In business, the customer is the paying public and the merchant is the provider of service or goods. At the executive level, the merchant must make decisions based upon being able to provide those goods and services at competitive prices. To ensure the store’s doors remain open the executive must find a supplier of the desired goods of the customer.

A local grocery store will offer; can goods, frozen foods, fresh produce, bread, cereals, and meats. The store will also offer soaps, paper goods, cleaners mops, sponges, and disinfectants. Most local grocery stores even offer some over the counter medical supplies and dietary supplements. The fact is that in the local grocery store you can buy almost everything you need or want. Why? Because the merchants know that if they do not offer these products at competitive prices the customer will go elsewhere.

The mode of purchase that takes place in the grocery store is yet another issue. The customer voluntarily enters the store knowing that they must have something of value to purchase the goods that they desire. The thing of value is usually cash or a credit/debit card. After they go through their selection process they will voluntarily hand over that thing of value to complete the deal, goods for money.

That is a very simple description of an open market economy where most of these exchanges end with the satisfaction that the value you gave up was worth the product you received.

In a governmental situation, we elect people to shop for us. We usually choose at least three shoppers; at the central/national store, at the state store, and at the community store.  The governmental stores exist due to the patronage of the taxpayers. If the taxpayer is truly the customer, shouldn’t they determine the inventory being offered? It is time for the customer to evaluate the inventory that the government has on its selves. 

Ideally, this system should work due to the concept that our shoppers have an allegiance to those that “hired” them. However, the system has been corrupted by human flaws, greed and hubris have intervened. The government grocery stores are now filled with handlers that influence our shoppers. The products that they have purchased are not the ones that I desire or want.

The customers necessities have been discarded due to the influence levied upon our shoppers. The influence comes from fellow shoppers and from outsiders paid to influence all shoppers. Promises of prestigious committee membership, support toward reelection, financial rewards to reelection war chests and personal benefits now determine what we consume.

Take a good hard look at the goods in the shopping bag that we receive from the money they take from our paychecks. Here are just a few of the items that we find in our shopping bag: a $23 trillion deficit burden, numerous wars in the Middle East, military bases spread over the globe, a medical system so weak that covid-19 shut down the economy in order to “lower the curve”, a war on drugs used to employ millions but can’t even keep them out of prisons, empty airlines in service while unemployed citizens ration food and “non-essential” small business forced to shut-down while big “essential” corporation are bailed out so they can buy-back stock.

The government, due to the covid-19 crisis, has shown its hand. It has exposed its value system, the essentials, and non-essentials. Essential customers are bailed out while the “non-essentials” are disregarded. Over the past few months, the “non-essentials” have been cut loose. They have declared that the “non-essential’s” services are no longer required.

I’m retired, one might argue that I choose to be a non-essential, but I work from the age of 15 to the age of 62 in order to be a non-essential, it was voluntary and planned. If I was forced into the “non-essential” before my time I would probably be a lot less comfortable or maybe be struggling to make ends meet. If I was declared non-essential at the age of 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 I would have been downright angry.

Any authority that has the ability to enforced a stop-work order against the “non-essentials” is dangerous. They have basically “implied” that the “non-essentials” will; not be able to buy food, not be able to pay rent, not allowed to roam outside their boundaries and basically incapable of making prudent decisions concerning their own safety.

However, the authority does have a vetting process to identify acceptable “non-essentials.” Those that qualify will be allowed into a club, a club where Big Daddy will take care of them. This is a governmental authority on steroids. It is clear that they have seized the power to choose, both in industry and the individual, who is essential, and who is non-essentials.

Meanwhile, the Washington shoppers of both parties heap praise upon themselves for their “bipartisan” efforts, to issue IOUs to the “essentials” of their choice. The airlines will receive about $50 billion in cash and loans, while Boeing will receive a share of $17 billion earmarked for industries favored by Congress. Another $500 billion will go to cruise lines, hotels, and other firms that have lost business because of travel restrictions and the economic shutdowns.

In the current economic market, the “non-essential” might see things a little differently. Their priority may be a bit more mundane than flying to some resort location to embark on a luxury cruise. Maybe restarting jobs and services may be a higher priority. The only influence left for the non-essential is their feet. They must walk away from the governmental tyranny store and shop for liberty.

Bail-out the non-essentials by calling this off and restart the economy. We must begin to assess the damage caused by the covid-19 shutdown and proceed to rebuild the economy that has been destroyed. It is time to entrust the “non-essentials” to decide the extent of protection they want.

I am reminded of a rugby song we use to sing at the beer saturated post-game celebration:

I use to work in Chicago

In a department store

I use to work in Chicago

I don’t work there anymore

 

A lady came in for liberty*

Liberty from the store

Liberty she wanted

*Tyranny she got

I don’t work there anymore 

 

*This version is an adaptation from a verse we use to sing. The rugby version had a similar concept but included words like curtains and a rod, instead of liberty and tyranny.

Coming Soon to Venezuela?

This, I submit, is the Panama Model for overthrowing a foreign regime. It’s pretty simple; Step 1) change the law to suit your purpose, 2) charge a leader with a drug crime, step 3) demand he removes himself from power, (it’s understood that they won’t) 4) create a terror/security incident, 5) send in the troops to seize the criminal, 6) murder civilians or military (does not matter), 7) install your guy and viola there you have it – overthrow Panama style.

This is the strategy that Attorney General William Barr used in 1988-89 against former CIA asset and Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. The Noriega indictment resulted in a US invasion of Panama that left hundreds – possibly thousands dead Panamanian civilians in its wake. We are watching the Venezuelan version, of the Panama Model, unfold before our eyes.

Last week, the US Justice Department unsealed an indictment on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and other government officials, accusing him of a drug crime. (step 2) The charge, Narco-Terrorism, Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Criminal Charges. That puts us in a holding pattern, waiting for Step 4, a terror/security incident.

Washington has tried, unsuccessfully, to create the spark needed to start an incident. However, Maduro has remained peaceful during Washington’s provocative actions like; recognizing Juan Guaidó as president, attempts to break thru the Tienditas Bridge blockade, calling for the Venezuelan military to defect and demonstrations like “Operation Freedom.”

Up-Close – The Panama Model

Chess players have favorite opening moves. Bobby Fischer’s favorite opening strategy was the Ruy Lopez. Regime change advocates also have their favorite strategies. Attorney General William Barr appears to have found his favorite overthrow strategy, the Panama Model.

Is it a coincidence that Barr just happens to be the same person who gave the first Bush administration the legal justification to invade Panama just over 30 years ago?

Step 1) Change the Law

in 1980, President Carter’s head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) ruled the FBI does not have international authority to arrest a person in another nation if that nation does not consent. The opinion written under Carter said, “US agents have no law enforcement authority in another nation unless it is the product of that nation’s consent.”

When Bush came into the White House in January 1989, he appointed William Barr the head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Barr asked then-Attorney General Dick Thornburgh to author a legal opinion memo on the 1980 Carter Administration’s decision.

June 21st, 1989, the response was, “At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law.”

This was a game-changer, it said that the FBI could carry out arrests in other nations, even if it violates international law. Barr wrote, “the 1980 (Carter) Opinion was clearly wrong in asserting that the United States is legally powerless to carry out actions that violate international law by impinging on the sovereignty of other countries. It is well established that both political branches — the Congress and the Executive — have, within their respective spheres, the authority to override customary international law.” How convenient!

2) Charge a Leader With a Drug Crime

In February 1988, under the Reagan administration, the US indicted Noriega on charges of Drug trafficking and racketeering, and he was taken off the CIA’s payroll. Over the next year, the US placed economic sanctions on Panama in an effort to pressure Noriega to step down.

3) Demand He Removes Himself From Power

On June 21st of 1989, the plot to sell the Panama Model and mobilize for the invasion began. The U.S. government had already entered into negotiations with Noriega seeking his resignation. The talks proved lengthy and inconclusive and the negotiations collapsed. It was clear that Noriega had no intention of ever resigning. That was the final attempt for a “diplomatic” removal of Noriega.   

4) Create a Terror/Security Incident

The only thing missing for a full-out invasion was a spark to ignite the invasion phase. The spark came with a December 16, 1989 incident, when four U.S. personnel were stopped at a roadblock outside Noriega’s Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) headquarters in the El Chorrillo neighborhood of Panama City.

The United States Department of Defense said that the servicemen were traveling unarmed in a private vehicle and that they attempted to flee the scene only after their vehicle was surrounded by a crowd of civilians and PDF troops. Robert Paz of the United States Marine Corps was shot and killed in the incident.

5) Send in the Troops to Seize the Criminal

Four days later, on December 20, 1989, the U.S. launched its invasion of Panama. Although the killing of the Marine was the stated reason for the invasion, the operation had been planned for months before his death. The move was the largest military action by the U.S. since the  Vietnam War and included more than 27,000 soldiers, as well as 300 aircraft.

6) Murder Civilians or Military

The number dead from this model is widely disputed. Some human rights groups say the number of the civilian death toll is in the thousands. Victims claim many bodies were buried in mass graves and never counted, and to this day, families of the dead are still searching for the bodies of their loved ones. In 2019, Panama made December 20th an official day of mourning.

7) Install Your Guy

Operation Just Cause was initiated with a US Justice Department indictment. Back then it took about 20 months from the indictment to invasion. This mobilization should take less time this thanks to the nefarious work of Eliot Abrams, ex-National Security Advisor John Bolton and the money that the US has funneled to fraud leader Juan Guaidó.

Update Venezuela – Waiting for Step 4

On March 24, Colombian authorities seized a truck full of weapons and military equipment, including 26 assault rifles, worth $500,000. Venezuelan intelligence services linked the weapons to three camps in Colombia where paramilitary groups of Venezuelans and U.S. mercenaries are training to carry out attacks against Venezuela.

According to Venezuela’s Communication Minister Jorge Rodríguez, these groups were planning to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to attack military units and plant bombs. These groups are linked to Alcalá Cordones, a former General in the Venezuelan armed forces.

Alcalá retired in 2013 when Maduro was elected after Hugo Chávez had died. Alcalá Cordones fled to Colombia from where he supported the U.S. chosen clown Juan Guaidó as self-proclaimed president of Venezuela.

Another *Elliott Abrams Moment

Part of the Maduro charges included a $10 million reward on the head of Clíver Antonio Alcalá Cordones. Yes, the one man that was willing to help Guaidó and join the U.S. in their plot. By the way, it appears that the Justice Department did not inform him about indictment because he freaked out and blew the whistle on the operation.

On Friday Alcalá Cordones decided it was unsafe for him to stay in Colombia. He ‘called up’ the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and gave himself up. He was extradited to New York and will now become a ‘witness’ against Maduro who he has publicly opposed in the first place. 

Alcalá Cordones admitted that the weapons were under his command. This may threaten the plan that the U.S. concocted with Guaidó and the men behind him. Alcalá further admitted that the weapons were purchased with funds given to him by Juan Guaidó, with whom he allegedly signed a contract.  Alcala claimed that the operation was planned by U.S. advisors, with whom he had met with at least seven times.

Most of us with “non-essential jobs” get to stay at home, blinded by “The Weapon of Mass Distraction” as men like Elliot Abrams and William Barr roam free and are allowed to go to work. Does that make regime change, in the United States, an essential job? 

 

*Elliot Abrams – On January 25, 2019, he was appointed as Special Representative for Venezuela. He is best known for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, which led to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress. He was later pardoned by George H.W. Bush.  In the George W. Bush administration, as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush’s strategy of “advancing democracy abroad.” Abrams was a key architect behind the 2003 Iraq War.

Is It A Knowledge Problem?

If you can drown out the fear-inducing noise spewing from the TV, (yeah team) “keep your eyes peeled,” you might see how more liberty creates more problem solvers. Studying pre-progressive history, before Wilson, of the United State you realize that it was open markets that made America great, not restrictions, licenses, certificates, and any other bureaucratic special interest legislation. 

In this COVID-19 crisis, it is interesting to witness the political elites using their executive power to actually waive laws and bypass regulations. The lesson learned should be, when the market place becomes more free and open, problems get solved. It is a simple supply and demand issue.

Take the problem of moving goods quicker and more efficiently to the public consumer. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott waived oversize and overweight restrictions for commercial trucks. He also suspended requirements to register commercial trucks under the International Registration Plan or to obtain temporary registration. The only stipulation attached to his actions is that the truck must be registered in another US state.

To make prepared food more available for the self-imposed, quarantined or sequestered people, Boston’s Mayor Marty Walsh, lifted the permitting process for restaurants to have a take-out service. Now every restaurant can offer carry-out service. New York City suspended its enforcement of illegal e-bikes during the crisis to accommodate for the influx of delivery orders.

Grocery demands have made it essential for supermarket companies like H-E-B, Kroger, and Randall’s to hire thousands of additional staff. Some states have stopped enforcement of expired Resident and Driveway Parking permits, enabling the supply chains for these supermarkets to meet their need. Grocers like H-E-B have reach levels of 1,300 trucks a day to supply their stores.

Communities have suspended required building permits for “minor work,” like plumbing, electrical, mechanical, fire, and building as long as contractors alert the city of the work they intend to do. It has clear, that lifting regulations do not put public health or safety in jeopardy. So, why do the regulatory burdens exist?

Non-essential Roadblock

What bureaucrat or authority has the knowledge to determines what is “nonessential” or “essential” production? When hand sanitizer ran short, distilleries started making it. Hanes turned from making underwear to making masks. There are many examples of creative solutions that can be found. What if the whiskey and underwear industries had been shut down because they were deemed nonessential?

Keep your eyes peeled for liberty breaking out!

A Plague?

Regardless of what you may think about the origins of COVID-19, bio-weapon, ‘just the flu’ or the new plague, it’s here. The response is real, the global economy has been damaged. The speed with which those seeking power is astounding. It has become a race to tyranny, openly embracing a Fascistic control. Any alternative, the media has informed us, would be a heartless do-nothing response.

Trump, to his credit, didn’t order a national top-down approach to COVID-19 he left it up to the states to handle. Nor has he yet nationalized every manufacturing plant to make N-95 masks and PPE. Some states are being put on lockdown to stem the spread of a disease whose biggest threat is overwhelming an ill-prepared medical infrastructure.

Congress is paralyzed by partisan bickering seeing this as a publicity opportunity. The Republicans are wrapping themselves in the moral high ground of sending out UBI checks and the Democrats decry lack of Congressional control over corporate handouts while $1.8 trillion in new spending will be coming from the Federal government. Not one bit of this spending is prudent nor necessary. It’s just more of our socialist destruction of wealth through debt issuance.

Media and leaders have turned the fear level to full blast. This biblical plague, COVID-19, appears to be a tough virus to beat but isn’t world ending. Hospitals and the medical community will be overworked and will probably need help but we cannot help when ordered to stay at home. Many of us would donate time, money and energy to help our community get through this. For the sake of the economy, others would even be brave enough to show up for their work.

Authority Flu?

However, we continue to allow power-hungry maniacs to run roughshod over us because we’re fearful of this plague. They have succeeded in selling fear in hopes to save themselves. They keep telling us that open markets don’t work and that individuals cannot be trusted and that only the State can coordinate such a monumental task such as saving humanity from nature. They’re wrong.

The reality is that the State is grabbing an insane level of power. Martial Law in the U.S. appears to be right around the corner. While we have yet to realize that the more power governments grab the less capable they are of protecting us, our family and our communities. The non-compliant are viewed as a threat and hiding is considered heroic.

With every crisis comes opportunity. Opportunities in change, new beginnings and ending bad habits. If we are entering into a survival situation, let’s eliminate the issues we’ve been fighting over for the past years, like identity politics. Fights over gender, race, sex and color look have always been dangerous and stupid. Does it really matter if the guy behind the meat counter at your local supermarket is a MAGA guy or a Bernie Bro, hates gay people or is a closet tranny?

Let us be brave enough to let commerce flow again. The healthy, low-risk people should be allowed to take necessary risks to keep the lights on, the sewers functioning and the food supply from collapsing. Instead, they are forced to cower in a government-enforced lock-down. “Release us,” should be our demand.

Some people will make the wrong choice, but most won’t. Stop using the people as your straw men to grind your political ax. Zero tolerance is a dangerous solution and will maximize costs at marginal benefits. Our communities must become alive again to fight back against the threats of the government’s overreach or the virus itself.

To deny people, capable of making millions of decisions in the course of a day, the freedom to decide their own level of safety is criminal. Competent leaders need the decency and humility to get out of our way so we can thrive.

Top-down authority is separating us from our greatest strength, our ability to try new things and solve problems. More governmental directives are not what we need. They don’t have all the answers but are pretending too. The way to restore confidence in people is to not inspire panic. The one-size-fits-all mandates are incapable of solving problems and will only prolong the misery.

What is lacking is humble leadership to provide more encouragement and to dictate less. Leaders need to have faith in their citizens to accept that bad people may do good things and good people may do bad things. They need to be flexible enough to know that decisions made today may need to be reversed tomorrow.

Cure

We’ve been given a huge wake-up call, our leaders have built us a house of cards. Executive power, corporatism, and socialism have been exposed. The major flaw with central planning is the lack of specific knowledge. Problems are usually an aggregate of complex things spread over many different and diverse systems. The idea that ‘wise and verified smart” people can centrally plan for all individuals is absolutely ridiculous. 

The decisions we allow our governments to take now will determine what that world will look like tomorrow. Panic and coercion will not restore confidence in a currency, a people and a government. The cure for the authority that plagues us is; freedom, good leadership, and trust.

 

https://tomluongo.me

 

 

The U.S. economy is plunging toward a recession/depression. Unemployment has soared and businesses are struggling to pay their bills. State authorities are coercing Americans to stay at home as business profits are lost, the economy is tanking.

When the authorities initiate a “shelter in place” directive do they even care about the ramification? The hardest hit by these directives are services. The service industry accounts for about 70% of this country’s economy. Shutting down “non-essential services” is shutting down a huge sector of the economy. In other words, for many, no work means no money.  No money translates to default on loans, mortgages, rent and car payments not to mention food and utilities.

I am bewildered by both the moves of the State and the response of the public. In a time of crisis, authority is allowed and encouraged to expand. Authority, when served up to the public as “protecting our citizens”, is dangerous and is often the greatest usurper of freedom because what is enforced today becomes palatable in the future.

Our welfare-warfare state has created a Nanny society where we look for our next directive from the central planners. Anson Dorrance, the legendary women’s soccer coach at UNC says, “athletics do not build character, it exposes character.” Well, crisis exposes character too. This would explain the narrative shift going from impeachment, for the abuse of authority, to not using enough authority (combating COVID-19) in just a few short months.

My bewilderment has been tweaked by Washington’s moves to help the economy. Congress released an economic stimulus bill that includes $50 billion in “loans and loan guarantees” for passenger airlines; $8 billion for “cargo air carriers”; and $150 billion for other “eligible businesses.” The legislation will give the Treasury Department the authority in determining which businesses qualify for this $150 billion fund.

The media and Washington can call it a stimulus package but call it what it is, a bailout with helicopter money attached to ensure inflation. A program that targets specific chosen industries is a stimulus for those specific industries only. In reality, they have picked the winners and the losers will fend for themselves. In 2009 they choose the banks as the winners and determined that the homeowners would be the losers. Bank executives got cash bonuses while the homeowners lost their homes.

Congress tells us that legislation stimulus is based on four “pillars”

1) direct cash payments to individuals

2) funding to the health-care industry

3) loans to target industries (bailouts)

4) payments to small businesses

Number 1 – Direct Cash Payments to Individuals

Direct cash payments to Americans is like giving $100 to an addict and saying “go get straight.” The legislation would provide checks of $1,200 per adult, as well as $500 for every child in those families. It’s more complicated than that and will probably take a whole new department of bureaucrats to figure out and administration and eligibility of payments. But what will $1,200 dollars provide: one month’s rent, one payment of a mortgage, a couple months utility bills, one car payment or maybe a week’s supply of heroin.

If Washington really had concern for the lower and middle class and wanted to help them get through this recession/depression they would immediately cut spending and cut taxes. Especially defense spending, bring all the troops home and return to the workers all the taxes they took in 2019 and stop collecting (withholding tax) the 2020 taxes immediately.

Number 2 – Funding to the Health-care Industry

It was America’s health care central planning system that delayed many of the proactive responses to the virus due to the rigid top-down rules and procedures imposed by the Pure Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in hamstringing local and decentralized development and use of Coronavirus testing tools since nothing could be done without approval and permission of the American government’s health and drug planners.

The easing of these pains starts with letting the market prosper, not more authoritative directives. Did anyone take note that in order to get more research on the testing for COVID-19 and vaccination research the government had to remove regulations? Amazon and other goods delivery companies are prospering because the open market will adjust to meet the market demands of consumers.

Number 3 – Loans to Target Industries (bailouts)

Turn the money spigot off. No more bailouts! These target companies will not learn anything from a bailout. History shows that it will make even riskier business decisions when the government establishes a precedent of bailing out. A “too big to fail” becomes a huge chip on their shoulder because they know that no matter how reckless their finical endeavor is big brother will be there to bail them out. Enough is enough.

Bailouts will just accelerate our false capitalism. I call it false because it is saturated with an excessive level of corporation-government predator relationships. This is called corporatism also known as fascism.  And socialism is not the answer. The government should not be collecting authority they need to distribute it back to the community as the US Constitution instructed. Authoritative governance does not work. Central planners can not pick winners and losers. The market with its supply and demand is too much of a fickle environment.   

Number 4 – Payments to Small Businesses

Local supply chains must be allowed to recover and new start-up companies must be encouraged. Enterpenures will grow their businesses if left unmolested by imposed licenses, certification, quotas and yes minimum wage requirements. The stimulus package should be focused, at the grass-roots and local community. Community banks need to make loans available for the local service vendors and entrepreneur that have an invested interest in community development.

The market is saturated with too much cheap money. The Federal Reserve’s strategy of keeping the interest rates low has failed and negative rates will make it worse. The rates must be release to seek a level that promotes savings. Adding more cheap money into the market will spike inflation thus lowering purchase power. Life after this crisis will change, people should have an incentive to save and spend prudently. 

Socialism and fascism have no heart they work contrary to community, family, spirituality and religion because their first loyalty is to the state, not the individual or local community. Please Mister bureaucrat let us Capitalize on this crisis and let the marketplace lead.

Natural law 

Natural law recognizes that the law and morality are deeply connected. Morality relates to what is right and what is wrong. Natural law theorists believe that human laws are defined by morality, and not by an authority figure, like a king or a government, any government, even a democratically elected one.

Beginning last week Massachusetts drivers will face consequences if caught using their cellphone while behind the wheel. The concept makes sense, the fewer drivers are distracted the less chance of an accident. I agree with this assumption.

Many drivers have voluntarily been following the hands-free initiative because they know it is right. But to create a law that prohibits drivers from texting, talking or using the phone unless they use the hands-free mode is an abuse of the political system. 

When I object to something being done by the government, the “indoctrinated” concludes that I object to the activity that is being regulated. If I disapprove of state education, then I am opposed to any education. If I object to state-enforced equality, then I am against equality. If I object to my taxes being budgeted toward war, then I am un-patriotic. No, it’s the force that I object to!

Philanthropic Law

I have not been in an accident involving a cell phone. Once I hit a car in the rear end while looking down to change the radio station. A thirsty friend once had an accident while picking up his water bottle to quench his thirst. Does our benevolent Commonwealth have the duty to create legislation requiring hands-free radios or hands-free water bottles?

Laws to help keep me safe are sold as benevolent laws but in reality, are just an expansion of government control. The function of law is not to regulate our conscience, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of our inalienable rights.

Laws are not to prevent people from interfering with other’s free exercise of their rights. A philanthropic law is contradictory when it has an ill effect upon persons and property. If the law acts in any manner other than to protect rights, it violates our liberty.

Force of Law

With law comes the use of force, usually used for coercive compliance. When does force become necessary? Individuals use force in defense of person or property. It then stands to reason that a collective force (police) should only be allowed to use it for the same two purposes. Therefore, any other use of force would be illegitimate. Force used to support laws made for religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic are not eligible for the use of force.

Frédéric Bastiat

In, The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat, he addresses the misconceptions of the law. Bastiat’s work examines, in great depth, the law as it relates to government and society. He insists that the government assumes people are inert, passive matter, a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own existence.

Bastiat believes that the state’s mission is to mold people into a society, by law. They look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Their mission is to shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations.

Bastiat suggests that just as the gardener needs axes, pruning shears and saws to shape his trees, the government needs the force that can only be found in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.

The consequences of passing laws such as this are that the people no longer need to discuss, compare or plan ahead; the government is doing it for us. Intelligence becomes a useless prop, we cease to be critical thinkers; we lose our personality, our liberty, our property.

Law Makers

The makers of the law, the legislators, have lost their understanding of what law should be. Law is to guarantee the safety and property of the individual and not to oppress persons or steal their property. They arrogantly assume that people must be shaped, by the hand of their authority, into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.

Legislative leaders portray themselves as having the inclinations that their constituents may not have. They tell us that mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue.

They justify that the law, along with its force, is necessary in order to improve the human race. Too many legislators make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, ruling it and place themselves above mankind. They assume that in the heart of a man lies fatal traits that will ruin them if not checked.

They assume that without law people would be free to follow their own inclinations and would arrive at ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production, slavery instead of freedom and peace instead of war. Their justification for making a law to protect me from myself is laughable.

Bastiat wondered, “If the natural tendencies of men are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

Indoctrination

Public education is their indoctrination program, much like a sign pointing in the direction to the road of servitude. Its teachings come from books on philosophy, politics, or history, rooted in the idea that mankind receives life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state.

Their textbooks promote the idea that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the hand of the legislator. They claim that the law gives the authority to enforce, control, benefit, and improve mankind.

They teach that men like Hamilton, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR were saviors for the “indispensable nation’s” democracy. Their teachings ignore the facts that depict them as power intoxicated tyrants. They are our icons because they were able to further the centralization of governmental authority at the expense of freedom and justice. 

Injustice – A Reality

The state will claim that the law and force will keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but mere abstinence from harming others. They claim the law violates neither personality, liberty, or property and that they safeguard all of these. They defend laws as being the rights of all and that justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

Legislation cannot correct the reality of injustice. I am not as handsome as Brad Pitt, I am not as intelligent as Einstein, I do not possess the oratory and literary skill of Patrick Henry or Thoreau. Injustice is not a curse it a challenge. It only becomes unjust when it violates freedom, justice and Natural Law.

When the law and its agent for force impose regulation of labor, method, education or selection it is abusive. It substitutes the will of the legislator for the will of the people; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. The results of their laws becom; the “New Jim Crow” prison system, homelessness, addiction, war, violence and immorality.

The “Law” Is Our Shepherd

Individuals, not the state, are solely responsible for their choice between right and wrong, vice and virtue where the result leads to punishment or reward. We can no longer remain passive and consider ourselves incapable of bettering our prosperity and happiness by our own intelligence. For if we continue to play sheep to their shepherd, society will unwittingly be pushed toward the cliff of compliance.   

When society gives up its personal responsibilities to the government it gives up its freedom. Therefore, good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice we are told depend upon the political administration. The state is then burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.

The law becomes omnipotent. The government’s responsibility is enormous with its undertaking control of wages, the care for all who may be in want, the support all unemployed workers, the interest rate of loans. The state’s purpose is then to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people. The reality is that the government should not and cannot do all of these things.

The Declaration

Today we stand a crossroads. In 1776, Jefferson described it,

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The “event” today is the same as it was in 1776, the State’s usurpation of citizen power. The State is a monopoly of coercion led by people seeking to maximize their power and wealth at others’ expense. The leaders use both natural and stage calamities to exploit their advancement of power. From Pearl Harbor to 9/11, from hands-free cell phones to the real ID we continue to give away our power to control our lives as they grab more power.

Calamities give the state an excuse to make law or regulation to protect us from future incidences harming us. The laws and legislation that protect “me” are only justifications to gain more power. The Declaration of Independence provides a blueprint for what justifies governmental power. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Murray Rothbard once described the limited constitutional “State” as: “a noble experiment that failed …  the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.”

Of Independence

The great myth of central planning is that injustice can be eliminated, it cannot. History has proven that a centralized government fails and usually ends with some degree of revolution. “Central Authority” is not going to magically produce the right outcomes for society. It only produces huge deficits, both financial and moral. 

The happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who follow a liberty principle. Mankind is not perfect but all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of people. Revolution accomplished peacefully is preferable. A peaceful solution lies within the human relationships founded upon liberty and not authority. How about a hands-free government!

 The Cycle – It’s In Plain Sight

Washington’s policy ideas industry, the think-tank, have budgets that range from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $80 million, a significant industry in the D.C. economy. The over 400 think-tanks, more than of any city in the world, are homes to the top policymakers in America. These “lobbyist” directly affect the way legislation and governmental policy are written and established. They are “shadow government” hiding in plain sight.

Their members are interviewed and quoted every day in the mainstream media, but these think-tank “superstar” slants are never identified. The bios of the “experts,” the politics of their funders (wealthy donors with strings attached to their donations) and the positions they take can be quite revealing.

Think tanks generally claim their mission is to expand public knowledge but the truth is that their end game is to influence the making of laws and governmental policies towards certain ideological positions.

The Diplomat – Think Tank – Diplomat Cycle

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), is a think-tank that is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, describe WINEP as “part of the core” of the Israel Lobby and go on to say;

“Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda … Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks.”

So, when a 2018 WINEP report on Syria promoted and urged the Trump Administration to keep US boots on the ground and enforce a no-fly/no-drive zone, in other words, seize Syria’s land, airspace and roads to “help Israel” most of Washington insiders shrug.

“…the Trump administration [to] couple a no-fly/no-drive zone and a small residual ground presence in the northeast with intensified sanctions against the Assad regime’s Iranian patron. In doing so, Washington can support local efforts to stabilize the area, encourage Gulf partners to ‘put skin in the game, drive a wedge between Moscow and Tehran, and help Israel avoid all-out war.”

Think-Tanker to Diplomat

When the author of these 2018 reports, Ambassador James Jeffrey, became the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq, in the Trump Administration, somebody needs to connect the dots. Jeffrey served as acting National Security Adviser for the Bush Administration in 2007 and 2008, Ambassador to Turkey from 2008 until 2010 and Ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012.

Jeffrey, in August 2018, argued that the Syrian terrorists were, “. . . not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator” and that “We also think that you cannot have an enduring defeat of ISIS until you have fundamental change in the Syrian regime and fundamental change in Iran’s role in Syria, which contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS in the first place in 2013, 2014.”

Diplomat as a Think-Tanker

In a February 5th the State Department press briefing,  Jeffrey expounded upon his questionable narratives. Ambassador James Jeffrey continued to cite “evidence” that is false, distorted or inflated. When he said that;

“we’re not asking for regime change per se, we’re not asking for the Russians to leave, we’re asking…Syria to behave as a normal, decent country that doesn’t force half its population to flee, doesn’t use chemical weapons dozens of times against its civilians, doesn’t drop barrel bombs, doesn’t create a refugee crisis that almost toppled governments in Europe, does not allow terrorists such as HTS and particularly Daesh/ISIS emerge and flourish in much of Syria. Those are the things that that regime has done, and the international community cannot accept that.”

What the international community should not accept is the lies that men like Jeffrey recite. The only bit of truth in his erroneous narrative is that Washington is not asking regime change, they are demanding it thought sanction.  The rest is pretty much script for its misinformation of propaganda.

Creation of Terrorist and Refugees

The terrorists were created when the United States invaded Iraq, destroyed its government and then cut loose all of the experienced Sunni military and police forces. Then Washington undermining the legitimate Syria government by supporting, funding and training of the “moderate terrorist.” It is the factions that grew out of this toxic environment (U.S. created) become terrorists, like Daesh/ISIS that emerged as the opposition to Syria’s governmental forces. The war between Daesh/ISIS and government forces destroyed many cities and communities in Syria thus creating the refugee crisis.

Chemical Attacks

Recent reporting from whistleblowers that worked at the OPCW claim the use of chemical weapons appears to been staged by the rebel groups as attempts to further discredit Assad and fuel more aggressive U.S. military retaliation.

Guest vs Invaders

Russia and Iran were invited into Syria as allies of its legitimate government under Assad. The United States is in Syria illegally as a proxy for Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. is behaving criminally by “protecting the oil fields” and stealing its production. The legitimate Syrian government is seeking to recover its territory from the terrorists and the U.S.

Ambassador James Jeffrey’s revealed his concerns for al-Qaeda members, “We’re very, very worried about this. First of all, the significance of Idlib – that’s where we’ve had chemical weapons attacks in the past… And we’re seeing not just the Russians but the Iranians and Hizballah actively involved in supporting the Syrian offensive… You see the problems right now in Idlib. This is a dangerous conflict. It needs to be brought to an end. Russia needs to change its policies”

Really, even if Russians, Iranians and Hizballah are in Idlib to support the legitimate Syrian sovereignty against al-Nusra terrorists, occupying its city, that is their business, not ours. It certainly is one giant step from the 9/11 attack, executed by al-Qaeda members to supporting the same groups in Syria.

Ambassador James Jeffrey maintains that Russia, Syria and Iran need to change their policies. Maybe the United States must change its policies and get out of Syria and Iraq and stop fighting proxy wars for “allies” like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Diplomats Back to Think-Tanks

A New Clean Break calls for Washington to break the Washington/Think-tank connection. Remove, from government, the think-tank “superstars” that lobby for other nations or corporations over the general welfare of its citizens. Advisors like James Jeffrey and David Wurmser need to be returned back into their think-tank pasture.

The Washington/Think-tank connection is endless; Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administration personnel make a very comfortable living on the think-tank/diplomat carousel. It includes names like Cheney,  Bolton, Wolfowitz, Podesta, Daschle, Albright, Bannon and Sessions. The golden rings are not limited to politicians because Generals and Admirals can reach for them too!

Israel has deprived the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip of their rights since the war of 1967. 

Gaza is a prison camp under a long-standing Israeli blockade, punctuated ever few years by full-blow military assault. Peaceful protesters in Gaza have been shot by Israeli military snipers from outside the prison fence, killing hundreds and wounding tens of thousands. Israeli hardline Zionist refer to actions such as these as just “mowing the lawn.”

The Palestinians in the West Bank have no rights and are subject to military surveillance and Jewish-only settlements and roads, as well as a separation wall that snakes through the territory. It is naked apartheid in that Jews have full rights while Palestinians are treated like nonpersons.

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led movement that supports the advancement of freedom, justice and equality. The notion that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity, specifically in Israel. It is not so radical to believe that they should have the same rights as Israelis. Why even here, in the US, we allow Asians, Latinos, Arabs and Africans to have the same rights as Caucasians.

BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support from Israel’s apartheid regime, complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions, and from all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights. 

DIVESTMENT campaigns urge banks, local councils, churches, pension funds and universities to withdraw investments from the State of Israel and all Israeli and international companies that sustain Israeli apartheid.

SANCTIONS campaigns pressure governments to fulfill their legal obligations to end Israeli apartheid, and not aid or assist its maintenance, by banning business with illegal Israeli settlements, ending military trade and free-trade agreements, as well as suspending Israel’s membership in international forums such as UN bodies and FIFA. 

The BDS movement is voluntary and selective for all those that choose to participate. I do not completely agree with the Sanction part of this movement. However, I do think that the $3.8 billion that Israel receives annually, in military appropriation, from the U.S. should be eliminated.

Currently, there are twenty-seven states have enacted anti-BDS laws or executive orders that prohibit state agencies and state-financed entities, such as colleges, from doing business with any person or firm that participates in BDS.

The absurdity of this legislation has recently come to fruition. Journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin and the state of Georgia had an incident over her allegiance to the Israeli government. Martin explained; “After I was scheduled to give keynote speech [about the media, not about BDS] at an upcoming @GeorgiaSouthern [University] conference, organizers said I must comply w/ Georgia’s anti-BDS law and sign a contractual pledge to not boycott Israel. I refused & my talk was canceled.”

Some of us may remember another situation involving a Texas public school educator’s allegiance to Israel. When in 2018, Bahia Amawi, a Houston-based children’s speech pathologist who worked with autistic, speech-impaired and other developmentally disabled children, lost her job after she refused to sign a similar document. Amawi had been at her job for nine years previously without a problem.

In this Texas case, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), managed to overturn every Texas boycott law on the grounds of their unconstitutionality and she is now free to return to work. Quoting a previous case, federal district Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the Texas anti-BDS law “threatens to suppress unpopular ideas” and “manipulate the public debate” on Israel and Palestine “through coercion rather than persuasion.” Judge Pitman added: “the First Amendment does not allow.”

All States exist from the taxes that everyone is forced to pay without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. Therefore, before the law, discrimination is wrong and a principle of equality must be followed. States, or any tax-financed entities, can not discriminate in hiring or contracting, particularly with conditions that infringe upon the right to free speech, like advocating BDS or peaceful action such as boycotting.

* The states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.

https://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2020/02/16/anti-bds-laws-violate-our-freedom/

What was the end game for the Trump administration’s reckless actions in Iraq. You remember those tit-for-tat killings in late December and early January. Those provocations could easily have, and still may, result in a war with Iran.  Who benefits from a U.S. – Iranian war?

When the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official, Qassem Soleimani, it openly killed a member of Iran’s government, a country with which the U.S. was not at war.  This is unusual enough, but the crime was committed in Iraq, a country with which both the US and Iran have a “working” relationship. These U.S. actions appeared to be aimed toward war. Diabolical, insane or just part of a larger plan. 

Upon the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, most of the immediate propaganda reasons were dispelled. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s justification, that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an “imminent” mass killing of Americans or Trump claiming that it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a “bad guy” so he deserved to be assassinated. The real reason was to provoke Iran into a response that would have justified a “hugely” retaliation.

Evidence shattered the Trump administration lies. Soleimani was in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We also know now that they lied about the “imminent threat” because the killing of Soleimani was planned in June of 2019.

The planning of Qassem Soleimani leads to yet another of the Bush administrations retreads. David Wurmser, a longtime advocate of war with Iraq in the Bush administration, wrote several memos to then-national security adviser John Bolton in May and June of 2019. In the documents, according to Bloomberg, Wurmser argued that aggressive action by the U.S. – such as the killing of Soleimani — would, in Wurmser’s words, “rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival.”

I mention Wurmser because just recently the White House acknowledged that Wurmser is now serving as an informal adviser to the Trump administration. According to Bloomberg News, Wurmser helped make the case for the drone strike that assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration, like Wurmser, Bolton and Abrams, oddly enough keep on reappearing. Their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven disastrous for U.S. interests. Why do the U.S. citizens have to tolerate these warmongers? 

In the mid-1990s Wurmser worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank greatly influenced by AIPAC. In 1996, he was one of the main thinkers behind a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that was prepared by an Israeli think tank for then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in 1996. 

The paper called for Israel to engage in preemptive attacks on its perceived foes and a “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” Then in 1999, Wurmser wrote a book titled “Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein,” In which Wurmser said, “the menace from Saddam’s Iraq will continue to grow” if the U.S. did not remove him from power.

After 9/11, Wurmser’s promoted the idea the U.S. had to respond to Al Qaeda by, as the 9/11 Commission later put it, hitting a “non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.” Wurmser was the senior adviser to Bolton, then-undersecretary at the State Department, together they  became the vociferous champions of a regime change war with Iraq. Wurmser and Bolton got what they wanted when the U.S. led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.

Rest assured, with Wurmser in the ear of Trump we can expect more Soleimani moments considering that he has stated, if the U.S. failed to “trigger a fundamental change in behavior” by Iran’s leaders that America might “have to think seriously about going directly into Iran.”

Wurmser already shares the responsibility for hundreds of thousand deaths and the lives of millions that have been blighted by the Iraqi War. A million in Iraq, a million in Afghanistan what’s another million in Iran, pretty soon we’ll be talking “real people.”

Donald Trump instructed then-Defense Secretary James Mattis to devise a nuclear deterrence strategy that would be “appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats.” The upshot was a sub-launched low-yield nuke that could strike Iran or North Korea in just ten or fifteen minutes as opposed to the eleven hours it would take a stealth bomber to deliver a nuclear payload from its home base in Missouri. Who could wait when a mini-holocaust was finally at hand?

The Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018 was produced by the Office Of The Secretary Of Defense. Secretary of Defense James Mattis oversaw the report and published initiative for a new Nuclear Posture. A policy to “enhance deterrence by denying potential adversaries any mistaken confidence that limited nuclear employment can provide a useful advantage over the United States and its allies.”

James Mattis used the Russia-phobia narrative combined with scare tactic to advance the low-yield nuclear weapons into the U.S. military’s toolbox. Mattis’ nuclear solution to the “Russian strategic imperative” was backed up by statements like;

“Russia’s belief that limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield weapons”

“Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons”

“Russia demonstrates its perception of the advantage these systems provide through numerous exercises and statements”

“Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage”

To justify the low-yield initiative, Mattis’ 2018 report went on to say, ‘… the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. To be clear, this is not intended to, nor does it enable, “nuclear war-fighting.”’ That is reassuring, giving the military more nuclear options to deter a nuclear war is like giving a junkie more drugs to prevent an overdose.

Mattis further justified, “… to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.” So, there you have it, that is why we need those “cute little nukes.”

Today, two years later we have US Navy vessels with those “cute little nukes” on board. The technical name “nuclear-tipped SLBM, submarine-launched ballistic missile” or W76-2.  In a Tuesday statement, undersecretary of defense for policy John Rood confirmed that the Navy has fielded the weapon to “strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon… and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment…” Sound familiar?

The deployment of the W76-2, a low-yield variant of the nuclear warhead traditionally used on the Trident missile, was first reported Jan. 29 by the Federation of American Scientists (FSA). The first to move out with the new weapon was the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), deploying from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia at the end of 2019, FAS reported.

Low-yield means somewhere around five kilotons, or roughly one-third the destructive power of the “Little Boy” nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima in the final days of World War II, killing tens of thousands of people.

Atomically speaking, this is hardly more than a firecracker. However, nuclear devices dwarf conventional weapons. Take for example the record-setting GBU-43/B MOAB (“Mother of all bombs”) that the US dropped on an ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan in 2017. A 2003 test of the MOAB prototype created a mushroom cloud visible from twenty miles away. To put this result in perspective, a low-yield five-kiloton bomb is 500 times greater than the MOAB.

In January 2019, when the low-yield nuclear warheads began rolling off the line the Democrats vowed to block their deployment. Recently Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, from Senate floor, said, “I maintain that this is one weapon that will not add to our national security but would only increase the risk of miscalculation with dire consequences.”

Clearly, at one time the House of Representatives agreed with Sen. Reed because the original version of the 2020 defense bill prohibited deployment of the modified warhead. Strangely enough, that verbiage got lost. 

What happened between January 2019 and today that may have diverted these “honorable” men and women in Congress? Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate and Impeachment come to mind, after all, bipartisan political games can be very distracting. The final 2020 defense budget passed in December with massive Democratic support and by the way it contained a line item allowing the W76-2 program to go forward.

Thank you Congress! You are always looking out for us! WTFU