The Adventures of Citizen X

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Citizen X — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:56:55 GMT

According to Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) the government sponsored mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound.

Sort of reminds me of when President Hoover and Treasury Secretary Mellon were saying that everything was fine before The Great Depression. Politicians fear a collapse so they mislead Joe Six Pack hoping he will keep his money in unsafe investments. After all, its for our own good.

Complete Lawlessness

Citizen X — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:34:01 GMT

When the President does it, that means it's not illegal.--Richard M. Nixon

It must be nice to hold high political office. You can do whatever you want and are answerable to no one and no law. Thomas Jefferson's assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, meaning that all individuals are equals in the eyes of the law, is no longer valid today. President Bush broke the law when he ordered warrantless surveillance of Americans.  So did those who held that office before him who engaged in the same activities.  So did the telecom companies who acquiesced to the government's pressure to participate in this program. Now, thanks to a spineless Congress, all this is forgiven. Pretty cool, huh? Break a law then turn around and demand that Congress writes another law that retroactively forgives you for breaking the first law. However, this is a privilege granted only to the political elite; don't try this at home.

FISA itself is constitutionally questionable. The 4th Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens, simply stating "the right of the people." Under FISA, the government may conduct electronic surveillance on foreign powers and/or their agents without a warrant under the authority of the President and Attorney General, provided that the Attorney General report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. However, FISA explicitly prohibits using this power when "United States persons" are involved, and the information gathered using FISA may not be shared with domestic law enforcement.

The controversy has arisen because President Bush ordered warrantless electronic surveillance on American citizens or order surveillance that had a high probability of targeting Americans which is also prohibited by FISA. Most disturbing of all is that the NSA had approached AT&T to set up this program seven months before 9/11.

Of course, President Bush was not the first President to engage in domestic spying.  From 1956-1971, the FBI used its COINTELPRO program to spy on political dissident groups.   The NSA has long engaged in a super secret program called ECHELON. Thanks to the efforts of privacy group EPIC and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, ECHELON was subject to some public exposure during the Clinton Administration. ECHELON is a SIGINT (signal intelligence) program that vacuums up vast amounts of electronic communications. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all participate in ECHELON. Interestingly, ECHELON offers the government a way to circumvent the 4th Amendment. While it is illegal for the United States government to spy on its own citizens, it is not illegal for any of its allies to do so. Thus, the UK can spy on Americans in America and then possibly share this information with American intelligence agencies.

In any case, President Bush and the telecoms companies that participated and continue to participate in any domestic spying program have broken the law. The FISA statute includes civil and criminal penalties for anyone who engages in unauthorized electronic surveillance. Charges should therefore by brought against those suspected of such activities. Let them go to trial and argue their case.

Just saying the President had good cause is not reason enough to forgive and forget. No one, not even the President of the United States is above the law. By retroactively granting him and his accomplices immunity, Congress is saying that the President is above the law. If that is that case, America is no longer a nation of laws, in which our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but we are now a nation that is ruled solely by the whim and edict of the executive and the political aristocracy.

The DC Gun Ban Pandora's Box

Citizen X — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:55:32 GMT

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem [gun crime], including some measures regulating handguns."--Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v. Heller

As I predicted, the Supreme Court decision in DC v Heller, the Washington handgun ban case, will be hailed by both sides of the gun control debate. The media in general and conservative talk radio in particular are claiming that this decision is a victory for gun rights activists and a vindication of the 2nd Amendment. While the Court should be applauded for finally putting the spurious individual right versus authority of the states to form militias debate to rest, its decision was by no means a defense of the Constitution. In fact, just as they did in the Kelo v New London case, the justices have amended the Constitution by stealth.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for anything other than "public use." In Kelo, the Court effectively changed the term "public use" to "public purpose," meaning that takings no longer needed to be used by the public directly as in roads, government buildings, etc., but simply needed to serve the public good, a much lower barrier to cross and one that gives politicians and bureaucrats much more arbitrary power. In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor even went so far as to say that the Court had eliminated the phrase "public use" completely, thus leaving Americans with no protection from arbitrary government seizure of their private property.

In DC v Heller, the Court added a word to the 2nd Amendment. The final four word of the Amendment are very important. They read, "shall not be infringed." How clear is that? Simply, the government shall not infringe upon any person's natural right to acquire and possess the tools necessary to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty. However, now even the most conservative justice on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, agrees that's not what the Framers really meant.

According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment now reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be unreasonably infringed." This change is very troubling for the future of gun rights in America. The focus of the argument will now change from the right to bear arms, to what is reasonable. The term "reasonable" will be used as a club to beat gun rights activists into submission. After all, why won't you support this anti-gun legislation; you're being unreasonable. In addition, "unreasonable" will be used as a fulcrum to lever in more and more "reasonable" anti-gun laws.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to eliminate or greatly restrict private ownership of firearms.  Many Americans would never have stood for an outright ban on individual firearms ownership. Recognizing this, the anti-gun lobby has softened its rhetoric and pushed for more regulation instead. In the end, however, its goal remains the same: to take guns out of the hands of private individuals. This will now be done through even more licensing, permits, waiting periods, regulation of commerce, and high taxes. Thanks to the DC v Heller decision, the Supreme Court has given these efforts official sanction.

It's Time America, Stand Up and Be Counted

Citizen X — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:04:23 GMT

Life in the Fast Lane

Citizen X — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:16:17 GMT

Blowin' and burnin' blinded by thirst

They didn't see the stop sign; took a turn for the worst

She said, "Listen, baby. You can hear the engine ring.

"We've been up and down this highway; haven't seen a god-damn thing."

He said, "Call the doctor. I think I'm gonna crash."

"The doctor say he's coming but you gotta pay in cash."

They were rushing down that freeway; messed around and got lost

They didn't care they were just dyin' to get off.--The Eagle, Life in the Fast Lane

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises correctly identified that the so called “third way” between a free market economy and a command economy allows ended in socialism. America has been pursuing this third way since the New Deal. As Mises predicted, the result of this policy has been a continuous increase of government intervention into more and more facets of, not just the economy, but our lives. Economic freedom and personal liberty are inseparable. Government intervention in our economic decisions results in government control of our social decisions and visa versa. As another great Austrian, F.A. Hayek wrote, there is really no great difference between fascism and socialism. While they may seem different on the surface, both systems must use authoritarian methods to achieve their goals. Thus, both systems result in the subordination of the individual as the government must control every aspect of his life.

Americans have chosen to ignore the observations of these great thinkers. The pop media tells us that there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Whatever differences there are lie not in real substance, but as a matter of degrees. Every so many years, we switch who controls our lives, but the fact remains that our lives are controlled. Rarely does either party rescind or repeal the damage the other party has done to our liberties. Instead, each party builds on the abuses of the other. Pundits celebrate this bipartisanship. The parties are working together to get "something done." But what are they doing except erecting a government which is bigger, more controlling, more powerful, and more intrusive?

Political commentary in this country has been reduced to horseracing. Instead of issues and philosophy, personality is emphasized. The most important issue of all is completely ignored. When was the last time you heard John McCain or Barack Obama talk about liberty and freedom, and define what those concepts mean? How about what is the role of government in a free society? This is important stuff and things that the American people should hear if, for no other reason, they would begin to think about them. Of course we wouldn't want that now, would we? Folks may suddenly decide they weren't as free as they've been told and may begin leaving the reservation.

Economically, there is a $55 trillion elephant in the room. The government has promised entitlements for which it has not saved; now the bills are being to come due. The federal government will have three options (four if you include a combination of the three).

It can break its entitlement promises, and make massive spending cuts. Not only is this highly unlikely because of its political inexpediency, it will cause massive social problems as those folks who have been conditioned to be dependent on the government will be cut off cold turkey.

It can raise taxes. To have any effect, however, tax hikes would have to be huge. Such tax hikes would not only anger voters, they would destroy the economy. Capital and resources would be transferred from the productive private sector to the parasitic government sector. This transfer would result in national cannibalization as the government consumes economic output in order to perpetuate itself.

Finally, the government can print money to cover its bills. Of course, this monetary inflation results in the devaluation of the currency, inflating prices and destroying savings, and hurting the poor and middle classes the most. In the summer of 2008, we are already seeing the effects of monetary inflation in rising food and energy prices.

Over the next few years, our economic and monetary problems are going to get progressively worse. Then there is always the possibility that the interventionist foreign policy of the federal government could result in who knows what sort of disaster either at home or abroad.

As things deteriorate will we as a nation once again embrace the great American tradition of limited government or will we look to the State as our great savior?

Unfortunately, the State has done a truly remarkable job of indoctrinating the American people into its cult. Instead of recognizing the government as the cause of almost all the social problems we face today, most Americans believe that the solution lies with more government, or at least better governance; that if they simply get their guy in charge, things will get better. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is a systemic one. Government is simply too big, too intrusive, and too authoritarian.

The fact is, whether Americans choose the right or left lane, we are hurtling down Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. At the end of that road lies impoverishment, war, social conflict, and enslavement. It is truly a dead end.

All we have to do to avoid this fate is to take the exit marked “Liberty” and u-turn back towards “Freedom.” The solution isn’t in changing lanes; it's in getting off this road entirely.

Reagan, Goldwater, and Paul

Citizen X — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:42:59 GMT

Ronald Reagan with a beautiful and timely libertarian speech endorsing Barry Goldwater...or Ron Paul.

Police State D.C.

Citizen X — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:23:43 GMT

Police are setting up military style checkpoints going into one of Washington, D.C. most crime ridden areas. Drivers who refuse to allow police to check their cars will be arrested and charged with failure to obey a police officer. Should it come as any surprise that in their zeal to destroy the 2nd Amendment, D.C. politicians find it so easy to disregard the 4th Amendment as well? It's the same old cycle, government intervention leads to more intervention. You want the crime rate to drop? Stop the insane Drug War and allow people to defend themselves. Is that so hard? Oh well, how fitting that the nation's capital is emblematic of the new America: a place where the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. Coming to your town soon!!!

Down with the Nanny State

Citizen X — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:32:26 GMT

But the reality to which he woke up was a very grim one. He had to join in compulsory exercises following the instructions given by a woman from the telescreen...While he was lost in his thoughts, Winston’s body had been performing the exercises routinely. Now he is suddenly startled out of his reverie by the instructress from the telescreen addressing him directly. Shouting at him as “6079 Smith W” the woman tells him to pay more attention and recalls him to the regimented present where each man is a coded number and the telescreens spy on every activity.
--1984

We don't have compulsory exercise yet, but give congress time. They're working on it. As Mark Twain said, no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Not satisfied with the unconstitutional powers that they have already grabbed, the congressional control freaks are continually devising more ways to assert more authority over your life.

The Physical Activities Guidelines for Americans Act of 2008 is a bicameral, bipartisan bill that "would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prepare and promote physical activity guidelines based on the latest scientific evidence." That sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, as with all government programs, there are serious potential problems with this act.

Government programs tend to get bigger and more intrusive. There is no reason to believe that government "guidelines" for exercise should be any different. For example, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a co-sponsor of the bill, stated that, "this is a step towards combating the obesity epidemic and the onslaught of chronic disease that is causing our health care costs to skyrocket."  The cost of health care is one of the driving factors behind the debate about socialized medicine (never mind that the major reason for the skyrocketing costs is government intervention). If the federal government assumes control of the health care system, it will have the authority to make the rules for that system. One of the rules could be compulsory exercise programs. Those who refuse to participate could be denied access to the system. After all, these folks would be a burden on society.  In other words, the goal would no longer be, in the words of another of the bill's cosponsors Representative Zach Wamp (R-TN), to "persuade Americans to live a healthier lifestyle" but to "mandate" such a lifestyle.

Government programs tend to be inefficient. The bill's sponsors have likened it to the USDA food pyramid.
  As testimony to the efficiency of government programs, I offer the above graphic. Who, besides me, realized that the food pyramid had changed from its original hierarchical incarnation?

Who, besides me, has even paid any attention to the food pyramid since high school?  And why does the government feel the need to get involved in this area anyway? Just look in the checkout aisle of your local supermarket. There is a ton of literature devoted to the study of human nutrition. Some of it's good; some of it's not so good. But just because something is from the government, doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

In addition, government programs are subject to corruption. The food pyramid is an example of this as well. There have long been charges that the privileged position that dairy products hold on the pyramid are the result of lobbying by dairy interests, not of scientific research. Couldn't the same thing happen with an exercise pyramid? Picture this: makers of weight equipment competing with makers of cardiovascular equipment to gain the favor of bureaucrats at HHS. Bodybuilders versus marathoners versus yoga swamis. Awesome!!

Besides, it isn't like this program will be free. After all, the government doesn't produce anything; it confiscates the wealth that the private sector produces. Millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted on this program. Perhaps if people weren't spending so much money on taxes, they'd have more time to exercise. They'd have more time to spend with their kids, engendering a healthy lifestyle. Instead we spend out time paying for silly and wasteful government programs like this one.

However, there is a bigger more serious issue at work here. The role of government in a free society is to protect life, liberty, and property. Nothing more. Americans seem to have forgotten that there is a difference between society and government. We seem to think that if congress writes a law, the problem will just disappear. Instead what happens is the problem often gets worse and other problems arise. In this case, we are surrendering our responsibility to maintain our health to bureaucrats and politicians. When we surrender responsibility, we abdicate liberty.

The Nanny State is just as big a threat as Big Brother. In the words of Winston Smith, "down with Nanny, down with Nanny, down with Nanny."

Don't Regulate the Futures Market

Citizen X — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:52:25 GMT

Congress is looking for a scapegoat for high oil prices. Just as they did during the Great Depression, speculators fit the bill. Herbert Hoover despised speculators and attacked them at every opportunity*. As with politicians today, Hoover failed to recognize that speculators serve some very necessary functions in the free market. Just as Hoover's attempts to manipulate the wheat markets were a contributing factor to the Depression, attempts to ban futures trading in oil could have disastrous, unintended consequences.

Prices are determined by competition between buyers and between sellers. Buyers bid against one another and cause prices to go up. Sellers, on the other hand, try to attract buyers by underbidding their competition. A temporary equilibrium is reached when the price that buyers are willing to pay matches the price at which sellers are willing to sell, and the market is cleared of that product. Like any other buyer, speculators, that is those individuals who are trying to buy a product at a lower price to sell later at a higher price, drive the price of products up. When speculators are sellers, more of the product comes onto the market and they drive the price of the product down. Thus, speculators help to drive the market towards equilibrium and minimize wild price fluctuations.

In addition, speculators help regulate the amount of good available on the market and serve as insurance against shortages. As they bid the price of products up, other buyers are bid out of the process. This ensures that only those who have a need for a product buy it. For example, during natural disasters, entrepreneurs who raise prices are accused of "gouging." However, these high prices actually protect against shortages. Let's say the power is out. If ice is $10 a bag, you'll probably only buy enough to keep the stuff freezer from thawing out immediately. If ice is 99 cents a bag, you'll do that, plus buy a bunch to keep your beer cold, and buy some extra just in case. Who cares if it melts? After all, its cheap!! As Robert F. Murphy points out, while speculators are a free market mechanism which protects us from shortages, government efforts to do the same hinder the market's ability to regulate itself.

Finally, futures trading allows businesses to forecast and control costs by locking in products at a set price. If you were a transportation company that had locked in the price of your fuel months ago, you'd be looking pretty right now. Not only that, but many businesses are dependent on futures trading. For example, farmers may sell their crops at a set price on the futures so that they can get the money up front that they will need to grow the crop, as well as protect themselves from unforeseen market changes.

Besides all of these theoretical arguments, the idea that speculators are driving the rise in the price of oil simply makes no practical sense. Oil speculators must sell their contracts or take physical possession of the oil. Hence, they must sell the oil to make a profit. If they get stuck with it, it does them no good. As we have seen, as they sell the oil that will drive the price down. Those who accuse speculators of driving up the price of oil are only taking half of the real world equation into account.

If they're looking for someone to demonize for the high price of oil, Congress should simply look in the mirror. Government intervention causes distortions in the market. Prices are an indication of the scarcity of goods and resources. We have no idea what the real price of oil should be because of massive government intervention, some of which helps keep the price artificially low and some of which drives the price up. Thus, entrepreneurs are hindered in their efforts to determine where to allocate resources in the energy markets. Should they expand efforts to explore, including researching new drilling techniques? Or should they devout more resources to research and develop alternative energies? They just don't know because their indicators, prices, are so out of whack with reality. This has led us to the point that instead of a gradual change in energy production and consumption patterns, we now face the very real possibility of an abrupt disruption and a serious crisis. If you are mad about the price of gas now, what are you going to do when it is rationed or simply not available at all?

So what should the government do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, not only should it do nothing, it should quit doing what it is doing right now. That is, it should let the free market work. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen. Already congress is considering measures to "rein in" the energy markets. Not only is this a mistake, it reveals the hubris of these politicians.

Banning futures trading on American exchanges could drive the trade overseas. Already, Dubai, Venezuela, and Russia are contemplating opening such markets. If these markets take off, it would be another blow against the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Since oil is mostly traded in dollars, the United States is able to export much of the Fed's monetary inflation. The majority of dollars that oil producing nations receive from oil sales are held in reserve by their central banks. It is estimated that the majority of the world's dollars are actually held outside of the United States. If the dollar loses this reserve currency status, there will be very little reason for other nations to hold dollars. If that happens and the world's currency markets are flooded with dollars previously held in reserve, well, when it comes to price inflation, you ain't seen nothing yet. The inflationary chickens will come home to roost and with a vengeance.

Simply put, the high price of oil is due to two factors: monetary inflation and demand outstripping supply. In nominal terms, the price of oil has risen nearly four times as fast in dollars as it has in euros. You can thank the Fed for that. However, in real terms, demand is simply overpowering supply. The world produces roughly 85-86 million barrels of oil a day. Demand is 87 million per day and rising. The difference is made up through sythentic production and inventory depletion.

This does not mean that the price of energy is destined to rise? Maybe; maybe not. If left to its own devices, the market could solve the problem. Unfortunately, politicians have crippled the market process and cost us valuable time. Regulating the oil futures market would have one more crippling effect. Instead of regulating the free market, politicians should regulate themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*What were the consequences of Hoover's attacks on speculators? As Murray Rothbard explains in America's Great Depression, restrictions on short selling contributed to the stock market's decline:

"As early as mid-July, Hoover returned to a favorite theme: attacking short-selling, this time the wheat market. The short-selling speculators were denounced for depressing prices and destroying confidence; their unpatriotic "intent is to take a profit from the losses of other people"—a curious charge, since for every short seller there is necessarily a long buyer speculating on a rise. When the crisis came in the fall, the Stock Exchange authorities, undoubtedly influenced by Hoover's long-standing campaign against such sales, restricted short selling. These restrictions helped drive stock prices lower than they would have been otherwise, since the short-seller's profit-taking is one of the main supports for stock prices during a decline."

The Doubletalk Express

Citizen X — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:13:22 GMT

Like any good politician, the "straight shooter" John McCain says what is most convenient at the time. This video is a great example of his contradictory statements. Now before you say I'm jumping on the Democrat's bandwagon, Obama and Hillary are just as bad. Those two are really good politicians.

Dangerous Democracy

Citizen X — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:30:39 GMT

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Change the political environment. Recruit more Downsizers. Share this message with others.

Quote of the Day:

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
-- Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State (Source: New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973)

Subject: Dangerous Democracy

President Bush probably meant to do good by bringing democracy to Iraq, but it's hard to succeed when you're aiming at the wrong thing.

The President has always assumed that democracy is what made America good and great. He thinks it could do the same for Iraq, and many others agree. But is it true?

Iraq now has a representative democracy, but strangely, it seems to be a source of violence, not peace.

The Sunni minority fears majority democratic rule by the Shia

Iraqi women fear that they'll be subjected to fundamentalist Islamic law, imposed by democratic means

And the Shia are afraid to share power with the Sunni lest it result in the return of full Sunni control

All these fears are justified, because representative democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government.

What made American democracy different was that our Founders limited the power of government, and of majority rule. These limits, and not representative democracy itself, are what made America good and great.

This point is difficult for politicians like President Bush to understand. Politicians get their power and significance from representative democracy, and therefore consider it of supreme importance. Likewise, the people gain an illusion of power and influence from their right to vote, without fully realizing the dangers of majority rule, or of the mandate for mischief that voting confers on power-hungry politicians.

But imagine where we would be without . . .

The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government

The existence of specific constitutional provisions that allow these three branches to thwart each other

Explicit limits on government power, as expressed in the Bills of Rights

Without these things our government would have long ago become a democratic, representative tyranny.
America's great gift to the world was LIMITED GOVERNMENT, NOT representative democracy. Sadly, most Americans do not understand this crucial point.

No country in the history of the world has ever had such a large ethnic and religious diversity as the United States. But we all live in peace. Compare this with Iraq, which can't even manage to reconcile two major religious sects. Majority-rule democracy, unconstrained by strong limits on government power, is one of the reasons Iraq flounders.

America is peaceful, and good, and great, because it has LIMITED government, and NOT because it has majority-rule and representative democracy.

We must fight, with all our might, to preserve the principles of limited government against those people -- politicians and citizens alike -- who want to replace this precious heritage with majority preferences, majority fears, and majority hysteria.

Even if a majority of Americans should want to grant the politicians the power to spy on us without a warrant, IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!

The power of the executive branch must continue to be watched and checked by the power of the judicial branch. Our government must remain limited, so that America remains good and great.

Congress is set to adjourn on May 22nd. The danger remains that they may act to permit warrantless spying before they adjourn. We must maintain the pressure to prevent this from happening. Please send Congress a message. You can do so here.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Citizen X — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:21:48 GMT

Even when they work, government programs are far less efficient and far more costly than private, voluntary solutions. In general, however, government programs don't work, always have unintended consequences, and often contribute to the very problem that they were created to solve. This utilitarian argument has been used for decades by limited government advocates to buttress their arguments. Ironically, both the left and the right also use this argument to defend their positions, pointing to the evidence that government doesn't work when it helps their cause, but ignoring this evidence when it conflicts with their calls for intervention.  In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that government intervention causes more problems than it solves. Why, then, do so many who recognize this fact still insist that there is one area where government intervention will work: immigration?

The fact is that our problems with immigration are a result of the welfare state and government interventions in labor market. The solution is not more intervention, but to repeal these previous interventions. All any further interventions will do is to further destroy the liberty not just of immigrants but of the average American. I have my own personal examples of this here and here.

The E-verify program is an example of the potential tyranny that lies ahead if the government continues on its path towards a War on Immigration; a war that most Americans are cheering on at the top of their lungs. E-verify is a "free" program through which employers can certify that perspective employees are authorized to work in the United States. Of course, the program is not free for the American taxpayers; President Bush has proposed $100 million to expand the program in the 2009 Federal Budget. Although the program is currently voluntary at a federal level, Arizona mandates that employers participate in E-verify. Illinois, on the other hand, passed legislation barring such participating and was promptly sued by the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, the feds are talking with several states about cross referencing the E-Verify database with state drivers license records; an effort similar to the REAL ID.

Leaving aside every other arguments, does the term "authorized to work" not send shivers up anyone else's spine?  In this case, the term "authorize" means "to give permission for." If we follow this chain of thought to its logical conclusion, this means that before one is allowed to obtain gainful employment in America, one must first secure the government's permission.  Whatever happened to economic freedom, the linchpin of the American dream? But even more ominously is the fact that if we accept that the federal government has the power to "authorize" people to work, doesn't that grant the government the corollary power to withhold or rescind this authorization?  How long before the government silences dissidents by removing them from the rolls of authorized workers?

The E-verify program is just another example of creeping tyranny disguised as a necessary and beneficial program.  It may only affect immigrants in the beginning, but it's only a matter of time before unscrupulous bureaucrats and politicians realize it's potential to silence their critics; if they already haven't. Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it and lose your right to seek employment in the process.

Giving RLCs the Red Light

Citizen X — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:30:46 GMT

Kudos to my friends at the Oak Ridge Chapter of the East Tennessee Liberty Alliance who are fighting tooth and nail against the Oak Ridge city council's efforts to install red light cameras at several intersections. Red light cameras (RLC) are a revenue generator pure and simple. The argument that RLCs improve safety is a canard. Studies have shown that intersections where RLCs are installed see an increase in the overall frequency and seriousness of accidents at these intersections.

In addition, RLCs are an affront to one of the foundations of American jurisprudence, the principle of innocent until proven guilty. RLCs target the car and not the driver. Thus, the owner of the car receives a ticket even if he was not driving when the offense took place.

Finally and most importantly, RLCs are yet another layer unwarranted surveillance. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the United States is now an endemic surveillance society, a distinction we share with nations like China.

While the term "police state" conjures images of machine gun wielding soldiers on ever street corner, in reality, a police state is simply a society in which the State exercises oppressive control over its people. The State accomplishes this by keeping the people under constant surveillance, usually through a secret police force. In the 21st century, however, technology removes this human limitation and gives the State the ability to keep tabs on us in much more subtle ways. Whether this technology is employed to watch political dissidents as it is in China, or simply to fleece the people like RLCs here in America, isn't the issue. In either case, the power of the State grows while individual liberty suffers.

The Shifting Paradigm

Citizen X — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:25:12 GMT

When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.--Gary Lloyd
As more and more Americans are beginning to realize, the differences between the two major political parties are minuscule. While Democrats and Republicans do differ on some issues, their solution is generally the same: more or less status quo. Instead of offering radically different alternatives, the alternatives they offer only differ by degrees. Instead of engaging in vibrant debates, we simply hear the same old tedious platitudes. To be sure, there are some individuals such as Ron Paul who use their position to disseminate ideas which lie outside popular convention, but their voices are drowned out in the cacophony of the pop media. By and large, the two parties have merged into wings of the same party.

For example, the idea of a national sales tax, the so-called Fair Tax, appeals to many fiscal conservatives. However, the Fair Tax will not do one thing to shrink government. One of the selling points of the program is that it is revenue neutral, meaning that the federal government will raise the same amount of revenue under the Fair Tax as it would under the current income tax system. In addition, the Fair Tax will simply shift the burden of compliance onto businesses instead of individuals, and it includes a provision of the negative income tax, the guaranteed minimum income, in which the government sends out "prebate" checks, thus encouraging dependence on the government. This is a program supported by people who say they are for small government?  Unfortunately, this is the reality of modern America.

Not to pick on conservatives, liberals are just bad. Democrats oppose the Iraq War because it is viewed as President Bush's war, not because they oppose war itself. After all, President Clinton had no qualms about dropping million of pounds of ordinance on the Iraqis.  Even Barack Obama, the supposed antiwar candidate, is anything but; he's just more subtle.  Under Obama, the role of America as the world's policeman would continue and be expanded. Sorry folks, you can't run around the world sticking your nose into everyone else's business and not expect to get punched occasionally.

The list of issues goes on and on.

On social security, the best the Republicans could offer was to allow people to contribute a small percentage of their earnings to government approved private accounts. How radical!!

On health care, the Democrats want to socialize the whole system.  On the other hand, the Republicans, the self- proclaimed party of small government, only took the small step of introducing the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan, a program that former comptroller general David Walker called the most irresponsible piece of legislation since LBJ's Great Society days.

On monetary issues, there is no talk from either party about re-legalizing hard money and phasing out the Federal Reserve. Hell, there's no talk at all about the monetary policy, perhaps the biggest and most important issue of them all.

Well, at least the Democrats are strong on civil liberties. Oh yeah, that's right the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act are still on the books, and the NSA is still spying on Americans. And, it was a Democrat, Jane Harman from California, who introduced the most Orwellian piece of legislation of all, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955/S. 1959). Nice.

The fact is that Americans have been sold a defective bill of goods. We have been taught to think in terms of right versus left, of conservative versus liberal. That's a false paradigm. A much better defection of the political spectrum shows not only right versus left, but authoritarian versus libertarian, such as the Nolan Chart on which the World's Smallest Political Quiz is based.

In America today, the horizontal line the bisects this diamond, the liberal/conservative plane, is moving down towards statism. That's a very bad neighborhood. It includes folks like Hitler and Stalin. Many people still think Hitler was to the far right and Stalin was to the far left. In reality, the differences between Hitler and Stalin were minor. Under communism, the State owns the means of production (capital and business) outright. Under fascism, businesses hold the title to their property, but the State controls it. Since ownership means not only possession of a thing but control of that thing, that means that the State still owns the means of production. Thus, the difference between fascism and communism is only superficial. Sound familiar?

America has prospered not because of government but because of freedom. True freedom is comprised of two inextricably linked components: personal liberty and economic freedom. Personal liberty allows people to live their lives in the way they want without violent intervention. This promotes social harmony. Economic freedom allows people to interact and trade with one another in mutually beneficially ways. This promote prosperity. Unfortunately, liberals and conservatives have tried to separate these two concepts, leading to disastrous results. How can you have personal liberty when you are not free to keep what you earn? Limiting economic freedom destroys the very tools that human beings need in order to shape their lives in the ways that bring them happiness. On the other hand, how can you have economic freedom when you cannot control your own life, when the government places restrictions on what you can trade and the activities in which you can engage? And what good are the tools to pursue happiness when the goal itself is put off limits, anyway? Therefore, as you can see, the vertical plane of the Nolan Chart, how much control the government should have (and, hence, how much it infringes on individual liberty) is much more important than the horizontal plane, which really simply involves what the government controls.

Until and unless Americans undergo a paradigm shift in their political awareness, and once again recognize that freedom and liberty are the means to peace, harmony, and prosperity, the country is going to continue to head down towards authoritarianism. Whether that authoritarianism is called socialist or fascist, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, who cares?

The choice is not left or right. The choice is liberty or tyranny.

Wizard of Oz Economics

Citizen X — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:16:59 GMT

In the free market, there is no "guy" who is in charge of setting prices. Unfortunately, an understanding of the market process is sorely lacking in the establishment media. As an example, here is Fox News' Bill O'Reilly:

http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2008/04/27/wizard-of-oz-economists.aspx

The free market is an auction process in which producers compete for consumer's business. This fact makes the consumer sovereign. In other words, it is the consumer who actually determines prices.

Competition between producers drives prices down. As long as producers are free to compete with one another, they will offer their products at the lowest possible price in order to attract more buyers. Thus, it behooves producers to continually find ways to find ways to lower costs while still producing competitive products.

On the other hand, competition between consumers drives prices up. People bid against one another to acquire scarce resources. Just like any auction, this process results in the price of the resource (or finished product) going up.

When many individuals take part in this process, you have a market. Prices in a market tend towards equilibrium, the point at which producers are willing to sell their products at the price that consumers are willing to pay. Constant changes in market conditions, however, prevent equilibrium from every being achieved.

In any case, there is no "guy" who determines oil prices. OPEC does not set oil prices, Hugo Chavez does not set oil prices. The chairman of Exxon-Mobile does not set oil prices. Oil prices are a result of the aggregate decisions of millions of people who determine what they are willing to pay for it. If the price were too high, there would be a glut of oil because people would simply be unwilling to buy it. If the price were too low, there would be a shortage because it would not benefit producers to bring the oil to market. Thus, while we may complain that the price is too high, in reality, it is just right.

So where does Bill O'Reilly get the idea that one guys or a group of guys set the price of oil? Well, perhaps he's thinking of Communist Russia where an economic commissar set prices. Of course, since the Russian central planners had no idea of what the prices of products should really be, their economy was characterized by chronic shortages and eventual collapse. Or maybe, as financial commentator Jim Puplava observed, he's been watching the Wizard of Oz.

Unfortunately, because he's a "second hand dealer in ideas," too many Americans take O'Reilly's fallacious reasoning as economic fact. Just like the Wizard of Oz, its pure fantasy.

Why Not Let The Market Set Prices?

Citizen X — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:59:01 GMT

When hard money advocate Peter Schiff is on the financial cable networks he's often treated like an eccentric, grumpy relative. The problem is that time and again Schiff turns out to be right. Does he have a crystal ball? No, Schiff understands a basic economic truth that the high priests of the Church of Paper Money have dismissed as a relic of a barbarous age: money is not only a society's medium of exchange, it is a commodity. Therefore, inflating the supply of money has effects on other goods and services. Namely, monetary inflation causes price inflation (as well as causing the boom/bust cycle).

Once again, Schiff hits it right on the head.

Meet the New Boss

Citizen X — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:37:52 GMT

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
-The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

The ultimate goal of militant environmentalists is totalitarian government. Militant environmentalists salivate at the thought of controlling every aspect of human life from the cars we drive to the light bulbs we use to how many children we have. While the average person who considers himself an environmentalist simply wants a clean planet (as almost all of us do), militant environmentalists actually see human beings as the enemy. After all, the byproduct of human respiration is CO2, according to environmentalists, the most evil of all greenhouse gases. Therefore, the logical solution is to reduce the number of CO2 emitters, that is, to reduce the number of human beings on this planet.

This line of thinking is hitting the pop media. In the April 21 edition of USA Today, for example, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas wrote an editorial entitled "Might our religion be killing us?" In his column, Thomas predicts a modern Malthusian Catastrophe. According to Thomas Malthus, an 18th century mathematician, population growth would eventually cause a crisis in which the amount of natural resources is not adequate to sustain the human population. In addition to the pressures that people place on natural resources such as water, food, and oxygen, environmentalists are seizing upon the Malthusian Catastrophe in an additional way: the Earth's inability to absorb and cleanse itself of the pollution that man causes including CO2 and methane, natural byproducts of our very existence.

The main thrust of Thomas' argument is to question the role of religion in promoting population growth. While I may not agree with Thomas' conclusions, there is nothing wrong with discussing and promoting voluntary efforts. However, the last part of the column is cause for concern. In this section, Thomas discusses what government's role should be in averting this impending disaster. One of his suggestions is that Congress provide incentives, such as tax breaks, for having fewer children, not more. As innocent as this suggestion sounds, its implications are enormous and ominous. No government program should ever be used to either encourage or discourage human procreation. As you will see below, to say that the history of government involvement in population control is gruesome is a dramatic understatement.

The early 20th century witnessed the rise of the pseudoscience of eugenics. The goal of eugenics, from the Greek words for "well born", was to improve the human race through selective breeding.  In England, where eugenics originated, "positive eugenics" was practiced; British eugenicists encouraged people of "better stock" to marry and breed. In America, it was a different story. Positive eugenics was not enough for the impatient American eugenicists. They believed that not only should the procreation of better stock be encouraged, but "undesirables" should also be eliminated.

A forgotten fact of American history is that the Land of the Free was the first nation to implement forced sterilization laws for the express purpose of eugenics. Thirty-three states had mandatory sterilization laws. Officially, over 65,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized by their own governments. In addition, because eugenics was really simply a veneer for racism (eugenicists generally agreed that the best stock were people of Nordic descent), marriage licensing laws were also implemented to prevent miscegenation, as well as the transmission of "hereditary defects" including epilepsy, mental illness, mental retardation, feeble mindedness, blindness, deafness, idleness, and criminality.

The eugenics movement reached its zenith in Nazi Germany. In fact, eugenics was the bedrock principle of Nazism. Rudolph Hess, Adolph Hitler's deputy, went so far as to say that "National Socialism is nothing but applied biology." American eugenicists had an enormous influence on Hitler. Hitler wrote fan letters to American eugenicists including one to Madison Grant, calling Grant's 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race, "his Bible." American eugenicists praised Hitler's program of "racial hygiene" and his efforts to create a master race through positive breeding and eliminating undesirables. The American eugenicists praised Hitler even after the rumors of mass extermination and genocide were confirmed. Diehard eugenicists were not disturbed by the murder of eleven million souls. After all, these people were of inferior stock and thus did not qualify as human.

While eugenics was the selective depopulation of undesirables, the Chinese government has expanded the idea of population control to include everyone. In order to keep its population within the limits imposed by its central planners, the Chinese government enforces a one child per family policy. This policy is necessary, the government says, to alleviate economic and, ironically, environmental problems. The one child policy has resulted in forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and the mass abandonment of female infants. In addition, the one child policy has eugenic and racist components. Like the Nazis, the communist Chinese believe that they can better their race through selective breeding.

Why should we believe that population control implemented to save the planet will turn out any differently than Nazi Germany's eugenics or China's one child policy? Human beings should not play God, which is exactly what happens when the State decides who should breed and how often. Coercive population control is the most base human rights infringement imaginable. However, to those who believe that they are God, who think that people are analogous to domestic animals, what rights can a human have? After all, our rights are derived from the fact that we own ourselves. When the State owns us, as totalitarians believe it does, no rights are possible, not even control over our own bodies.

If there is a Malthusian Catastrophe in our future, it will be a direct result of the State. For example, the emerging world food shortages are at least partly a result of government subsidies to ethanol producers. As I explained here, because of these subsidies we are using food as fuel. This is not a failure of capitalism as Hugo Chavez would have us believe, but a result of socialism and central planning. Left to its own devices, the market uses prices to allocate resources to their best possible use. Government interference causes price distortions which short circuit the allocation process. Leave it to the government to encourage us to pump a food product into our gas tanks.

In addition to this misappropriation of resources, the federal government restricts the overall supply of food. For example, agricultural interests (most of which are not small farmers) are paid to limit the amount of certain crops that they export. (Incidentally, government efforts to keep the price of wheat on the world market high by subsidizing American farmers to restrict their production were a contributing factor in causing The Great Depression.) It is an economic reality that price controls lead to shortages. Farmers are also paid not to cultivate land for environmental conservation.  Food shortages are not a result of nature, but more often of the State interfering in the market.

As far as electricity goes, we can once again thank the State (and the environmental movement itself) for shortages. Because of pressure mostly from the environmental lobby, the government has been hesitant to issue licenses for nuclear power plants, the most efficient and safest producers of electricity. Electricity shortages are not the result of too much pressure on natural resources, but of too much special interest group pressure on politicians.

Liquid fuel shortages are also a result of the State.  Because of heavy government subsidies to oil companies, mostly in the form of "national defense" spending, gasoline is probably cheaper than it would be in the free market (although because the government refuses to allow oil companies to drill in certain areas, we have no way of telling what the real price would be). Since fossil fuels are thus artificially cheaper than they probably should be, there is very little incentive for entrepreneurs to develop alternative energy sources. The alternative energies simply cannot compete with the cheap price of fossil fuels. As a result, possible alternative energies never come to market.  This is not a market failure or due to a lack of natural resources; it is the result of the State.

Finally, overpopulation itself is the result of the State.  As a society becomes more prosperous, its birthrate drops.  Too many children inhibit the ability to maintain a high standard of living.  While, for example, the population in the Third World is exploding, if it were not for immigration the populations of Europe and America would be dropping.

What keeps underdeveloped nations from achieving prosperity? Their socialist governments. Instead of adopting free markets and protecting property rights, which are the means to prosperity, these governments sentence their people to perpetual poverty by implementing control economies and adhering to the feudalistic idea that all property belongs to the State.

Based on its awful record of abuses against the environment (the United State Department of Defense is the world's largest polluter), why would environmentalists turn to the government to further their agenda, anyway? It's simply because the government's legal monopoly on the use of force is too enticing a prize for ideologues to pass up. That's what this is all about. It's about power. The power to force people to live in the way that you want them to live. In the extreme, it's about the power to decide who lives and who dies. As history shows, this is not a power with which any person or group can be entrusted, even if they believe that they their goals are noble.

Call them whatever you want. Eugenicists, Nazis, Communists, Militant Environmentalists. The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Will we get fooled yet again?

Waco: 15 Years Later

Citizen X — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:02:49 GMT

I will say this, however. I was, frankly, surprised would be a mild word, to say that anyone that would suggest that the Attorney General should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves.-Bill Clinton

April 19, 2008 marks the fifteen year anniversary of the debacle at Waco, TX which resulted in the deaths of 76 people including 27 children. Now known simply as "Waco," the FBI assault on the Branch Davidian complex at Mt. Carmel, along with the federal government's subsequent reaction, stands as a solemn and ominous reminder of the grave consequences of a government out of control.

Mt. Carmel in flames

Volumes of research have been produced about what really happened at Waco. A comprehensive study of this tragedy is well beyond the scope of this blog. In fact, we will probably never know what really happened. Instead of shedding light onto the actions of their agents, federal agencies have chosen to hide as much as possible, destroying, fabricating, and "losing" evidence while their agents perjured themselves on the witness stand. The "official" investigation into the events at Waco headed by former Missouri senator John Danforth was a farce; Danforth's objective was to "restore the people's faith in their government" and "to move past this incident." Of course, if the government were to blame for what happened at Waco, Danforth's premise would have mutually exclusive from uncovering the truth since the results of the investigation would have shaken confidence in the government to its very core.

At Waco, over 80 people died including four federal agents who participated in the February 28 ATF raid.  Timothy McVeigh used Waco as an excuse to murder 168 innocent people when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on the second anniversary of Waco.

As a result of Waco, the truth itself was a casualty. As the truth about what really happened at Waco died during the Waco investigations, another truth revealed itself. While America may have been founded upon the idea that the role of the government is to protect its citizens, the fact is that nowadays the role of the government is to protect the State, not the people.

While the remains of innocent women and children smoldered in ashes of an inferno that could only be described as Hell on Earth, the President of the United States praised the Attorney General on her decisiveness and a job well done.

Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will claim that, as government officials, they protected society from people like David Koresh. After what we witnessed at Waco, the real question is: who is going to protect us from people like Clinton and Reno?

-----------------------------------------------

Cato Institute paper on Waco.

UPDATE:

Anthony Gregory points out that, since political power flows from the barrel of a gun, Waco was not a result of a government out of control.  For the government Waco was business as usual: keep increasing the level of force and violence until people comply. What was different at Waco was people resisted and the level of violence reached an unusual degree.

Charlton Heston: In Memory of a Fighter For Our Personal Freedoms

The Great Silence — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:41:14 GMT

The forces of freedom in North America are always facing an uphill battle, with every aspect of society, be it the media, education system, courts, and legislative bodies, to name a few societal structures, working to stifle freedom and increase their own power. Citizen X is among the best commentators when it comes to the political and legislative concerns, but something today made me come out of my shell and speak up after a long time. This morning, I was saddened to learn that the forces of freedom lost a champion, and his loss is a great one. He was a brave man whose profession has always been surrounded with apostles of authoritarianism. He chose to resist those forces, despite the risk to his career. And right up until a few years before he passed away last night, he was continually hounded by others in his profession. His name was Charlton Heston.

The youthful readers of Citizen X can be excused if they have never heard of this great actor. Media outlets and the entertainment business itself refused to cover him and his accomplishments in the past few decades; and it is sad to see that in obituaries on the various news channels this morning, his death has warranted less coverage than the deaths of Heath Ledger and Anna Nicole Smith. There is no freedom when it comes to even choosing our heroes from the entertainment world: the media tries to shape our every thought and predetermine who we will look up to. On the streets of Manhattan, I have seen people with t-shirts honoring men like Ledger, who took their own lives and are considered heroes for starring in films that try and shove a sodomized sexual agenda down our throats, whether we like it or not. I doubt very much that anyone will wear t-shirts honoring Mr. Heston.

Smear merchants on the web have already been callously celebrating Mr. Heston's death, attacking him for his dedication to protect the 2nd Amendment. If any of you have enjoyed game hunting with your Dad, or just feel safer if you have a gun at home to protect you, since Hillary may not be there at 3am to stand outside your gate and save you, you are a direct beneficiary of the hard work of Mr. Heston. He knew he was championing a cause that was and still is considered politically incorrect, but he laid his career on the line to help us all. The smear merchants have compared him to Hitler for doing so. This column aims to counter those attacks. If one disagrees with the right to bear arms, in a democratic society, both myself and Mr. Heston would not smear those who disagree with us back. The Left think that they own the moral authority in North America, and that everyone else is a demon. A case in point is how Heston will be remembered by the Heath Ledger generation: from a filmed ambush by documentarian Michael Moore. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore is graciously invited inside Mr. Heston's house, and then accosts Mr. Heston for his tireless work to defend the 2nd amendment. Heston was in his older years when that was filmed, and clearly not prepared for a debate; Moore was prepping for that debate for years. When I watched that film in theatres, everyone mocked Mr. Heston. It is very easy to bring a camera crew with you to meet someone under false pretenses, and then attack them. The Left gets uncomfortable when watching better works of genius on film, like when the brilliant Sacha Baron Cohen in his guise of "Borat" brings his camera crew along to debate some Feminazis. Not so funny when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

Heston did more for human rights than anyone like Moore or George Clooney or anyone else who represents the majority Hollywood elite. While those people simply just talk and engage in ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with their Stalinist point of view, Heston walked the walk. In the 1950s, he battled against McCarthyism, especially in his home turf of Hollywood, when screenwriters, actors, and directors on the Left were unjustly persecuted for their political affiliation. Most actors at the time did not have the courage to speak out against McCarthy; Heston risked his livelihood to do so. In the 1960s, he fought against racial segregation. When he discovered that movie theatres screening his films were segregated, Heston stood outside those theatres with civil rights protesters and told everyone to boycott those cinema houses, even if it meant no one would see his films. Mr. Heston joined Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and supported him a lot more than most Hollywood actors did at the time. Unlike today, it was politically risky to support Dr. King in the 1960s.

Just as today, it is not fashionable to support personal freedoms and the 2nd amendment. Mr. Heston was like the great characters that he played in his films: an underdog who took unpopular and sometimes dangerous positions because they were right. I think it important that all readers of Adventures of Citizen X look back upon the films of Mr. Heston, especially the ones I will list below, because they all contain messages that push the idea of personal freedom against big government. In an age when films come out every few months attacking people who believe in personal freedoms, or when universities want Brokeback Mountain to become required viewing in film classes, Mr. Heston's films are the true alternative to the status quo today. Again, most on the Left will try and portray him as a Bible Thumper, and posit that films like The Ten Commandments or Ben-Hur to be as political as a film about gay cowboys. But Mr. Heston's best films had nothing to do with religious themes. Let's leave them out of the picture to be fair and balanced.

The following are the works that every reader of this site should rent on DVD or Blu-Ray, and admire for their bravery. First and foremost, watch him in Soylent Green (1973), where he plays a police detective in the future who battles against a Communist run America that gives everyone free food and health care, with literal cradle to grave care, but suffocates them when it comes to every other freedom on the planet. Do not read spoilers of this film: it is brilliant still today, 35 years after its release. See him in legendary director Sam Peckinpah's Major Dundee (1965), where he plays an army officer from the Civil War who is punished for unspecified reasons, sent to a POW camp, but then unites a group of African-Americans, Latino-Americans, and Native Americans in an attack against a war criminal. In fact, while Hollywood tried to fire the great Sam Peckinpah from this film, Heston decided to work on the film for free so that the studios would keep Peckinpah on -- something a George Clooney wouldn't do today, to be sure. While Hollywood made a politically correct version of Richard Matheson's visionary novel, "I Am Legend" last year with the execrable Fresh Prince of Bel-Air in the lead, watch the version from 1971 starring Mr. Heston called The Omega Man, talking about a world that has been destroyed thanks in part due to biological warfare on the part of the Communist Dictatorship of China. It is a film that those who voted for Beijing to get the Summer Olympics should watch, at a time when it seems fashionable to support Communist Dictatorships. Mr. Heston also worked with the very liberal auteur, Orson Welles, to star in Touch of Evil (1958), and once again Mr. Heston stood up to defend Mr. Welles when Hollywood producers tried to stifle him and his creative vision. Heston's character in Welles's film is a police detective who fights against corruption both inside and outside the police force, no matter what the cost is to his career. And once you watch all those films, then watch his appearances in the famed "Planet of the Apes" films, which you might have enjoyed simply as science fiction, but are actually commentaries on futuristic societies run by regimes modeled after Communist dictatorships.

As you can see, Mr. Heston's roles were carefully selected and dealt with much more than religious pictures. The media does not want us to remember this Charlton Heston because it goes against their polarization of people, who are either on their side or against it. That's not what America is about but sadly is slowly becoming. Charlton Heston the freedom fighter, the great actor, the man who stood up to McCarthyism and segregration will not be remembered; he will be remembered only for what the smear merchants want him remembered for. And that is a sad testament to the lack of our freedoms: our epitaphs are written years before we die, and their words determined by a select few people who have taken our freedoms away.

I remember the words of Mr. Heston as Major Dundee, and what he promises those who follow him into battle: "I promise you nothing... saddle sores, short rations, maybe a bullet in your belly... and free air to breathe." FREE AIR TO BREATHE. How long before even that is taken away from us? Watch any of those films I mentioned above, and maybe you will pick up where Heston left off. Forget March Madness from the NBA; forget mindless reality television; forget the mind-numbing garbage that floods the airwaves and theatres. Watch Charlton Heston put his vest on and fight for freedom in these films and maybe....just maybe, you can take a stand and fight for it in your own lives.

The Founders Trusted Americans, Why Doesn't the Government Now?

Citizen X — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:32:32 GMT

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force you are ruined. -Patrick Henry

The outcome of the D.C. gun ban case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is certain to make both sides of the gun control debate happy. Statements made by the Court indicate that the majority of Justices will find that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms (which the pro-gun lobby will hail as a victory) subject to reasonable State restriction (validating the anti-gun lobby's arguments). Unfortunately, the second part of that sentence makes the first part virtually meaningless. The 2nd Amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You'll notice the words "subject to reasonable restriction" are conspicuously absent. The reason for this absence is not an oversight; the Founders understood it was in the State's interest to infringe upon the people's right to bear arms for its own security.

The State is continually trying to expand its power and scope. The main obstacle to the State's rapaciousness is resistance from its citizens.  Therefore, to fulfill its objective of ever expanding power, the State must diminish the people's ability to resist this arrogation.  Hence, it is in the State's interest to disarm its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Governments fear their people when those people have the ability to defend themselves against encroachments upon their liberty; not when the people are completely defenseless and lie prostrate before them.

The ultimate check upon tyranny is a population willing to use violence against their oppressors when every other possible alternatives has been exhausted.  A much neglected facet of the arguments both for and against gun control in the establishment media is the fact that the 2nd Amendment is not concerned, as seems fashionable nowadays, with crime and hunting but rather with resisting tyranny. The 2nd Amendment is not designed to protect us from criminals and wild animals, but to protect us from encroachments upon our liberty. The greatest threat to the individual's liberty has always been his own government; something the Framers were keenly aware of.  In other words, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from our own government. After all, despite what many Americans seem to have forgotten, the Framers had fought a war against their own government scarcely four years before the Constitution was written.

The right to self defense is derived, as all our unalienable rights are, from the human right to property. The most basic unit of property any human being owns is his or her own body. Since you own yourself, you have the right to protect yourself against aggression. This right is absolute and is not subject to any sort of State regulation. If the State is allowed to infringe upon, restrict, or regulate a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. For example, if we accept that the State can regulate what we say, it is only a matter of time before the State will utilize this power to prohibit criticism directed towards it. From the very beginning, the United States government has sought to impose restrictions on free speech for this very purpose.  In 1789, Congress passed the Sedition Act which made it a crime to criticize the government. Luckily, when Thomas Jefferson gained the presidency, he held the Act to be unconstitutional and pardoned all those convicted under it. During World War I, another Sedition Act was passed which prohibited "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" directed towards the government or the armed forces. As with the Sedition Act of 1789, the Sedition Act of 1918 was used to quell dissent and punish political opposition under the guise of security, before being repealed in 1921.

Isn't it when the government deserves criticism, when it has abused its power, that free speech is most urgently needed? Of course, that's also when the government attempts to infringe upon free speech the most. The same is true of self defense. If we allow "reasonable restrictions," it is only a matter of time before licensing and taxation regulate private firearms ownership out of existence.  Witness, for example, New York city, where it is legal to own a handgun as long as you have a license. The only problem is that the city very rarely issues licenses and then only to the powerful and politically connected.

The ability to protect our liberty is needed most when our liberty is threatened. One of the first actions taken by most totalitarian governments is to disarm its citizens so they cannot resist its tyrannical designs. The reason that America has remained the freest nation in the world is not because our Constitution protects us. After all, the Constitution is simply words on parchment. The reason America has remained free is because throughout our history, individual Americans have stood against oppression and for freedom, and have spoken out and protested against infringements on their liberty. They have often paid a terrible price for their dissent: fines, imprisonment, and even death. While the government usually points to war and crises as a reason to punish dissenters, the real reason is because the government cannot afford to allow the general population to consider the questions the dissenters are asking. In other words, the government still fears the people.  Thus we still have freedom. The reason the government still fears the people? If worse comes to worse and all peaceful options are exhausted, an armed populous can evict the government by force. According to Thomas Jefferson, "the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Ironically, in contrast to the attitude of the many modern politicians who do everything in their power to demonize individual firearm ownership, the Founders took pride in protecting that right. James Madison wrote that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The DC gun ban is a classic example of the government intervention cycle; a misguided government program causes a problem which the government tries to solve with another program which causes a problem and on and on. In this case, the gun ban was designed to reduce crime by getting the guns out of the hands of criminals. This rational brings to mind the old saying, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

This is exactly what has happened in Washington, DC. When law abiding citizens are stripped of their ability to defend themselves, they stand defenseless and at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about breaking the law.  Meanwhile the courts have ruled that the government is under no obligation to protect individual citizens. This is the ultimate irony: the institution that was formed to protect us not only claims no duty to do so, but deprives us of our ability to protect ourselves.

If the government really wants to reduce crime, it should immediately cease its War on Drugs. The prohibition on drugs has created a black market in which vicious criminals defend their turf with the most violent of means, turning our inner cities into war zones. In addition, because of the high price of street drugs, addicts often turn to crime to support their habits.

Speaking of drugs, many of the mass school shootings that we have recently witnessed (the absolute media darlings of all tragedies) seem to be linked to psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac . While it's true that America has become a "lithium nation" where people look for the solution to life's problems in a pill bottle, the drugging of our young people is actual government policy. Government schools promote the use of psychotropics in children they consider unruly, going so far as to charge parents who refuse to medicate their kids with child abuse.

Despite these facts, the government is not to blame for every murder or any other crime committed in America. Some people are going to do evil things. However, it is ludicrous to blame guns for the actions of their users. A firearm is a tool just like any other. It is an inanimate object that has no morality of its own. Sometimes this tool is going to be used to do bad things. However, that is the price we pay to retain the ability to defend our freedom. No one should be deprived of his right to bear arms unless he uses this right to initiate violence against others. After all, if we allow the government to disarm potential criminals, all of us must be disarmed as any of us could be a potential criminal.

On the other hand, none but the uber-pacifist would argue that the police and army be disarmed. Therefore, even if we were able to get all the guns out of private hands, the government would still have its firearms. And would have a legal monopoly on them. This is the recipe for tyranny. We often forget that the government is populated by people; sometimes deeply flawed individuals just like the ones who use their guns to commit heinous crimes. There is nothing magical about a uniform or badge that makes the person wearing it suddenly any wiser or more moral than the rest of us. In fact, it has been government that has proved the most immoral institution of all, killing over 200 million people in the 20th century. Democide, murder by government, was the leading cause of preventable death in the last century. When an individual citizen goes crazy and goes on a shooting spree, it is a tragedy, but it is generally contained to, even in the worst of situations, dozens of deaths. When governments go crazy, it is absolute Hell on Earth as millions die.

The fact is that we will never the world rid of firearms. Nor should we try. Guns protect the weak against aggressors who are physically stronger than they are; when it comes to self-defense, firearms are the great equalizer. Most of all, guns safeguard not only our lives, but our liberty.

Not only does the anti-gun crowd not recognize the importance of private gun ownership in safeguarding freedom, they believe that only the government is responsible enough to own firearms. However, as Patrick Henry passionately argued, "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

If Americans cannot be trust with guns, we cannot be trusted with any of the other responsibilities that freedom entails.