Secession or Expatriation: The Only Answers To Martial Law?

September 30, 2010

by Linda Brady Traynham

(Editor’s note: Linda submitted this fine analysis in response to yesterday’s article on Martial Law. After you read it, you will understand that secession is the ONLY possible way to thwart Martial Law. Or you can consider expatration, but you’d better do that before the meltdown. After the meltdown, DC will likely close borders for exit.)

As powerful as this presentation is, it does not–for reasons of space, I am certain; Russell states that these are excerpts–begin to make clear how quickly martial law could be imposed or how few options would be left. Any sitting president who chooses to be the last one in America in order to become the first dictator/king/emperor/first consul can do so easily. I thought it quite possible that Dubya would make that decision. There was nothing to stop him. The process is very simple:

1. Declare a national emergency (any pretext will do, and Obama does so routinely);
2. Dismiss Congress for a minimum of six months, as allowed by the Constitution; and
3. Homeland Security then becomes the law of the land and no one or group can even question any actions taken during that six months. Let me stress that this is by current law.

Impeach the president? How? Congress has been disbanded. Supreme Court interference, even if they could muster 5 votes? How many battalions do the Supremes have? The President has a sizable force under his personal, as opposed to titular, command now, and an enormous number of troops have been trained in “crowd suppression” and “riot control” at Ft. Benning, Georgia. I do not suppose it is by coincidence that 80,000 troops are enough to close off every freeway exit in America–and that isn’t hyperbole; it has been worked out mathematically.

A very easy explanation of precisely how every last piece of enabling legislation Hitler used has been passed in this century in Washington, D. C., can be found in Naomi Wolfe’s slim volume, The End of America. Frills have been added since, such as the “pre-census” workers taking GPS readings on our homes, which will make it far easier to arrest such “dissidents” as I. Your computer tattles on you, and having visited such a site as this–far less what could be termed by Janet Napolitano as “fomenting insurrection” by contributing here–could get one put on the “No Fly” list which will form the basis for identifying trouble-makers. The Feds are against “profiling” only when that is used to identify probable foreign terrorists and illegal aliens; it has no difficulty with stigmatizing me as a “domestic terrorist” because I have read the Bible, own guns, speak out against the government, and consort with former military personnel. Are you now or have you ever been a listener of Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck? Clearly a prospect for terrorism, particularly men who cut their hair short and have tattoos and wear bluejeans. How unAmerican can they get?

Do you know what Executive Order 11921 says? You’ll have to hunt because it is being removed from the Internet. It allows the government to confiscate everything you have, for the common good, of course. Starting with your food, guns, ammunition, alcohol, fuel, water, and a cute little provision for “naval stores.” That probably sounds like rope and tar to you, but under the new definition it includes everything the Navy purchases, which is basically… everything. It is improbable that you will be reimbursed for the appropriated goods, but even if you were the money would be worth nothing. When a squad armed with genuine “assault” rifles, wearing body armor, shows up at your door, resistance will be dealt with harshly. Most of us patronize Sam’s Club and have little plastic cards from Kroger’s grocery stores, and others. Their computers keep track of your purchases, you know. If you have been “prepping” in the wrong places you left a clear paper trail of what you bought. Just try explaining that you have consumed 700 pounds of rice in the last year. Credit card purchases are on file, so they know how many boxes of Meals, Ready to Eat, you bought. There are murmurings of reinstituting the charge of “hoarding,” and at least one group defines that as having more than three days’ food in your home. The government knows, within an easy to estimate allowance for normal usage on the ranch, how many gallons of red diesel I have; I was required to get a permit to purchase it. (Red diesel can be used only on farms and ranches; from time to time inspectors check the tailpipes of vehicles used on road, and woe betide anyone caught with dye residue.)

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been planning a totalitarian state for over fifty years, and danger is high between now and at least the end of January, 2011. Obama knows that there are only two ways to prevent resounding rejection at the polls in November: a short, victorious war, or a “fortuitous” “man-made disaster” which might unite the country behind him and would at least provide a flimsy excuse for martial law. Short, victorious wars are a little hard to come by unless you’re Moshe Dyan or Golda Meir. Consequently, I see two particularly perilous questions: will there be elections this year? If there are, will a new Congress be seated next January? The Democrats state bluntly that whether they win or lose they are going to spend the time between now and then pushing through all of the legislation possible, and after the elections they will have absolutely nothing left to lose. I don’t expect Congress to be in recess even for Christmas.

The superb article we are discussing is a year old, and it may have included a more lengthy discussion of the dangers of government control of the food supply. The so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act” is, indeed, a giant pay-off to Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s husband, who is associated with Monsanto, but not only does it push Monsanto (with those genetically modified seeds which produce seeds that are sterile, and have enormous resistance to weed killers), but it outlaws heritage seeds! Sometimes known as heirloom seeds, those are old varieties which produce excellent vegetables lavishly and are in no way deleterious to mankind. (If you like Roma tomatoes, almost all those for sale are from Mexico and of heirloom stock. Scrape the seeds out gently onto a paper towel and dry them for future use. If you spread them out thinly you will be able to cut the paper up for ease of planting.) That, obviously, is very bad, but there is much worse.

The true purposes of the bill are to locate all of the livestock in America, put prices totally under the control of Agribiz, and to make it illegal to process so much as a chicken for your own use. The very threat has driven our local butcher out of business for anything except deer season. The current regulations, which require expensive USDA inspectors on the premises at all times just barely allow him to make a profit, but he can see that the changes will destroy his business. He’s quitting while he’s ahead.

I run a small ranch, and here are the differences the bill will make for my prospects of ever making a profit, not that they were ever large. Without spending at least $150,000 I will not be able to purchase a dairy license. Without the license there will be absolutely no point in keeping 6 dairy goats and two dairy cows in milk. It will be legislated a crime to give away their milk and a crime to transport it in a private vehicle. In theory I can make cheese out of it–if and only if that cheese is aged more than 90 days–but only if I have a separate, all stainless and concrete block “commercial kitchen.” A gallon of milk produces a pound of cheese, with a fair amount of fuss and expensive enzymes and rennet. In theory (and with constant work), I could produce 150 pounds of cheese about 10 months out of the year, and, in theory, sell it for about four dollars a pound if I could find a store that only sold 150 pounds/month of cheddar, which I can’t. Does it sound sensible to build a separate building with air filters and costly refrigeration for the small profit I would make? I didn’t think so, either, but somebody has to protect Lily and Oak Farms from the likes of amateur goatherders.

It gets worse. So far Congress has not pushed through NAIS, but it probably will this fall, at which point I will be required to insert an RFID chip in every animal on the place and be able to account for every last one of them at all times. I will be subject to exceedingly large fines if I do not report the death, sale, loss, or birth of all animals within 24 hours. I don’t know how many chickens I have…somewhere between 100 and 150, probably. They are free range and roost in an assortment of places. Consider the sheer volume of work required to run a scanner over every neck every day! Sanderson and Tyson will only be required to chip one bird out of a house of 5,000. In theory this will be used to track flocks and herds if an animal is found to have Mad Cow disease or Anthrax. Never mind that no sensible person believes that the chip # would be kept with every cut from a side of beef, making it possible to track diseased beef down to the hamburger level.

“But wait! There’s more!” It will become a crime to process beef, chicken, hogs, deer, rabbits, goats or even squirrels and fish on the premises, even for our own use. Because I don’t have a butcher’s license, of course, and I don’t have a commercial kitchen. Never mind that I have 48′ of stainless steel counter tops (Craig’s List is wonderful!) and a professional butcher’s bandsaw, they aren’t in a separate concrete block building with proper drains and filtered air and sub-zero refrigeration. It isn’t as though the West were settled by men who dressed their own carcasses, now, is it?

What do you suppose the purpose of this is, if you aren’t credulous enough to believe it is to protect me from hurting myself eating tainted meat or slicing my hand? Why…in addition to letting the government know where to raid for supplies, it limits where I can sell the pastured beef I raise. Obviously I cannot take a steer to the butcher who has gone out of business, but even if I found one I would not be allowed to sell the meat, although I suppose we could transport it to our home freezers and eat it ourselves. I cannot sell my steers and chickens to private individuals because they won’t be able to get them processed easily, either. I will only be able to sell my livestock at public auction, where the only buyers will be from the big slaughter houses. Do we suppose that this restraint of trade will result in lower prices to consumers? No, we do not. Neither can we suppose that those buyers will pay a fair price for the pastured beef I raise, free from hormones and pesticides, at considerable expense and over twice the time of those fed hormones. Still, we can’t let let small ranchers and farmers survive. Oh, I’m a real threat to Hormel, Swift, and Oscar Meyer, I am. Why, I could send about a dozen head to market this year if I wanted to, totally ruining their bottom lines without doing more than paying my feed bills, if that.

A very reasonable question at this point is, “Linda, why are you running cattle, goats, and chickens at all, if this is what in store?” One answer is that it wasn’t, when I began restocking the ranch. A better one is that I never intended to make a profit as a rancher, and a good thing, too. In good years ranchers make 4%. In bad ones they lose $150/head, or more, as they did last year. The livestock preserves my “agricultural exemption” which is worth over a thousand dollars a month off my taxes. We love having the critters around. Primarily, the stock is my hedge against The Greater Depression, hyperinflation, and TEOTWAWKI. It is a renewable source of food–supposing I can protect it against the government and desperate, hungry strangers.

What will I do if ordered to surrender my animals to the government “for the common good,” or “the general welfare,” two phrases that have never included me? I don’t know, any more than most folks know how they will react if put under martial law and see our neighbors disappear into one of the 800 or so internment camps. My instinct is to say that given sufficient warning I will shoot them myself rather than allow the Statists to appropriate them. Shoot them and shove the carcasses into one of the lakes or taint them with gasoline. If being Irish, Scottish, and/or Southern aren’t on Janet’s list of subversive characteristics they ought to be, because we don’t take kindly to rustlers, even if they are wearing black jackets that say BATF & Cattle Confiscation on them and are carrying fully automatic rifles. I absolve them of being jack-booted thugs; I’m sure they will wear Corcorans.

I’m a great believer in doing our thinking ahead of time, but there are too many unknowns to set any rules other than to prepare for the worst, speak out, and share our information. I do wonder, though, how many Americans would resist blatant tyranny, and my sad suspicion is that we would be divided roughly into the Red and the Blue, with the provisos that a great many city dwellers would be constrained by geography and reliance on the food distribution network from protesting while large “entitled” groups would riot and loot. Some, but by no means all, of those in small towns and the country would be more apt to protest..which may be part of the move to get people off the land and into urban environments. Roosevelt had 5.1 million small farms to feed a population of 125 M. There are only 2.1 M small farms, now, and an estimated 330 M residents. 30% of the orange juice in the world is produced in Brazil, as well as most of the sugar cane and coffee. If legislation is efficacious in squeezing out the last of the small time threats to globalized food procurement, at least some small towns will die, no longer able to subsist on selling each other goods and services. The farms went under due to grocery chains, population density, ruinous taxation on inheritances, and the unfounded idea that our sons could make better lives for themselves in the cities. A hundred years ago 85% lived on the land. Today 85% live in cities and suburbs while only 2% are involved in food production, potentially a very dangerous situation.

I am not a violent person and all I want from the Feds is a non-aggression pact. Unfortunately, like foot traffic across our southern borders, they keep pushing into our lives, eating more and more of our substance. They think in terms of how much of their money they will allow us to keep. What if they decide all of the food and water are theirs, too? Do we take up growing lettuce, tomatoes, and bunnies in our closets under grow lights?

Linda Brady Traynham for DumpDC, copyright 2010.

What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law? (Exerpts)

September 29, 2010

by Giordano Bruno, Neithercorp

The U.S. Federal Government under both the Bush and Obama administrations has made it perfectly clear that in the event of almost any major disaster scenario, including economic and environmental, they see the institution of Martial Law as not only viable, but inexorable. From legislative actions like the Patriot Act and the Enemy Belligerents Act (currently in committee) to continuity of government programs such as Rex 84 (formerly classified) and Presidential Directive PDD 51 (currently classified, even from Congress), all the “legal” precedents have been put into place to allow the Executive Branch to implement military oversight of civilian affairs, dissolution of Constitutional liberties, even the end of Miranda Rights and the right to a speedy impartial trial as protected under the Sixth Amendment. In some cases, government legislation allows for the rendition and torture of American citizens as combatants, all for the “greater good”, of course…

Some in this country dismiss such bills and directives as abstract novelties that don’t constitute any real threat to our freedoms or our daily life. People have a tendency to assume that the atmosphere we live in today will remain the same tomorrow and always. Many of us never consider that dramatic, even violent change in American domestic policy is possible on a moment’s notice. On the contrary, the continuity legislation now in place shows that our government under the direction of corporate globalists is not only prepared to implement a military lockdown of this country, they fully anticipate that such an event will occur in the near future.

In this article, we will examine how Martial Law will be presented to the citizens of the U.S., how it would likely evolve and progress, and what the ultimate end result will be if such action is not stopped by the Liberty Movement and the American public.

A “Reasonable” Tyranny

Tyranny does not always burst through your front door wearing body armor and brandishing an assault rifle. Sometimes, it waltzes through your living room and sweeps you off your feet. Sometimes it wears a glad mask that promises warmth and safety. Sometimes, tyranny invites you out to the party and makes you feel like you belong.

NEVER leave your drink unattended around tyranny…

Regardless of how apathetic the American public may seem at any given moment, the majority of them at their core hate false authority backed by thuggish jackboot mentality when directly faced with it, and will not capitulate to despotism easily. That’s just the way we are. Revolution is in our blood (though now slightly diluted), and it is an undeniable aspect of our national psyche. Widespread and immediate military control of U.S. streets would be met with a fury the world has never seen. If martial law were ever to be achieved by the Federal Government, it would have to be presented to Americans gradually, as absolutely reasonable and necessary to their personal well being not to mention that of their family. Globalists would have to twist the reality of martial law into a tapestry of fuzzy logic and two dimensional rationalizations, making the action appear almost mathematically evident. They would also need a crisis on a scale nearly beyond belief.

The U.S. is on the verge of many such crises. The economic health of this country is blatantly unstable, and even some mainstream analysts who called us “fear mongers” six months ago are now reluctantly admitting that some form of collapse is probable.

Under circumstances like these, people tend to allow their fear to dictate what is “reasonable” at the moment. Principles often take a back seat to “moral relativity” in the face of misfortune, even though wisdom demands that principles be held as most important in the worst of times. Freedom and civilian control over government are vital not just when our wallets are stuffed, our stomachs are fed, and the weather is mild, but when the threat of national upheaval hangs in the sky like a sun-baked vulture. When an early and unpleasant demise becomes a distinct possibility for a significant majority of the citizenry, this is when liberty should take precedence over all things.

One argument is always presented by tyrants and their flock during the initial stages of social enslavement: “You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead. It is always better to be alive, no matter the cost.”

However, what they fail to mention is that it is exceedingly difficult to enjoy being alive when you are a modern feudal peasant whose destiny is subject to the whim of power hungry corporatists and madmen. There is nothing meaningful in that kind of life, just as there is nothing meaningful in the life of a cog in a great machine except to turn around and around. You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead, but you also can’t enjoy living if you’re not free.

At the beginning of any autocratic system, total authoritarian control is almost always presented as a panacea, a wonder-drug for the masses. When confronted with epic struggle, some people would rather defer responsibility for their survival to someone else rather than make the effort to save themselves, and thus, totalitarianism is born. Martial law in America would be no different. It will be presented to us as purely rational and absolutely necessary; an “extreme solution to extreme times”. Its success would rest solely on how many of us are willing to make the effort to determine our own destinies, and how many of us are too cowardly to do so.

Consequences Of Martial Law

Regardless of how well governments sugarcoat the prospect of martial law at its introduction, after it has been instituted, it doesn’t take very long for the people to realize they have been duped. The consequences of a militarized society cannot be hidden after the fact, nor does the establishment feel the need to hide those consequences after they have been handed unlimited power.

To peer into the future of what American martial law might look like, one need only research the history of martial law and dictatorships in general. From the Philippines to China to the Soviet Union, the stages of tyranny are pretty much the same no matter where you are in the world. Anyone who believes martial law in America will forgo any of these terrible steps, or that we will somehow maintain a sense of propriety and fairness, is going to be sorely disappointed.

Free Press Destroyed: The very first action of any government that has achieved military control of a country is to dominate the flow of information. The greatest threat to elitist domination is usually the people who they mean to rule over. Ending freedom of the press stalls chances that a view that opposes government control will gain footing. In America, the mainstream media is already under globalist control and would likely remain active during martial law, at least for a time. FOX, CNN, CNBC, etc, would change little, while the true free press (alternative web news which now dominates over the ratings of mainstream media) would be attacked, if not shut down completely. Government enforced web filters (like those in China and being legislated in Australia) could be put in place, and arrests of citizen journalists are liable to occur.

Dissolution Of Checks And Balances: In some cases, military rule allows for the dissolution of states rights and even of Congress itself. If Congress is allowed to remain, it would be in a ceremonial capacity only. Under martial law, all decision making is “streamlined” into the hands of the executive branch. The excuse given for this is often the same everywhere; the President (dictator) must not have his hands tied by checks and balances during a state of crisis, otherwise, his decisions are slowed, and more people could be hurt. Once the executive branch of a country removes checks and balances, they almost never put them back willingly, even after the so-called “crisis” has subsided.

Erasure Of Civil Liberties: Say goodbye to Habeas Corpus immediately. All tyrannies have abruptly suspended rights to fair trial, rights to legal representation, Miranda Rights, even the right to know what one has been charged with before being arrested. This process quickly devolves the justice system to the point where those who are detained simply disappear, and are never heard from again. The U.S. currently has many pieces of legislation that have passed or are pending which allow rendition and even torture of regular citizens, specifically in the event of a national emergency, which under current rules, the President can declare at his leisure.

Curfews, Checkpoints, Searches, Citizen Spies: Say goodbye to privacy. Expect ID checkpoints, and arrests for lack of ID. Expect nighttime curfews in cities enforced with extreme prejudice. Expect warrant-less searches of your home without cause, not to mention surveillance of web and phone traffic. Also count on the fact that some people, out of paranoia, or out of some twisted desire for petty influence, will start pointing an accusing finger at anyone who looks at them the wrong way, and the establishment will encourage this. Tyranny is much easier when the citizens police each other. We actually see some of this behavior today, however, under martial law, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of holding the authorities or anyone who supports them legally accountable for any wrongdoing. There is essentially no means to voice grievance. Martial law is like a free pass to law enforcement officials to do whatever they please, whenever they please.

Arrests Of Activists And Dissidents: Political opponents of the establishment, no matter how honorable and peaceful they may be, would likely be arrested. Those who have the capability to lead a movement in opposition of the current government or those who have the respect of a sizable percentage of the populace will become priority targets during martial law. All tyrants seek to quash other voices, especially strong voices, so that they can create an environment in which THEIR voice is the only one that can be heard. Activists are normally labeled as subversives, insurgents, or terrorists. They are arrested and treated as enemy combatants. The reigning government will claim that such people are “dangerous” to the stability of the country, and a threat to national security. Associating activists with terrorists also makes the idea of rendition and torture slightly more palatable to the fearful public.

Economic Feudalism: In an autocracy, everything becomes a matter of national security, even the state of the workforce. All jobs become state jobs. The very poor become a possible burden. The middle class and the very rich (if not already part of the establishment) become possible competition. This is why most tyrannies seek to establish “harmonization”, which is really just a flowery way of saying that everyone is made equally dependent on the system for their survival. It is hard to become a successful man in an oppressive society if you are not one of the elite. It is even harder to be a pauper in the same society because you are seen as a parasite feeding off the collective (though you are probably hurting no one). Martial law is always followed by an end to economic prosperity for the average citizen and the removal of the traditional middle class. In the end, this causes the public to subjugate themselves. It creates a system which rewards those who submit with a semblance of the status they once had. The alternative: barely eking out an existence while under constant fear that you could be labeled an impediment to social progress. Given this choice, many would choose to conform.

Food, Water, and Healthcare Rationing: Food and water are life. Control these two things in a culture, and you have the makings of a tyranny. One of the most notable aspects in the elitist quest for empire is the trail of hunger and starvation they leave in their wake. All methods are greenlighted. Burning of farmland, hording of grain, heavy taxation on livestock or harvests, government micromanagement of planting, everything is fair game. Food regulation can be taken to a whole other level in our modern age. With malicious corporations like Monsanto in operation, genetically modified crops can be created to control diet, ‘terminator seeds’ which yield only one crop can be used to keep the masses from replanting, and the pollen from these plants can be used to infect the genus of non-GMO crops birthing mutant strains which damage the food chain. By creating a food shortage, rationing then becomes inevitable, and with rationing comes greater influence. Healthcare rationing would be a natural extension, until every moment of ones life relies on the good graces of a centralized bureaucracy.

It is rare for a government to implement all of these actions in a single instant. Usually, they are introduced slowly over a period of years, and with each new decree a problem is preemptively engineered by the elites to give a “reasonable” cause, or generate a concrete fear. As time passes, people forget what life was like before, left only with the dreadful circumstances of the present, and a disquieting sensation in the pit of their stomachs, telling them that the world they have been presented is not the world we should have settled for.

Never Compromise Liberty

Tyrants prevail when they are able to fool the masses into compromising their ideals, and their conscience. They enjoy devising scenarios by which we are made to tread through a “grey area”, a place where the truth is supposedly a matter of perspective, and that which is right and balanced could become unbalanced and destructive. Once you choose to compromise a fundamental principle, they then use that moment to set precedence.

“If torture is tolerable in the chance that it could save some lives, then perhaps it is tolerable in other situations…” they say. “If some freedoms are expendable in the name of security, then perhaps others are as well.”

How do we stop elites from setting precedence in this way? We never compromise.

“Grey Area” scenarios are a charade. A rigged casino game in which there is only a single outcome and a single winner, and the winner is definitely not you. The crisis is usually one that the establishment created in the first place, i.e. the economic collapse, the BP oil spill, false flag terror, etc. And, the solution is always predetermined. No obstacle has only one solution, there are a myriad of answers to every dilemma, some far better than others. Yet, time and time again, we are offered only one way to resolve every disaster; greater centralization and extended government power.

Most disingenuous of all is the constant promise by government to keep us safe. No government has the power to offer security. Security provided by others is an illusion. The only true safety is that which one provides for himself. We accomplish this by becoming self reliant, self aware, and tough minded. We do not wait for some abstract ruling body to come to our aid, and we do not trade our freedom on the false promise that they will honor their agreement.

I have heard it argued that America is different, that we should not suspect our government capable of tyranny because “we are the government”. I find this assumption extraordinarily naïve. Our government has not represented the wishes of the people for decades. The leaderships of both major parties have supported almost identical legislative measures and extolled parallel globalist ideologies, making a mockery of our election process by giving us only one choice in the casting of our vote. We should be very suspect of such a government, for we are not the same, our goals are entirely opposed, and only one group can be allowed to endure; those who wish to dictate, or those who wish to be free.

I have also heard it said that freedom exists under the purview of government. That the liberties we enjoy are only possible because of the protections that government provides. Elitists often take advantage of our presumption that government is some kind of cultural obligation, one that we must bow to, and that by attrition, we must bow to them. In reality, government is a philosophical construct; a framework that only exists because we will it so, and that administrates freedoms only so far as we allow it to do so. WE are the source of our liberty, NOT government. It is we as individuals who ultimately must protect the freedoms we enjoy. Under no circumstance is any government more vital than our personal liberty. The choice is eternally simple; when asked to sacrifice one or the other, government must go.

Martial law is a tool by which the power hungry can remove the restraints of the Constitution and cast aside freedoms on a whim. This is unacceptable no matter the state of affairs. War, terrorism, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, none of these events gives anyone the license to usurp our liberties. It cannot and will not be allowed. As the 4th of July approaches, we here in America should remember what it means to call ourselves a “sovereign people”. It is a title every man is born with but few men have the strength and fortitude to keep. “Independence” requires taxing vigilance, a persevering spirit, and the determination to see that neither is tread upon. Independence has a price. In the event that we are confronted with martial law in this country, it is a price we may have to pay all over again.

©2009-2010 Giordano Bruno, all rights reserved.

Big Doins’ in Juarez

September 28, 2010

Why We Ought to Think, but Won’t

September 28, 2010

by Fred Reed

Things change. They change. I arrived in Mexico some seven years ago amid dire warnings from all and sundry that I would instantly die of foul disease, trampling by burros, and splashing sanguinary crime. All of this I regarded as nonsense, because it was. The State Department issued travel warnings and similar alarums, but State would regard Massachusetts as hazardous. There was little to fear. Expats traveled at will and walked the streets without concern.

Things change. While crime is hardly epidemic where we live, and in most places mostly involves narcos killing narcos, and takes place mostly away from the agringada regions rife with Americans, these days there is more of it. Before, you could walk home from a watering hole after midnight without worry. Now, no. There’s not a lot of worry, but more than before.

The local people remain as decent as always, small towns tending to be law-abiding everywhere on the planet. The problem is the growing reach of the drug cartels, causing a weakening of the fabric of law. When one variety of violent crime gets out of control, every other kind more easily flourishes.

If Mexico were not next to the world’s most ravening drug market, it would be a corrupt, but functioning and reasonably successful upper Third-World country. If this were not so, Mexico would not have the huge number of American who have come here to retire. But the country cannot withstand a drug business that, by a common figure, brings the traffickers forty billion dollars a year. The money means that the cartels can buy heavier armament than can the government, as well as buy heavier officials on either side of the border. (It is an American conceit that corruption exists only in other countries. Tell me another story, Grandpa.)

It is getting out of hand. The killing of policemen, judges, and mayors is now common. Journalists die in droves. After the murder of another of its reporters, El Diario, the major paper of Ciudad Juarez, published the following editorial, addressed to the drug lords:

“We bring to your attention that we are communicators, not mind-readers. Therefore, as workers in information, we want you to explain to us what you want of us, what you want us to publish or stop publioshing, what we must do for our security.”

“These days, you are the de-facto authority in the city, because the legally instituted authorities have been able to do nothing to keep our co-workers from continuing to fall, although we have repeatedly asked this of you. Consequently, facing this undeniable fact, we direct ourselves to you, because the last thing we want is that you shoot to death another of our colleagues.”

This is astonishing. It is worse. A blue whale singing Aida would be merely astonishing, but here we have the editors of the major newspaper of a substantial city stating candidly, with perfect clarity, that the narcotraficantes, not the national government, exercise sovreignty over the city. The federal government understandably denounced the editorial. No capital wants to be told that it does not control its territory. But this is exactly what the paper said.

Why is this happening? The root of the chain of causation is plain enough: that Americans want drugs, want them intensely, at almost any price — but the federal government doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. Lots of gringos want dope: We are not talking of a few ghetto-blasted crack-heads and William Burroughs types sticking needles in their arms in rat-infested alleys. These don’t have forty billion dollars. The users are college students, high-school kids, Ivy League profs, pricey lawyers, Congressmen, bus drivers, cosmetologists, and American presidents (though they don’t inhale). All God’s chillun wants drugs. Or at least enough of them do to make fortunes for those who sell the stuff.

Let’s admit it: Americans are drug-mad. Legal, illegal, smokable, injectable, edible—hit don’t matter. They would inject plaster of paris if nothing better were available. When I was in Washington, at least half—at the very least, half—of the single women I knew for whom the clock ticked were on lithium, Depacote, Prozac, Xanax, Zoloft, all the gobbled M&Ms of the quietly unhappy. Shrinks regularly prescribed drugs for high-school girls miserable over divorce and uncertainty. Boys were forced to take Ritalin. My parents generation survived on Miltown and Equanil. In the Sixties, hippies took drugs. Now it’s everybody. We have democratized chemistry.

But Mother Washington doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. Nor does it want to imprison half of Yale for “droppin,’ poppin,’ and tokin’,” as we once said. In effect the feds protect the consumption (through low penalties and slight likelihood of being caught) while penalizing the sale, thus keeping prices high.

The War on Drugs is of course a farce, having accomplished less than nothing over a half-century. Somewhere the other day I saw a story saying that consumption in the US has just risen by seven percent. This is not surprising since, as a society decays, the escape market prospers. And, despite excited hype about having killed this or that drug lord, there is no hope, no hope at all, of eliminating a business that lets impoverished third-worlders drive BMWs.

None of this would matter if it weren’t causing copious bloodshed in countries like Mexico, and threatening the anarchy that is often called “destabilization.” Absent this creeping hecatomb clotting in the streets, everyone would be happy. The narcos would get their money, consumers their drugs, officials their bribes, and DEA types their salaries. All good. But the bloodshed exists.

Intelligent Mexicans of sound mind, to the extent that humans can approximate the condition, worry that all hell may break loose. Not “will,” but “may.” There is a sense here, as there is in the United States, that something is wrong, and that something will hapen. Mexico cannot defeat the traficantes. These are bad, bad boys, willing to ambush police convoys, kill federal judges, and rule towns. By comparison the Italian Mafia was a basket of puppies.

The US had better think about what it wants on its borders. As long as drugs are illegal, they will flow and the gringos will buy and the narcos will roll in dough. Nothing will stop or impede this. American colonels with steely gaze and firm handshakes and the comprehension of flatworms have told me that the Merida Initiative will rid Mexico of corruption, and then the Federales will clean house on the narcos. Is there an adult in the house?

I understand that Americans have no interest in Mexico other than to give jobs to illegals and then complain that they have them. And of course to buy drugs and then complain that Mexicans sell them. But a bit of attention, even of realism, might have its virtues. Afghanistan is somewhere else. Mexico isn’t.

© Copyright 2010 Fred Reed

Prepare For Hyperinflation Part Two

September 27, 2010

by Linda Brady Traynham

(Editor’s Note: Linda left this great analysis as a comment today. I think it is so good that I’ve upgraded it to an article. Dadgum Linda makes analysis look easy…I have to work at it. I created the title…is that OK, Linda?)

Inflation moves unevenly and isn’t precisely synonymous with “rising prices,” nor are all price increases the result of lessening value of currency. Price increases have been particularly sharp in the area of foodstuffs, this year, but we can look at the biggest increase–over 50%–in fresh fruit and vegetables and attribute it to crop losses due primarily to weather. Meat is up between ten and nearly twenty per cent., depending upon type, but in large part that can be attributed to sell-offs and increased slaughter from a year ago caused by drought and higher feed, energy, and other costs; there is less meat for sale at present. Currently coffee is at a twelve-year high, cocoa is edging higher again, and there is a strong possibility of a very painful hike in the cost of paper products, perhaps nearing 40%.

I do not really expect TRUE hyperinflation of at least double digits before we start seeing the effects of letting the Bush tax cuts lapse 1/1/11 and get another round of “quantitative easing,” written as QE, signifying that more money has come into circulation once Bernanke and friends clear the log jam at the banks. As I explained (very badly) above, much of the two and a half trillion Timmy and Benny have created out of electronic digits and running the printing presses has not actually gotten to street level. The “money” is tied up in government and banking circles, which is really better for us than it sounds. It may seem as though increased lending to private parties would be what will jumpstart the economy, but that’s not exactly what we need. Suppose banks start lending. To whom will they do so, for what purposes, and what are the chances that the borrowers can repay the banks? What is needed is expanding hiring which won’t come until businesses can see a stable economic situation and no more threats of increasing taxes and regulations.

Just as the true inflation rate is somewhere around 7.5%, the real jobless rate is on the order of 18% over all. Even if the “value” of houses has returned to realistic levels, would a house be a good place to invest money? Many of us expect another big drop because the true state of defaults, foreclosures, and payments in arrears is being hidden through accounting subterfuges. If a bank forecloses on a property, at least in theory it can’t count the value of a good loan on the plus side of the ledger any more; if the true state of affairs becomes common knowledge we’re going to see more bank failures and bank shares plummeting. There is a collapse lurking in the commercial real estate market, for the same reasons housing prices couldn’t be maintained. Construction proceeds busily, but over 20% of current units stand empty.

What about enlarging a factory and hiring more workers? Not a good idea when there are fewer customers and threats of higher taxes, regulations, and costs. In many cases a business that posts an EOQ profit will have done it with TARP money, reducing inventory, or cutting costs, primarily by firing workers.

Hyperinflation represents wild instability and lack of faith by citizens that the currency has constant value. I suspect that recent gains in the DOW represent the faction which is relying on the probability of massive losses by Congressional incumbants about six weeks from now, with a naive expectation of, “We’ll elect a bunch of businessmen and THEY will know what to do.” Sorry, Charlie, the house and Senate may swap majorities, but first we’ll have to get through three months of the current group working overtime to pass legislation. After that, the new group will discover the facts of life: even if they repeal a lot of unpopular legislation and freeze spending, the “off budget” portion is so far out of hand there is no practical way to correct it. At least, none that won’t lead to blood in the streets.

Congressional budgets–you are aware that Congress hasn’t even attempted to write one this year?!–are as realistic as if you “budgeted” your expenses without allowing for rent/mortgage, insurance of all sorts, and car payments. Those would be “off budget” because you have to pay them, a statement that makes sensible people shake our heads and exclaim, “What?!” Budgets are supposed to be about insuring that outgo doesn’t exceed income, not making a wish list and buying the items on it first.

The true tale of individual hopes and fears is far more likely to be told in a series of recent historical highs for gold and thirty-year highs for silver. Part of it is people buying stocks because nobody but a scared banker would settle for clearing 2% on an investment. Banks are figuring an actual loss of about that much is better than watching more loans go sour.

Throw in that Bernanke says he’s going to go for more QE next quarter, and we could see a situation where the best thing to do with money is spend it quickly. That doesn’t even factor in the Chinese and Russians buying yen, the shakey state of the bonds market, or the impact of the Greens and Obama on oil. Rigs are being pulled out of the Gulf at a rapid clip; they’re going to the area of the Indian ocean, and they won’t be back any time soon. Most of our areas with the highest probability of oil production have been locked up by government mandate, and if we aren’t allowed to produce oil we have no alternative other than buying it.

Businesses cannot plan from moment to moment. Ever since Obama took over we have seen one tax hike after another with constant threats of increased costs for energy–not just for business, but for individuals. It looks like the shoe just fell in Congress by failure to renew the Bush cuts, and Congress will start slipping off lots more shoes.

Democratic “leadership” wanted to foist socialized medicine on us badly enough to risk losing control of Congress. They have accepted the price and have nothing more to lose by pushing every leftist pipe dream through between now and the third week in January.

No matter what we call it or how we explain it the chances are high that your money will buy noticeably less by the middle of next year. In that context, I suggest that the best thing to do with your “excess” money is to exchange it for items of intrinsic worth that are durable and you have a genuine need for. The idea is to hold CURRENT value, with the secondary benefit of locking in current prices. Check government sales, too, as a way to judge conditions and expectations. I’m negotiating today for 3,077 concrete blocks…and the current bid is $250. Since they weigh about fifteen tons, I will have to get a very useful truckdriver we know to cart them from Ft. Worth, a couple of hundred miles away, and will probably end up with about $700 in them between purchase and transportation, and there are myriad uses for concrete blocks. Here is why this is of interest to you: the blocks are being offered by an ISD that has decided it can’t afford to build another school. Many states, cities, and counties are in the same condition of virtual bankruptcy the Feds are. We’re in a period where there are superb bargains in construction materials. New plywood can be purchased for 2/3 lumber store prices. In short, a lot of things are in flux.

The best solution I can come up with? Secession and punctuation. Disassociate ourselves from the messes caused by DC and statehouses, and adopt Constitutions that say, “Congress shall write no laws.”

How many times I have wondered, “Just when WILL we have enough laws?”


Linda Brady Traynham
The Texas Ring

Prepare for Hyperinflation

September 26, 2010

by Linda Brady Traynham

The trouble with fiat currency is that it starts out “worth” what the government that prints it sets as face value, and ends up with the value everyday citizens and the market place put on it. Over time all fiat currencies come to an end, and the average life span of a major one is thirty-seven years. In the ninety-seven years since the institution of the Federal Reserve U. S. currency has lost 95% of its value. The value of most objects diminishes with their availability, and Bernanke and Geithner have created $1.4 Trillion dollars that is now parked in banks who know better than to lend it. For two reasons: first, that they may not get their capital back at all, and if they do, it will be worth far less than it is now. Second, that unleashing all that junk paper cannot fail to lead to inflation so high that even the rigged rules for calculating the CPI won’t be able to disguise how little a hundred dollars is worth.

The current claim is that “there is no inflation,” countered by, “Well, there is, but it is only 2.1%.” Those are derived by two feats of accounting legerdemain. First, if you exclude food and energy from the computations, yes, things have been pretty flat. Trouble is, most of us spend large portions of our income on food and energy of assorted kinds, and we certainly know how much less our set incomes buy. Second, the figures are generated by playing with numbers in what one group calls “hedonics.” If the price of a new car goes up 10% but that is offset by claims of 10% better mileage or more safety, then there is held to have been no increase in cost. Huh? No, the product may (or may not) live up to its claims, but it still cost more.

We hear a lot about “inflating our way out of our debts,” which is sheer hogwash. Yes, in theory if I owe you $100 and Mr. Geithner begins dropping hundred dollar bills out of helicopters, all I have to do is pick one up and hand it to you, debt discharged. In real life it doesn’t work that way. The government creates “money” out of paper and ink. It has more “money.” You and I are dependent upon pensions or salaries and we aren’t getting any raises; consequently, we don’t have any more of those “cheaper dollars,” we have the same number that are worth less. Worse, the lessened value of those dollars mean that prices must rise to receive the same relative amount for a loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, or a cell phone. Zimbabwe is right over there.

We live in a world where the best-paying jobs are in government,banking and related fields. The average salary for government workers is twice that of a similar job in private industry, and none of the $45 Billion the top boys handed each other as bonuses ever got to our side of the street. This is the year of rapid expansion in government hiring and enormous raises for the top 10%, although we aren’t quite to Zimbabwe yet, where the soldiers and police got 300% raises…and then 700% raises…but give ‘em time.

All in all, I don’t see how we can avoid inflation even the government can’t deny – laughter; dear Charles and I stopped briefly to discuss feetball. For those of you who do not know the rules:

1. “Success” for the Dallas Cowboys is making the playoffs. They don’t have to win the Super Bowl. They don’t have to get to the semi-finals. All they have to do is get to the first round of the playoffs to feel they have done splendidly.
2. Success for Texas A&M is beating the University of Texas. So long as they do that, we’re satisfied. Rip-roaring success is beating TU and OU.
3. All Navy has to do to have a glorious season is beat Army. And vice versa. Beating Air Force as well is even better.

Now, back to inflation, which I expect to really start ramping up early next year as a result of higher and more taxes, more strangulation by regulation, and increased “immigration.” NOW is when we had better finish up our emergency preparations, and don’t forget plenty of trade goods: coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, .22 shells, sugar, and chocolate. After two generations of “if you want it, buy it,” Americans in general won’t show any more sense about handling their financial affairs when they are desperate than they have during the preceding thirty years. If you still have any of the expensive, unnecessary time and money wasters, get rid of them: more than one telephone, cable TV, drive-through and pick up food, movies, memberships to rent DVDs, gym memberships, and everything subsumed under “Mommy! ALL the other girls have…” To use a religious analogy, this is at least the first year of famine in the land of Egypt, and unless you played Joseph for your family nobody did.

Take about an hour and a half and browse the Videos on this site:

It takes a lot to get me to spend that much of my time glued to videos, but those folks have a lot to say. Their report on the broken water main “flood” in Boston is particularly impressive. When that much chaos and bafflement results from a simple lack of water…be very glad you have your Berkley or equivalent. There was water all over the place, but none of it was safe to drink. Such times are coming.

Be sure and check out TheMeshReport where I’m writing now. We’re experimenting and adjusting with a test audience of just 20,000 right now, but when it goes public the immediate distribution will be 170,000! Even if you aren’t interested in technical analysis of the stock market (and several of us are), you will find a good selection of economic news, and, of course, my featured section! These things just happen to me…

Linda Brady Traynham
for The Texas Ring

The Pledge To America: A Sucker’s Bet

September 25, 2010

The Republicans have released their “Hail Mary” playbook for the mid-term elections, and it’s called “The Pledge To America.” To describe this as a cynical effort to dupe the American people would be an insult to cynics and con men everywhere. The GOP has dealt the cards as the house, and they are hoping and praying that the American people will make a Sucker’s Bet in November.

What is a “Sucker’s Bet”? It’s a gamble that someone makes based on a false view of the odds. The gambler believes he has a higher likelihood of winning than he actually does. In most cases, the sucker does not realize he is being put at a disadvantage. It’s not until the gamblers come up short that they realize that the house always wins.

So what’s this particular “Sucker’s Bet?” It will happen when the American people believe the Republicans and vote for them based upon what the media is telling them is in The Pledge To America. I say that because the Pledge is 21 pages long. Very few Americans will actually read it…they’ll just believe what the media tells them it says. Americans will actually believe that these criminals in DC want to obey the Constitution and will act accordingly in every way.

The Republicans are SAYING all the right Conservative things to America in the Pledge in a desperate plea to regain control of Congress. They know that Americans hold Congress members in lower esteem than even drug dealers, child molesters and used car salesmen. And they also know that all they have to do to win over most Americans is SAY the right things. America seldom watches the things that the Republicans DO, and holds them accountable for their tyranny and perfidy even less often.

This Pledge is not about legal, moral or ethical governance. It is a desperate ploy to regain control…and power.

(This Pledge To America is a smoothly written fraud. Read it for yourself.)

The Republicans have heard the sermon…so to speak, and are entering the confessional booth. They have written a 21-page confession of their many sins. Let’s hit the highlights…or the new heights in low.

The general overview of the Pledge is that the Republicans…using the inclusive term “Washington”…have confessed to the crimes of violating the Constitution over decades. May we now prosecute them?

Here is a quote from page one:

”In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.”

The “deepest beliefs of the American people” don’t matter one whit. If you believe that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then law is supreme to all beliefs. And Washington has flouted the law for at least 160 years.

Here are more excerpts from pages one and two, with my comments in bold:

”With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America. Look at all the warm fuzzy words here which are devoid of definitions. The words they used are cleverly crafted to evoke feelings, but mean nothing.

“We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” What does it mean to honor the Constitution? There is not one word of commitment to abiding by the law, nor what penalty they would anticipate when the Constitution is violated.

“We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.”Dear God, where do I start? (a) to promote greater liberty, decades of regulation and taxation have to be cast aside. Property rights have to be once again protected. (b) promoting wider opportunity is much the same as (a), (c) promote a robust defense is clearly undefined…as we’ll see later in the article, and (d) promote national economic prosperity goes right back to (a). It is impossible for Washington to promote any of these four features without slashing the size of Washington’s government down to its Constitutionally-authorized size.

“We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” Once again, what does it mean to “honor” anything? The Federal Government has no business whatsoever being involved in any of these four human behaviors.

“We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.” Being transparent, careful and honest would be great things. But they give no details, and do not recognize that others in government might disagree with their interpretations of moral good.

“We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.” Once again, warm fuzzy words cleverly crafted to illicit feelings. I don’t want them to manipulate my feelings. I want them to obey the damned law. My feelings will get REAL warm and fuzzy when I’m not regulated and taxed to death and beyond.

“We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.” Washington, you’ve ALL already taken an Oath of Office in which you swore you would protect and defend the Constitution. Does your Pledge have the weight of law? Why should we believe that you’ll keep your Pledge when you haven’t kept your Oath?

Now let’s look at key points on various pages of this vacuous Pledge To America:

Page four: First, their very words prove that they have no concept of what jobs are. They think jobs are things that can be magically created…not the labor component of a product or service when a business fills a market need. They pledge to create jobs by stopping tax hikes and “allowing” small business to have a 20% tax deduction. They still think that small business’ income belongs to them, and they are going to “allow” them to keep more. Nothing here about scrapping the IRS and the income tax.

They will repeal the new health care law, and “rein in the red-tape factory.” Not a word about repealing decades of monstrous regulation by all the Federal bureaucracies presently existing. They only want to restrict NEW regulations.

Page five: They pledge to roll back government spending to “pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us $100 Billion in the first year…” That’s only 4% of a $2.5 Trillion budget…and we all know that Washington spends a lot more off-budget. Nothing is said about slashing spending below a couple trillion a year.

They pledge to reform the budget process. They pledge to require any bill introduced to Congress to have Constitutional authority attached. But they didn’t say that they would throw out all bills not meeting Constitutional muster. Further, most of the stuff done over the last 150 years was done under the Commerce Clause. So is someone going to begin interpreting original intent of the Constitution? Deadly silence about that, folks. And they pledge that Congress members will have a whopping THREE DAYS to read any new bill before a vote.

They pledge to keep the Guantanamo base open to house the “enemy combatants” captured in a non-declared war. They pledge to “fully support” our troops scattered over the globe, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran. Nothing here about bringing ALL foreign-based military personnel home inside American borders and minding our own business. And the pledge to “act decisively” to protect our borders…whatever the hell that means.

Page ten – thirteen: They SAY they want a “fact-based conversation” with America about reigning in Federal Spending. But until the Feds disclose all their spending this is Bullshyt. Page eleven talks about cutting spending to pre-stimulus levels. That’s all? They talk about a hard cap on NEW discretionary spending. What about rolling back OLD discretionary spending? In addition, within a few years, just the interest on the Federal debt will be greater than ALL discretionary spending. Not a word about that.

Page fourteen: Repeal the new health care law. But they want to write their own new reforms, not just leave the medical insurance industry alone. Remember that this subject is all about MEDICAL INSURANCE, not health care.

Page seventeen and eighteen: Reforming Congress. Incredibly, their reform is to have Congress read the bills and adhere to the Constitution. Merely obeying the law is considered reform for Congress.

Page nineteen: National Security at home and abroad. The Republicans still cannot see nor will admit that terrorism exists because we have troops in foreign lands, and those nations’ citizens want our troops to leave. So, Republicans pledge to continue policies such as Homeland Security, fully-funded foreign military missions, and sanctions against Iran, predicated upon monstrous government lies.

Page twenty: Republicans think that our problems lie in strengthening visa security and gaining operational control of our borders…which really means the Mexican border. But there is not a word in here about not interfering with Southwestern states as they secure their borders .

Page twenty one: The stated, written summary in the pledge is that the Republicans intend to be the “Checks And Balances” against schemes that are against the “priorities and rights of the American people.” There is not one word here about the STATES being the checks and balances of a runaway Washington government. They still think it’s ALL ABOUT THEM!!!

My concluding comments: There is not a word in this Pledge about auditing the Federal Reserve…or stripping the central bank of its authority…or auditing the US gold supply…or saving the dollar…or paying off the trillions of dollars of debt. Monetary policy is what will cause the collapse of the American economy, with the assistance of Congressional cupidity and stupidity.

The GOP wants to blame all America’s ills on the Democrats and the Obama Administration. Look at all the times that the Republicans controlled the Congress in the last twenty years. Then add in the years that the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House. Where were all these commitments when they had all the power? Did spending, regulation, national debt and war-making all diminish in those years? Did stimulus spending start with a Republican President or a Democrat President?

Further, even if the Republicans swept back into the Congressional majority in both houses, there is the tiny complication of the Democrats in the minority. The system will not change. Republicans dominating Congress will not substantively affect the gigantic Federal bureaucracies that rumble along unimpeded.

Remember the old adage, “Actions speak louder than words.”

Also remember the definition of the word “credulous:” The readiness or willingness to believe, especially upon slight or uncertain evidence.”

The “Pledge to America” are the words of ideologues, hearkening back to real Conservatism. These are the principals of men who will not compromise. These are the ways that statesmen would behave. Men and women of these very principles would hold these principles as inviolable, and would never negotiate their principles away to get a bill passed.

However, we know these men and women who populate the Republican Party of 2010. All they do is compromise. Their actions are as far removed from this Pledge as night is from day. In the years in which they held the Congress, or in the years in which they held the Congress AND the White House, they did not accomplish ANY of these things which they now name as their bedrock principles.

But they want Americans to believe that they have now seen the light…that God met them on the mountain, and they are bringing us the new tablets scrolled in God’s own handwriting. The masses WANT TO BELIEVE. The Tea Partiers, the Tenth Amendment guys, the Article V enthusiasts, the Glenn Beck fans, the Rush dittoheads…they ALL want to believe that American can be saved. So, for the most part, this farcical Kabuki theater will convince the credulous Americans.

Finally…if you read the Pledge To America, do you see any signatures of any Republicans affixed below the pledges? This 21-page piece of fiction is neither contract nor treaty. There is no force of law behind it. There are no penalties for non-compliance. These are the ramblings of deluded men and women who will say anything to regain the power they once enjoyed and abused. Just like the lowest heroin addict or the most pathetic crystal meth user, there is nothing they would not do to get another power fix. They will sell themselves and you and all our children to get back the power.

No, Ladies and Gentlemen. A pledge is not sufficient as the hope for liberty here in America. Keeping the United States together as a hopelessly broken Empire is not the answer.

Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Who Are the Experts on Gold?

September 24, 2010

by Dr. Gary North

(Editor’s note: There are few subjects more important than monetary policy, since bad monetary policy steals your money, and good monetary policy protects your money. Gold and silver ARE money.)

The experts on gold are the people who publicly recommended that investors purchase gold when gold was under $300. They recommended that people purchase gold when gold was at $300, $400, $500, $600, $700, $800, $900, $1000, $1100, and, finally, $1200.

The non-experts on gold are the people who never told investors to invest in gold at any price, and who are now saying that gold is going to decline in price, and therefore it is not a good investment.

I have personally monitored the gold market ever since 1963. I guess you would call me an old hand in the gold market. I have seen gold bugs come and go, and I have seen gold haters come and go. I have seen many arguments in favor of gold, and I have seen many arguments against gold.

What I have not seen is someone who could consistently time the markets in terms of buying gold low and selling it high – people who went public with this information just before the turning points.


It is easy to become an investment expert in any field. Study it on an almost daily basis for about 10 years. Follow every aspect of it in the public press. Get an understanding of why and how the market operates with respect to this particular commodity, stock, or asset class.

It would not hurt if you spent 20 years on this study. Frankly, it would not hurt if you spent your whole life on this topic.

Over time, you will develop skills at market timing, but you will never get the timing perfect. The market will always fool you. The best that you can hope to do is to buy in shortly after the market has begun to move up, and to sell out shortly after market begins to move down.

With respect to the arguments in favor of this or that commodity, you can become an expert here a lot easier than you can become an expert in the actual timing of the changes in price of the commodity. The arguments do not change very much. This is because the same people push the same arguments, year after year, decade after decade. Those were bearish remain bearish, and those were bullish generally remain bullish. This is a matter of human personality; it is not a matter of market pricing.


The arguments against gold all stem from one idea: that private property is insufficient to establish a reliable monetary system. All of the arguments, without exception, rely on one version or another of a rival idea: central governments must intervene in the market for gold and silver in order to provide a reliable monetary unit. When I say government, I also mean the government-licensed monopoly that we call the central bank.

All opponents of a gold coin standard adopt some version of the anti-free-market ideology. They may be free-market people in other areas of their thinking, but in the area of monetary policy, they do not trust the free market. They do not trust individuals who act in their own self-interest, and who establish voluntary contracts with other individuals.

This is certainly true of the monetarists. The monetarists, following the arguments of Milton Friedman, have always opposed the idea that individuals are sufficiently reliable, trustworthy, and knowledgeable to make their own decisions about what kinds of money are best for them.

The monetarists have always opposed the standard free-market argument that individuals who pursue their own self-interest are capable of making their own decisions. These monetarists also oppose the idea that the decisions of individuals relating to their choice of a monetary standard will produce, collectively, a reliable monetary system.

This hostility to free-market money is opposed to the official position of the monetarists with respect to other aspects of the market economy. Some of them believe in antitrust laws. Some of them do not. But all of them believe that the central bank, when backed up by the power of the Federal government, is the only reliable institution with respect to the establishment of the fundamental policies governing monetary policy. These people trust the central bankers.

When you find scholars who oppose the full gold coin standard, you can be certain that these men do not really believe in free market. They believe in it for some areas of the economy, but they do not believe in it with respect to the central institution of all economic decision-making in a modern economy: the money system. They believe in government, which means they believe in coercion. They believe that somebody with a badge and a gun has the right to stick that gun in the belly of a decision-maker and demand that this individual use the money provided by the central bank.

Because academic economists are overwhelmingly Keynesians, and because a minority are monetarists, they believe in the legitimacy and wisdom of people who carry badges and guns. They believe in coercion in the area monetary policy, and they recognize that gold is the greatest single threat to government coercion that there is.

Individuals make decisions day after day, in almost every area of their lives, by using money. They establish the rules of the game on their own authority. Most people will never think of getting their hands on a gun in order to fight the central government. But in their daily decision-making, in the free market, they establish their own authority over government activities by means of the monetary system.

Control over governments by people who have the right to make exchanges in terms of non-government, non-central bank monetary systems is a crucial control over government. This is because such control is constant. Using gold coins is not self-consciously a means of exercising control over government, but it functionally is control over government. It forces the government to restrict its spending and its taxing as no other single legal right possessed by citizens and non-citizens.

This is why the overwhelming opinion of the opinion-makers in the modern world is opposed to a full gold coin standard. The reason for this is that the overwhelming opinion of the opinion-makers is in favor of government power. The individuals who openly favor the establishment of a full gold coin standard are in opposition to the dominant outlook of the intellectual world.

The intellectuals are committed to the expansion of the power of the state. Even those members of the academic community who say that they are not in favor of the expansion of the power of the state are, in fact, in favor of the expansion of the power of the state in the central institutional area that coordinates all other economic decisions: the monetary system.

Because of this, individuals who have decided that the fiat currencies of the world are unreliable, because the politicians are unreliable, face an uphill battle. They face ridicule. They may face self-doubt. They hear constantly that gold is not a good investment, that gold is not a reliable standard for the monetary system, that gold is a barbarous relic. They must take a stand against these anti-gold opinions, and they feel hard-pressed to come up with answers against the technical criticisms of the gold standard. I have watched this for over 40 years.

We see today that a tiny minority of citizens in the United States are beginning to rethink the legitimacy of the central bank. Ron Paul has made famous the phrase: “End the Fed.” Because the popularity of this phrase is beginning to grow, people are beginning to rethink the question of whether or not the central bank is a reliable institution to control the money supply. As doubts are raised regarding the reliability of the Federal Reserve System, doubts are also raised about the reliability of the arguments against the gold coin standard.


When we hear on the financial media that some expert has said that gold has peaked or soon will, so that anyone who invests in gold today is taking a terrible risk, we can be sure that this person did not tell people to buy gold at any time in his career. That person is a standard knee-jerk gold hater.

The hatred of gold is ideological. It is based on a love of government. It is based on trust in the Federal Reserve System. It is supported by most academic economists, and it is supported by an even higher percentage of politicians at the national level. This constant barrage of opinion against investing in gold is a concerted effort to keep people from protecting themselves against the expansion of Federal power by means of the expansion of the money.

These people are ideological purists. They oppose the free market system. They want a rigged economy. They may say they believe in the free market, but what they really believe in is the right of insiders to manipulate the markets by means of government policy and central banking policy. They want a rigged market, because they do not trust the authority and legitimacy of individual citizens making their own decisions with their own money.

So, when you hear these arguments, you can be sure that you are listening to someone who does not believe in the free market. This person is a spokesman for the government. He may not be on the government payroll, but he has bought into the worldview which says that individuals do not have the authority or the wisdom to make their own decisions with respect to the currency that they choose to use in voluntary exchange. These people are part of the government-financial complex.

If you trust the government to tell you the truth, then you probably also trust the proclamations of these self-appointed experts in gold, who never told anybody to buy gold, that gold is a bad investment. These people have been wrong for a decade. They have told you to buy stocks, but stocks were higher in March 2000 and they are today. They told you not to buy gold in 2000, if they even mentioned gold in 2000, and gold is up over 4 to 1. These people missed the investment of the decade, and they told you to buy and hold stocks, in what was a bad investment for the decade. It would have been a better investment to stick your money into an FDIC-insured savings account and leave it there. You would be ahead of the game. You did not need these experts in gold or experts in stocks to tell you what to buy, because they did not know what to buy.

They are spinning the same old party line today about buying and holding stocks and not buying gold that they were spinning in the year 2000. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.


Within the conservative movement, there is a pro-fiat money group called the greenbackers. They have been around since the 1860s. They are radicals, leftists, and believers in the welfare state. They oppose the gold standard with the same enthusiasm that they oppose the Federal Reserve System.

They oppose the Federal Reserve System because they oppose banking. They oppose banking because banks charge interest. They favor the creation of pure fiat money, which the government issues in order to expand the welfare state. They oppose the gold standard because the gold standard, meaning individuals owning gold coins and using them in exchange, restricts the expansion of government expenditures beyond tax revenues. They do not want to see the government restricted by any factor other than voting pressure from citizens. If the government wants to expand its spending, the greenbackers approve. They do not want any kind of monetary restraint placed on the Federal government, whether by a full gold coin standard or by lenders who do not wish to lend the government any more money at low interest rates.

So, there is a far left element within the conservative movement that cries out against the Fed, not with the idea of replacing the Fed with a voluntary system of money and banking, but with the Congress of the United States being totally in control of the money supply. They believe in government with the same enthusiasm that the Keynesians believe in government, and they adopt almost identical arguments with respect to the legitimacy of the gold standard.


Pay no attention to the little men on the TV screens. That’s because they are the little men behind the curtain of coercion. It is not an iron curtain. It is a fiat-money curtain. They believe in the wisdom of men with badges and guns.

There are too many men with badges and guns today: badges and guns and fiat money. Take away their fiat money, and a lot of them will have to turn in their badges and guns.

Gary North is the author of Mises on Money. Visit He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

Copyright © 2010 Gary North

The Choice Between Two Americas

September 23, 2010

by Scott Lazarowitz

(Editor’s Note: I like Scott’s work, and he posts our stuff quite regularly at his website. In this piece, Scott compares bad America to good America. What he doesn’t deal with is that the people of 2010 America will NEVER choose the characteristics of good America. Getting 300 million people to embrace liberty cannot happen. There are too many Americans on the public dole. But one or two states MAY choose liberty in the act of Secession. And the characteristics of Good America in a new sovereign nation here in North America would make it the most exciting place on earth to live.)

Here is a comparison of two Americas. The first one is our current America, a country whose federal government is based on a Constitution that gives the government powers it shouldn’t have, and gives the government various monopolies it shouldn’t have, and allows agents of the State to have the power of compulsion over others that no one should have, all of which have led to the grief we now face on a daily basis. The second America is much closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned and what anyone who loves and desires Liberty would want. Like Greece and other countries, America must make a choice.

Our Current America

For the first time in history, many Americans are experiencing “downward mobility,” in which a whole generation is worse off than the previous generation. Contributions to that phenomenon include the State’s taking away much of one’s earnings and of profits that businesses make, the Federal Reserve’s monopolistic dictatorial control over our money and its devaluing the dollar we are forced to use, and the stealth tax called inflation.

Other contributors to our downward mobility include the domino effects of taxes, regulations, mandates and bureaucratic red tape that result in businesses not expanding and jobs being cut, as well as the further repercussions of irresponsible Keynesian economic policies of id-pleasing short-sightedness.

But we also have less liberty, because the State intrudes into every aspect of daily life. And we are less safe because our federal government has used its military to intrude into the territories of foreign nations, thus provoking the inhabitants of those nations to retaliate against America.

In the current America, so much time in the daily life of the average individual is stolen away by government, as the individual is forced to spend hours upon hours deciphering the tax code of the day, as well as other technically complicated aspects of the bureaucrats’ demands.

Our current America also has a particular kind of mentality, in which too many people view the superficial qualities of someone like skin color as important, while ignoring the importance of someone’s abilities and achievements. It just seems that the famous maxim of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” has been reversed by decades of LBJ Great Society/Obama Affirmative Action programs and attitudes. Most recently, as conservative columnist Thomas Sowell noted, Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty was defeated in his reelection bid despite the fact that his policies and appointments have resulted in lower violent crime rates and higher local schools’ test scores, because of “racial patronage and racial symbolism” preferred by the majority of DC’s voters.

The fact that so many college and job applicants are rejected because they are not of a preferred racial or ethnic minority, despite their academic or otherwise achievements, is just one of many factors that are also stressing out Americans.

And people are stressed out because of what government bureaucrats are doing to them. Many are depressed, frustrated, fearful and anguished, particularly those who have lost their jobs because of the intrusions that government bureaucrats have inflicted into private economic matters. At a recent CNBC town hall meeting, a black woman who is chief financial officer of her company, and who voted for President Obama, told Obama of her disappointment in the lack of change for the middle class that he had promised during his campaign. Of course, Obama gave his trademark smiley face during her question as though he was watching an episode of Saturday Night Live, and his response to her consisted of his typical career bureaucrat mealy-mouth answer, basically, “Don’t worry – be happy.”

And at the same forum, a recent law school grad asked if the American Dream is dead for him. Of course the American Dream is dead. These professional politicians and bureaucrats killed it, with one law after another, one policy after another, accomplishing nothing but destroying businesses, causing more unemployment and stifling economic growth. The State crushes everything that gets in its voracious, parasitic way.

Now that we have summarized our current America, here is the second choice, the Free America:

The Free America

In the second America, the one of liberty that the Founders envisioned, money would not be monopolized by the government. Competing currencies would exist, and there would be no Federal Reserve. People would have a choice, which is their right to have. And there would be no government control over banks, whose success or failure would be based on the free market. Individuals take responsibility for their decisions. Government would be forbidden by the people to take advantage of those individuals whose fortunes might be lost by failed banks, and charities would be in abundance to help those who need it. And any congressman or senator who attempts to force banks to lend to unqualified applicants would be arrested for intrusions into the private bank owners’ right to freedom of association and contract.

In this free America, there would be no government-compulsory taxation. That is because the people of this free America recognize the rights of the individual, including the right to the fruits of one’s labor. The Founders believed that any taking of an individual’s compensation for labor, or any taking of any individual’s justly acquired wealth or property is theft, pure and simple. And the people of this free America would never approve of the State’s demanding information of private individuals where they work, who their employers are, how much they earn, or how much they pay employees or who works for them.

In the second, free America, the people would not permit the State to demand private information such as what profits private businesses or property owners earn on sales or trades, and the people would certainly not permit the State to demand a “take” on the profits. If the State is assumed to be representative of the people, and “the people” consists of you and your neighbors, then one’s neighbors cannot possibly have any moral or legitimate claim on any profits you make on the sale of a property, or of goods and services. And any information regarding those private contracts is no one else’s business – any attempts to intrude into those private contracts will be considered trespassing, theft or general public nuisance crimes and subject to severe penalties.

In the second, free America, same-sex marriages could not be outlawed. That is because the people of this society recognize that individuals have a right to establish private, voluntary contracts with others who are mutually agreeable and consenting. What kind of private contracts one has with others and the terms of the contracts are nobody else’s business.

Some people believe that the State must have the power to protect traditional “social institutions,” such as marriage. However, the preservation of traditions and social institutions is not the role of the State, but of private individuals, organizations, communities and the church.

In free America, the State would play no role in any people’s marriages. There would be no such thing as a marriage license, because if individuals’ private relationships and contracts are none of their neighbors’ business, then they are none of the State’s business.

In the free America, all relationships, associations and contracts are voluntary. No individual is permitted to have any power of compulsion over another. That is the only way to have a civil society. Any compromise of that rule compromises the notion of rights, the individual’s right to life, liberty and property, and the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others.

In free America, the relationship between doctors and patients is entirely private, and no government official is permitted to have access to any private medical information. And also in the free America, more people would be in better health, because they would be encouraged to be responsible for themselves and take care of themselves. The emphasis would be on individual responsibility and not dependence, and the State may not force an insurance company to cover someone who engages in risky behaviors. Employers would also be discouraged from providing health coverage, because that also creates more dependence, and further discourages individual responsibility.

And if there are employment unions, they are not permitted to force employers to pay employees more than what the market demands. Those who are dissatisfied with their compensation are free to seek other employment.

There would also be no government-run schools. Freedom of education means no State intrusion in the individual’s learning.

In free America, only acts in which an actual victim exists are considered crimes. If there is no victim, then an act is not a crime, as Laurence Vance and Walter Block and have noted. And there certainly would be no “war on drugs,” because the people understand the mistakes of 1920s Prohibition, and realize that the individual has to be responsible for the consequences of one’s actions or one’s irresponsible behavior. Punishing victimless acts tells people that they need a nanny state to protect them from themselves. Sorry – not in this free America.

And also, without a war on drugs, the people of Arizona and Texas especially would be safer, because there would be nothing to incentivize Mexican drug cartels because there would be no profits for them, no reason for lowlifes to push drugs on America’s youths or others, and there would thus be no drug cartels moving northward into Arizona and Texas that is now making Arizonans and Texans less safe. And, as the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Jacob Hornberger noted,

“The drug-war violations of privacy and civil liberties would disappear, along with one of the police’s favorite excuses for harassing citizens. No more asset-forfeiture, no more cash reporting requirements, no more planting drugs on innocent people. Indeed, no more drug-war bribes to government officials…

(And drug decriminalization would) restore a core aspect of human freedom to our land – the right of human beings to ingest whatever substance they want without being punished by the state for it.”

And, as far as the defense of the free America is concerned, the people would also recognize that giving an institution such as the State a monopoly in territorial protection while outlawing competing protection agencies is immoral, impractical and counter-productive. It is counter-productive because, given compulsory monopoly power in territorial defense, bureaucrats will abuse that power, as the more honest historians have exposed. We would have had no American involvement in Korea or Vietnam and no U.S. government invasions against Iraq had we not had the government protection monopoly that we have had. There would have been no U.S. entry into World War I, and because of that there probably would not have been a World War II, or at least not such a lengthy and destructive one, nor would there have been such a repressive and destructive Soviet Union, because Woodrow Wilson’s World War I interventionism was a major contributor to the rise of Hitler and Stalin.

Some people might ask, “Well, how would Americans protect themselves from Islamic terrorism directed against the U.S. without a centralized national defense in Washington?” My contention is that there wouldn’t be Islamic terrorism directed against America in the free America, because the current Islamic terrorism directed against America is in response to all the intrusions by the U.S. government in Middle-Eastern and Asian territories for the last 60 or 70 years, a region over which the U.S. government has no legitimate authority nor sovereignty.

The federal government’s monopolizing the business of protection for 300 million Americans, and forbidding competing protection agencies from doing business, violates the inherent right of the territory’s inhabitants to protect themselves from the aggression of outsiders. One of our rights as human beings is the right of self-defense.

For those reasons, and for the reason that no individual’s inherent right to defend oneself may be violated by anyone at any time, in this free America, “Gun Control” would be unheard of.


If such a free America, based on the sound principles of individual liberty, private property and freedom of association, seems too “utopian,” then at the very least, we should get rid of the federal government. Murray Rothbard suggested we can “repudiate the national debt,” and he gave advice on how (and how not) to desocialize, and Lew Rockwell has this 30-day plan.

There’s no reason why we can’t just have a country, United States of America, consisting of the various independent, sovereign states, and not have a federal government. (Actually, that was the original intent of the Founders!) If you need something as a symbol in a central location called “federal government,” then make it solely ceremonial but with no actual power. There’s no legitimate need for a centralized federal government with power.

For those who think there can be any compromise between those two Americas, the truth is that any attempt at compromise leads to the first America, our current state. That is because, what has been compromised has been individual liberty, private property rights and freedom of association, a natural result of giving a centralized authority compulsory power and monopoly.

Those rights are absolute rights. Either the individual has an inherent right to one’s life and liberty – the right to be free from the aggression of others – or one does not. Either one has an absolute right to the fruits of one’s labor and to one’s justly acquired wealth and property, and the right to defend them against aggression, or one does not.

The current America is one of Keynesian, socialist centralized economic social and defense planning, in which the government directs everything by force of gunpoint, as opposed to the freedom of the second America, in which individuals, families and businesses plan their own lives, and government is forbidden to intrude into anyone’s private personal or economic matters, and competing protection agencies have an actual competitive incentive to protect their fellow Americans.

The choice should be a no-brainer.

Scott Lazarowitz is a commentator and cartoonist at

Patrick Henry and Frederick Douglass Speak

September 22, 2010

Patrick Henry was the Governor of Virginia from 1776 to 1779 and again from 1784 to 1786. He was one of the most radical patriots of his day. During the war he was a Colonel in the Continental Army. He was a delegate to the 1788 Constitutional Convention and argued as an anti-federalist, as he saw that the New Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation endangered the individual freedoms and violated state’s rights as sovereign nations. When the Constitution was finally completed, Henry refused to sign it, saying “I smelt a rat in Philadelphia.”

In 1775, Patriot Patrick Henry gave this speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. We offer it today to remind our readers that the issues that compelled him to give this speech have come full circle to 2010. Remember as you read his stirring words that the colonials were British citizens who were being treated as slaves by the Crown. Every right they enjoyed as British citizens was being trampled, and the King’s army was enforcing King George’s edicts all over the colonies. And most of the early skirmishes of the war happened as a result of the Redcoats attempting to confiscate the private ammunition and firearms owned by colonials.

“Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is coming on. We have petitioned…we have remonstrated…we have supplicated. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with comtempt… In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free…if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have so long contended…if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object to our contest shall be obtained…we must fight!! I repeat it Sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and the God of Hosts is all that is left to us!

They tell us Sir that we are weak…unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we require the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…Besides Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends…The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable…let it come! Gentlemen may cry peace, peace…but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

Frederick Douglass was a self-freed black slave who became one of the most important abolitionists of his day. Here are his words from a speech in 1857.

“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand.

Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

DumpDC brings you these two voices from history today to attempt to awaken the slumbering, and to warn the naive. The Texas Nationalist Movement goes out of its way to state that they are not a militia…and rightly so. They state that they are promoting the peaceful, legislative process for Texas independence. That’s fine, too. But at some point, any secessionist group must admit to itself and its state citizens that Federal resistance to secession COULD be armed resistance. And any state that has not regained the Power of the Purse (its own money) and the Power of the Sword (its own militia) has not a snowball’s chance in hell of successfully seceding from the Union.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Lunatics to the Left, Lunatics to the Right, and Not a Drop to Drink

September 21, 2010

Extremely Dangerous Boy Kid

by Fred Reed

God. Oh God. Oh God, God, God. It is getting worse. Maybe I’ll take cyanide.

Our Guilty Pleasure

I find this inspiriting headline polluting my inbox like rotting road-kill. It’s from Broward County, Florida:

“Child Still Expelled for Toy Gun – a Year Later Parents want their child back in school. School board says no way”

See? Florida collectively is out of its tiny little mind. What if this crepuscular pathology spreads to other countries? Or planets?

“School board officials said the rules are quite clear and that the toy gun constituted a weapon.”

Me, I figure the school-board officials constitute a pack of priggish low-Board simians who ought to be swinging in trees instead of trying to run a school. But then, I’m a curmudgeon.

Think about it. Kid—he’s eight—shows up with toy gun after watching 12,000 hours of shoot’em-ups on the lobotomy box, Luke Skywalker blasting funny-looking milkmen like a pretty little mollycoddle turned psychopath. Kid sees war coverage with heroic GIs in Afghanistan killing anybody they can see. He watches recruiting ads for the Marines, who carry guns and want A Few Good Persons. Why would he possibly be interested in a toy gun?

And why would nominal adults, even the barely educated variety characteristically found on school boards, want to wreck the kid’s life? Actually of course it is passive aggression, an attack on the tyke, said attack masquerading, or perhaps marauding is the better word, as high moral endeavor. See, they’re protecting Western Civilization.

The US these days rolls in passive aggression. The country grows daily more mean-spirited, more wrapped in a miasma of diffuse anger, but you still can’t just go up to a child and hit him with a ball bat, or throw acid in his face. No. Instead you find a smugly righteous way to set him back two years in school, thus making him into a guaranteed social misfit. How very…I don’t think “intelligent” is an adequate word. Perhaps “sublime” is better. Or “supernal.”

As tensions grow in America, as divisions flourish, and the nation leads up to something unseen but ugly, prissy vindictiveness and moral sadism become normal. We have become a gotcha culture, watchful for transgressions meaningless but forbidden, so that we can make the malfeasor squirm. How we enjoy the squirming, the writhing on camera, the heavy punishments inflected for nothing.

The other day I was watching television, which I do in the spirit of Margaret Meade investigating her primitives. It’s an electronic Petri dish. Anyway, a story aired of excruciating importance,.At any rate it was excruciating. A politician had been discovered to have forwarded an email containing a picture of a woman copulating with a horse. Delight erupted, disguised as horror: A chance to make him squirm! His election could depend on revelation of this vile perversion, this sickening transgression against, and so on. All waited expectantly for him to whine and beg and lick feet. This reaction by the public strikes me as kinkier than the horse and its tart.

Let us dive, or perhaps wade for reason of long drought, into Truth. We are all adults here. Let’s have a show of hands: How many readers have never looked at porn online?…Ah, I see that I am writing a blog for amputees. How many have never looked at anything more robustly exotic than Presbyterians in the missionary position? (Raise your stumps.) How many are genuinely shocked, appalled, disgusted etc. by the thought of the dread equestrian email, of whose contents most fourteen-year-olds have probably heard? Tijuana used to be internationally famous for such erotic vaudeville. If it is erotic.

The likelihood that the pol is amorously interested in horses is of course zero. Sheep, maybe. Horses, no.

Back to the eight-year-old. “He made a mistake, but why the severe punishment? I don’t understand that,” said Magdiel Burgos, Sam’s dad.”

What? The child did not make a mistake. He’s freaking eight. He brought a toy to school. Since eight is too young (at this writing) to be made to snivel on camera in delicious auto-humiliating, his parents per force do it for him.

The correct solution to the problem, if there were a problem, would be to tell the kid, “Hey, you aren’t supposed to bring stuff like this. Don’t, OK?” When he is a little older, he might be told that the entire scholarly (which it barely is) establishment constitutes a dry run by Darwin, which he judged a failure and meant to discard, but forgot.

There is something wrong, something fetid and cruel, about anyone who will so treat little boy. It gets stranger:

“The school board said they would admit Samuel into a correctional school for problem children who have been expelled located in Hallandale Beach.”

Oh joy! Reform school! What better way to turn him into a happy and stable boy? (Which he is anyway.) Why not Leavenworth? We could try him as an adult. I recommend solitary, to protect the other inmates. And don’t let him bring his teddy bear. He has to learn that actions have consequences.

I thrash about in search of understanding. It cometh not. Perhaps the explanation lies in physics: The stupidity of a closed system tends to remain the same or to increase. Usually, increase.

This sort of neurotic theater has gone on for years. I remember the boy expelled for pointing (so help me) a chicken finger and saying “Bang!” another for bringing plastic soldiers to school, another for drawing a picture of a soldier with a gun, another for swatting a girl on the butt on the playground. This last resulted in the calling of cops, a handcuffed kid, and compulsory psychiatric treatment instead of an admonitory, “Don’t do that again, Bobby. Do you understand me?” How does a society come to this?

I can make guesses that sound vaguely plausible. The United States is not a happy country. People waste their lives in meaningless jobs, trapped by the credit card, the mortgage, the student loan. They know they are wasting their lives. Racial anger runs high. Women resent men. Divorce screws up kids. There is the two-hour commute to the cubicle and back to the sterile box in the anonymous subdivision, the lack of influence over their lives, life from paycheck to paycheck. And anger at affirmative action, either because they suffer from it or because they need it. Life is just flat stressful.

People get spiteful, mean, like mistreated dogs. They want to make others as miserable as they secretly are themselves. So they torment a little boy. I’m going to change my phylum.

Want Spanish Lessons?

A Marketing Survey

My wife Violeta supported herself for years by teaching Spanish to foreigners in Guadalajara and its environs. A while back a friend, a computer security-and-data-base kind of guy, visited and decided that he wanted to learn Spanish. He checked with Berlitz in Washington, DC and, while not actually hospitalized for sticker shock, came close. We decided to make the experiment of having Vi teach him by telephone.

Administratively it seemed feasible. Textbooks from Amazon, payment by PayPal, homework by email. We had all-you-can-eat Vonage, so phone charges were zero. The only question was whether it would work.

It did. If you dropped Woody in Mexico City, he would have no trouble. Another friend, also studying with Vi, is less far along, but close.

She is contemplating making a regular job of it, and we would like to know whether there is interest. Again, this is just a marketing survey at this point.

If you have not studied a foreign language, a few thoughts:

Language instruction exists to make money for the instructors or school. To attract students, these often say things like “Learn the easy and fun way! Learn easily and naturally! A fun, conversational approach, avoids boring grammar!” and so on.

Good freaking luck. There is no easy way to learn a language, and if you don’t learn grammar, you have an illusion of rapid progress for a few weeks, and then stall utterly.

Vi teaches entirely in Spanish. From experience she knows that if she lets English creep in, the student will come to depend on it, and the lesson will turn into an English conversation about Spanish. You don’t learn Spanish by speaking English. The effect is to front-load the difficulty: You can’t discuss interesting things until you have learned a bit. Then one day you realize that you have just carried on an hour of conversation with a Mexican, and entirely in Spanish. It’s a good feeling.

She is friendly, personable, and merciless. She doesn’t do long silences, or short silences. She will keep you talking or listening during the whole lesson. It is work, but it works.

We’re looking at $20 an hour of phone time, checking of homework at no extra charge.