme statists who mostly are just concerned with maximizing the amount of money coming their way. That's why there's so much nerdly support for military research, NASA, and so on.

The Slashdot/Wired Magazine ethos is bizarre. On one hand, the nerds want money. They love getting cheap money for the government to build murder-robots, spy machines, space shuttles, and other statist crapola.

On the other hand, the nerds want civil liberties, less government censorship, and more accountability from politicians. 

The critique, I think, holds the most water in the US. European governments are relatively recent, and have broad popular support. The US is a bizzaro hodge-podge that hasn't had a real revolution since 1913. It's the oldest government by far, with many laws going back to the 18th century.

As a society, that's a shitload of legacy code that drags us down.

I'm enjoying the de Botton TED talk - http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:01 | Link to Comment brian0918
brian0918's picture

I debate on Slashdot all the time, and they are your typical statists in almost every respect. Needless to say, I am modded -1 Troll more often than not, even when I make my arguments perfectly clear and sensible. It's like people are afraid of taking a view seriously, and simply want to hide it from the world, for fear of what would happen if that view caught on.

Also, I reject the social contract for the simple reason that it is an invalid concept. Show me the contract I signed, and I will believe you that it exists. Until then, it is simply a claim used to control people, like God.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 07:21 | Link to Comment i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

+++ esp. second paragraph.

i make and honor my own promises. i am not responsible for the promises made by others.

many in control would think/wish it was otherwise.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 10:41 | Link to Comment Rebel
Rebel's picture

A large amount of the really cool research is funded directly or indirectly through the government, so nerd/engineer/scientist tend to be beholdant to the system. Big science is expensive, and those who love big science best not rock the boat. Even many high tech entrepreneurial start ups rely heavily on SBIR, NIST grants, NASA etc. So, while nerds are clearly capable of seeing the truth, they play the game so they can get the $$. 

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:25 | Link to Comment OldTrooper
OldTrooper's picture

It's common in libertarianism to equate taxation with force, because many reject the validity of the social contract. 

Ok, I'll bite.  I'm no great Libertarian thinker, but I'll do my best.

Taxation (in and of itself) may not equal violence.  But the mechanism for compliance and enforcement sure to.  There isn't one of us with two brain cells still firing that can honestly say we completely agree that all the taxes we pay are fair and necessary.  There is always an element of force, or threat of force.  Pay or else... (Isn't there a legal term for that ... extortion?)

As for the social contract, the argument can certainly be made that it is really based on the free consent, agreement, free association and self-interest of individuals.  So, it is not the 'validity' of the social contract that is is question, it is, again, the mechanism of enforcement.  What happens when a person no longer finds the 'contract' beneficial or desirous?  Why should the next generation be bound by a 'contract' not of their making?  (Isn't that why there is a rule against perpetuities in contract law?)

We know what has happened, to what means some have resorted to enforce the 'social contract' - Bunker Hill, Austerlitz, Antietam, Nan-king, Fallujah and so on.  We know what is happening to enforce the 'social contract' - thugish police tactics, perpetual imprisonment, torture, censorship, capricious application of laws, debasing of the currency, punitive taxation, and so on.

The 'social contract' does exist, but it must be based on the consent, agreement and free association of every individual.  When it stops being that you begin descent into (insert personal idea of hell on earth here).

This is what underlies the failure of large, centrally planned states.  The larger the group of individuals, the less consent, agreement and free association is achieved (because all of us are different to one degree or another).

I, and none of the Libertarians I know, reject the social contract.  I do however reject the notion that you can, or should, make every individual participate in a single, monolithic, immutable 'social contract'.

The duress and force a government must use to collect revenues is merely a reflection of how much consent and agreement their version of the 'social contract' really has.  With that in mind, our national government is in serious, serious trouble.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 18:37 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Every lethal government tech designer I knew in

Silicon Valley died young. Guilt or a higher court?

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 23:52 | Link to Comment Rebel
Rebel's picture

Are you suggesting some sort of nefarious action, or just some sort of Karma thing?

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Not sure.

Two smoked themselves to death.

Another who funded them died of toxics from his tank collection hobby.

Sat, 06/26/2010 - 11:58 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Stopped going to Silicon Valley Association meetings when they openly espoused webcams on every intersection, street lamp and put them in every home...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!