Archive for 04/27/2010

by DFX April 26, 2010 14:52

Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food, or Even to Produce Your Own Food !!
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.

[link to]


Crime and Complicity

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Criminals to We The People

by Tim Case
by Tim Case
Recently by Tim Case: When Utopianism Is Shattered By Reality

“The punishment of the criminal is measured by the degree of astonishment of the judge who finds his crime incomprehensible.”

~ Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844–1900)

You would think that if the present administration with its adoring minions is going to rule by the Machiavellian code, as outlined in the The Prince, they would at least take to heart the admonition that “as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavor with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful.”

That is unless Obama et al. are convinced that all the dissention and anger is nothing more than the cries of the ‘idiot du village; which seems to be the case.

Just before he died, Herodian of Antioch reports that the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius cautioned his son, Commodus, and the young man’s advisors: “…No amount of money is large enough to compensate for a tyrant’s excesses, nor is the protection of his bodyguards enough to shield the ruler who does not possess the good will of his subjects. The ruler who implants in the hearts of his subjects not fear resulting from cruelty, but love occasioned by kindness, is most likely to complete his reign safely…[I]t is not those who submit from necessity but those who are persuaded to obedience who continue to serve and to suffer without suspicion and without pretense of flattery. And they never rebel unless they are driven to it by violence and arrogance…”

As most know the death of Marcus Aurelius transferred to his young son, Commodus, the full title of emperor.

Dio Cassius, (73.1.2) tells us that Commodus was “not naturally wicked but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, made him the slave of his companions, and it was through them that he at first, out of ignorance, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature.”

Regardless of his character, Commodus had not heeded his father’s words. As such his unrestrained brutality aroused massive unrest resulting in, among other things, a civil war which aided in a continuing erosion of the empire’s stability and prosperity.

Herodian confirms for us that Commodus’ end came when it was discovered that he had sentenced his loyal, loving mistress, Marcia; his praetorian prefect, Laetus; his bedroom steward, Eclectus, and a long list of prominent senators to be put to death.

Marcia “poured the poison into the cup, mixed it with a pungent wine, and gave it to him to drink. Since it was his practice to take a cup of friendship after his many baths and jousts with animals, he drained it without noticing anything unusual.” Afraid that Commodus would somehow live, Marcia, Laetus and Eclectus also persuaded a young nobleman, by the name of Narcissus, to strangle the emperor, just to be sure he really died.

The legacy of Commodus is fittingly coupled with his body being unceremoniously removed from the Imperial palace wrapped in bed linen as just another bundle of dirty laundry, then placed in a common wagon and taken to the outskirts of the city.

It is what happened next that has a lesson for us today.

Wanting to save their lives, because they had murdered Commodus, but also desiring to place a man on the throne that would rule Rome justly, Laetus and Eclectus settled on the most venerated of Commodus’ advisors and native-born Italian by the name of Pertinax.

Pertinax had never sought the purple robe and had had no part in any conspiracy against the emperor. Of Pertinax it can rightfully be said that he served both Marcus Aurelius and Commodus honorably. Even so, when Laetus came with Eclectus to Pertinax’s estate to offer him the position of emperor, his first reaction was to serenely accept the fact that Commodus had sent Eclectus and Laetus to kill him.

“For a long time now,” Pertinax said, “I have been waiting for my life to end in this fashion, and I was surprised that Commodus was so slow to act against me, the sole survivor of the advisers his father appointed for him. Why do you delay? You will be carrying out your orders, and I will be relieved from degrading hope and constant fear.”

It took some time, but Laetus and Eclectus eventually convinced Pertinax they were not there to take his life, but rather to offer him the Roman throne. This, they argued, was because of his age, proven wisdom, distinguished service as a senator and his love for justice.

As word of Commodus’ death spread the Roman people reacted as if the Roman Empire had suddenly found itself translated upward into orbit in the empyrean. Herodian of Antioch explains:

“When these events became known, the people milled about in a frenzy of joy, like men possessed, and everyone took delight in telling the news to his neighbors, especially if they happened to be men of wealth and position, for Commodus was particularly dangerous to such men. Rushing to the temples and altars, the people united in giving thanks to the gods, shouting all sorts of things: ‘The tyrant is dead!’ ‘The gladiator is slain!’ and other blasphemies more scurrilous. All the insults which had hitherto been left unsaid through fear were now voiced openly, with freedom and safety restored.”

The Praetorian Guard was not nearly as easily swayed, but due to the passion of the people, the Praetorian Guard’s knowledge of Pertinax’s courage, his temperate life, his honorable military service, and his acceptance among the troops on the empire’s frontiers, they reluctantly accepted Pertinax as emperor. But first they had to be persuaded that Commodus’ death hadn’t been murder.

It fell to the Praetorian Prefect, Laetus, to address the Praetorian Guard and put their suspicions to rest.

Laetus did exactly that with these words: “Commodus, your emperor, is dead of apoplexy. In a case of this kind, the blame can be put on no one else. The emperor was responsible for his own death. He paid no attention when we urged him time and again to adopt a safer and saner course. You know the way he lived his life. Now he lies dead, choked by his own gluttony. The death he was destined for has overtaken him at last. As you are aware, the cause of death is not one and the same for all men. The most diverse causes bring us to life’s inevitable outcome…”

It was a lie but it roused the people to the point that they accepted it as fact, and while the praetorians were still not convinced, they realized they were surrounded by a mass of the people, and the people had decided the issue by declaring Pertinax their new emperor.

Even with the backing of the people, and the unenthusiastic consent of the Praetorian Guards Pertinax wasn’t sure that the Roman senators would be willing to confirm him as emperor. His concern resided not in his own safety but rather the “abrupt change from the autocracy of Commodus, and about the noble ancestry of certain of the senators. He suspected that these senators, after having been ruled by the most nobly born of all the emperors, would not be willing to let the reins of government fall into the hands of a man who came to the high office from humble and undistinguished antecedents.”

Pertinax’s worries were put to rest when the senate enthusiastically accepted him, then conferred on him the full title of emperor along with “every honor and every token of respect.” The senators then accompanied their new emperor to the temple of Jupiter and the rest of the shrines, subsequently completing their journey by ushering Pertinax into the imperial palace.

What Emperor Pertinax did to try and right the Roman Empire in the next three months can only be described as extraordinary.

Pertinax’s first act was to curb the praetorian’s arrogant, cruel treatment of people. He outlawed their carrying of axes (probably the fasces) and their arbitrary striking of anyone they wished. This order “delighted the older people, and won the good will of the others without difficulty…” Pertinax’s sense of justice freed the people from the savage and oppressive tyranny of which they had become accustomed, allowing them to again live a relaxed, efficient life.

The unique sense of justice exhibited by Pertinax included the banishing of informers who had been accustomed to stealing property by false witness. He even went to extraordinary lengths to see to it that no one could be threatened by false accusations, and to prosecute those who engaged in such practices.

On the domestic front the emperor also banned the unjust tolls; “fees collected at the banks of rivers, the harbors of cities, and the crossroads,” allowing people the freedom of movement that had been restricted under Commodus.

More importantly “Pertinax assigned all the land in Italy and the rest of the provinces not under cultivation, to anyone willing to care for it and farm it, to be his own private property; he gave to each man as much land as he wished and was able to manage, even if the land were imperial property. To these farmers he granted exemption from all taxes for ten years and freedom from government duties as well.”

The emperor would not allow “his name to be stamped on imperial property, stating that these effects were not the emperor’s personal property but the common and public possessions of the Roman Empire.”

Pertinax’s sense of justice also had international repercussions. Herodian confirms that “… the mildness of his rule became known everywhere, all nations subject to Roman rule or friendly to the Romans, and all the armies in the field as well, came to regard his reign as that of a god.”

Even the “barbarians who were formerly restless and rebellious mindful of his brilliant achievements in his previous campaigns, feared him and willingly submitted to him. They put their trust in his reputation for never purposely doing an injustice and always treating every man according to his deserts; improper conduct and savage violence were completely foreign to his nature. Embassies from all countries came to him, and everyone delighted in the rule of the Romans under Pertinax.”

Certainly it doesn’t take much imagination to realize what effect the domestic and foreign policies of Pertinax would have on domestic and foreign markets. There must have been an unbridled joy, coupled with a new enthusiastic fervor that swept over the import businesses along with permeating every sector of economic endeavor.

We will never know what Emperor Pertinax’s strategies would have had on the decaying Roman Empire. His sense of justice and sound fiscal plan had made his powerful enemies among the imperial bodyguard angry.

Those who had habitually supplemented their income through lies, mugging and pillage were not to be denied. The praetorians “who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus,” writes Machiavelli, “could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; … having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt for his old age” one day they assaulted the Imperial palace and murdered Emperor Pertinax.

The life flowing from the old emperor is equally symbolic of the life ebbing from Old Rome. This one act doomed the empire to years of military despotism, massive inflation and economic failures only to be exacerbated, codified and finally culminated in the edicts of Diocletian.

The instruction that can be gleaned from Pertinax’s short reign is almost legion. Beyond the obvious danger that is faced by all those good men and women who seek to reestablish justice and economic stability through government, there exists a far more ominous admonition.

For far too long we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that our fight resides with and is encompassed within the framework of political and social ideologies.

As such we use labels such as right and left; liberal and conservative; or socialist and communist to define either foes or ourselves. It is time we realize that these labels are smoke screens designed to justify and persuade us as to why we should be plundered.

Historically the real battle resides not in philosophical gibberish, but in the reality within society that there are powerful criminal elements that will always seek to justify their self-serving, selfish need to rob, maim, imprison and murder others. The conflict always has been between criminal action of the few and the resistance (and/or lack of it) by the mass of intended victims.

Pertinax is reported to have told the Roman senate on the day he was received as emperor, “…[T]hose who have grown accustomed to reveling in the extravagant excesses of a tyranny not only object to any change toward a more moderate and more economical way of life occasioned by a shortage of money, not terming it sensible economy or planned and judicious management, but they reject it as a mean and wretched way to live, oblivious to the fact that had it not been for the loot taken by pillage and plunder, they could never have enjoyed their luxurious way of life.”

Until the people of this nation become enraged at the brutal illicit activities being forced on them, the human, social and legal condition of the United States will continue to be consumed by a voracious criminal element with the same rapaciousness which was experienced by Roman society after the death of Emperor Pertinax.

In case you were wondering, the Roman people did riot for a few days after they learned of Pertinax’s murder, but the Praetorian Guard simply hid in their compound until the people settled down and accepted their fate. This took the Roman people from the state of victimization, to that of being complicit in their own destruction.

April 27, 2010

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: “Only the educated are free.”

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

The Arizona Uproar

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in AT

April 27, 2010

By Leo W. Banks

Listening to the national uproar, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Arizona has marched into the civil rights apocalypse with its new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, making it a crime to be in the state illegally and requiring cops, where “reasonable suspicion” exists, to determine a person’s legal status.
Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march, the New York Times says that the state has gone “off the deep end,” and the Nazi references are flying. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony likened SB1070 to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.”
Riding the noise for political advantage, President Obama is summoning his Justice Department to look into the matter, saying that the law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”
But 70 percent of Arizona residents support the law, according to Rasmussen.
What’s going on here? Do we know something the rest of the country doesn’t?
Actually, we do. Context is everything, and it’d be nice if the national media provided some, rather than simply slamming Arizona as a redneck haven filled with nativists and bubbas with a hankering for racial profiling.
An estimated 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona, and many are decent folks, to be sure. But the border is still wide open, and many more are coming. Last year in Border Patrol’s 262-mile-wide Tucson Sector, agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, a drop of more than 130,000 from 2007.
It sounds great until you understand that gotaways outnumber arrests by three to one.
Does the country realize this, or have the people bought Janet Napolitano’s political fairy tale that border security has been “transformed” from where we were in 2007?
As Obama lectures Arizona, citizens here await his decision on an urgent request to send three thousand National Guard troops to the border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl recently asked for soldiers, as did Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to bring some security to American citizens being hammered by cross-border smugglers and thugs.
Here’s an important bit of context: This isn’t your father’s illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods
Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person. If you don’t have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope. As Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, most of the groups coming up now have a gun behind them.
Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty. Then the inevitable happened.
On March 27, Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his land, presumably by a drug smuggler. The death occurred on a well-known drug trail, and trackers followed the killer’s prints back into Mexico. He is still at large.
Now, I can’t argue with those who say that SB1070 has some provisions that smack of desperation — such as making it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer or to enter a stopped car to get temporary work. That sounds impossible to enforce.
But critics also say that it will have no impact on besieged residents of southern Arizona, and I disagree. It could help.
We have a huge problem with crooks coming up from Mexico to our cities and towns, committing crimes, and bolting back south of the border. Not long ago, I wrote a story that backtracked the records of two of these border coyotes and found that between them, they’d been arrested and released by either law enforcement or the courts a total of 35 times.
One was let go after a traffic stop, and the other had worked construction in Phoenix for years. If this law had been in effect, the police might’ve been able to get them off the street before they were able to lead more groups into southern Arizona, break into homes, and frighten citizens.
Civil rights? What about the civil right of American citizens to drive up to their homes at night and have some reasonable assurance that no one is inside?
On March 31, four hundred people gathered outside the one-room Apache School to tell their elected reps what it’s like to live in smuggler-occupied territory. The meeting was held there, in the cold, open air, in part because the nearest place to host a group that size inside was seventy round-trip miles away, and these folks didn’t feel comfortable leaving their homes for that length of time.
They live by a rule of thumb: If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied by illegals or drug smugglers. We’re not talking just about homes five miles from the international line. We’re talking about homes up to sixty miles north of the border.
Racial profiling doesn’t matter much when you’re in a fight to preserve your way of life and keep your family and property safe. Let me give you a different perspective on racial profiling. Now, when Border Patrol chases down and arrests illegals south of I-10, everybody says, “Atta boy. Good police work.”
But if these crossers put a toe north of I-10, they’re home free. Except for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, nobody is looking for them, and if you do, it’s racial profiling.
The farther you get from the line, the more people want to make this problem about race. It’s the ground the left wants to fight on because it’s so effective. Political correctness shuts people up and keeps the border open.
Arizona has had enough and seen enough. This bill, admittedly flawed, motivated in part by anger and frustration, is an effort to step in and do something about a serious national problem on our southern border that grows more dangerous all the time.
But the national media largely ignore it because it offers up the wrong victims and the wrong politics. They don’t send reporters out to Arizona get the story, to walk the smuggling trails, to sit with beleaguered Americans at their kitchen tables and understand the torment their lives have become.
Instead, they adopt the preening pose of the self-righteous, screaming from a safe distance about the bubbas. All 70 percent of them.
It’s more fun than context.
Leo W. Banks covers the border for Tucson Weekly.

Renouncing American Citizenship

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in We The People

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Recently by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: More Powerful Than Armies

Let’s be clear about something. A person who decides to give up his US citizenship is not guilty of disloyalty to America; quite the opposite. He could very well be more loyal to American principles than the regime is willing to tolerate.

It also does not mean that he is giving up hope for liberty; he may have great hope for liberty, in a different way and in a different place.

In any case, the rise of emigration, expatriation, and citizenship renunciation is a trend that is not going away. It is rising and will get more significant. In some ways, it is completely expected. When regimes over-control, over-tax, over-regulate, they gnaw at the innate sense of the right to be free. When this gets worse and worse, people tend to look around for better environments.

We’ve all known people who talk about it openly. It is becoming cocktail conversation, the once-unthinkable now standard fare. It’s not just an impression. State Department records show that 502 people gave up citizenship in just the last quarter of 2009. That is more than twice the total for 2008. That might not seem like a lot but what stands out here is the trend line, which is soaring. I also hear reports of year-long bureaucratic delays in approval, and, of course, plenty of people leave without permission.

The driving factors here are not cultural or social; they are economic. The US government is making it ever more difficult for Americans living abroad, taxing them wherever the bureaucrats can find them. The government makes it very difficult even to hold a bank account in the US unless the account holder can point to a US residency (thanks to the Patriot Act). And when the government finds a reporting error on income earned overseas, it can charge a 50% penalty.

Even when a person gives up US citizenship, and establishes citizenship with a freer country, the US government can still haunt him with continuing tax obligations and demands for military service. There is, at the least, a vast exit penalty. Any regime that would do things like this inspires people to want to stay at arm’s length.

Far more frightening is the sense that financial calamity is around the corner. A look at the data seems to suggest that. Vast reserves are sitting in the banking system, waiting to be unleashed to create what could be total destruction of the dollar. The deficit is rising so fast that it is hard to chart.

The jobs situation is terrible, especially for young people (and adults often make decisions based on what is best for their kids’ future). Personal income is falling and falling. Investment is not recovering after its cliff dive in 2009. The social welfare state is broke. Private debt is rising even though lending has not restarted.

The policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities are absolutely terrifying. The Fed is keeping rates at zero. The government is spending and spending beyond belief. Tax receipts are falling as never before, unleashing the greedy hand of the predator state to extract every last dime.

And look at what the US congress and president are doing about this terrible mess: they are working to socialize health care, start a war with Iran, impose tariffs on China, and otherwise tax, regulate, inflate, and control more more more. An economy that is heavily capitalized and driven by the entrepreneurial spirit can stand a surprising amount of abuse. But that reserve capital is being drained away into new bubbles, and the entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed at every turn.

Based on all these facts, the sense of impending doom is hard to avoid. And consider that most people are thinking only about today, this month, and this year. But among the rich and entrepreneurial we find a class of people who specialize in thinking outside the box, and for the very long term. It is among the ranks of these people that we are seeing the renunciation trend take hold. The smart money is giving up on the US political system.

What precisely is a person actually giving up when he walks into a US consulate and signs the renunciation oath? The right to vote? Yes, but just how much value are we supposed to place on the right to choose between dumb and dumber, and to have your vote cancelled out by the guy behind you in the line? No living person has ever swung a significant election. It is hardly a surprise that people put so little value on going through the motions of democracy.

There is much to give up in a cultural and social sense. It is not a decision to be made with a light heart. It is final and scary for that reason. What compels many people to do it now rather than wait is the sense that at some point, it might not be possible to renounce citizenship. As the controls grow ever tighter, so will the regulations on those who try to escape.

Every socialist and fascist regime in history has put up walls to prevent flight by people and capital. This is why people and capital are flying now, while they still can. In so doing, they are inspired by the writings of the American revolutionaries. The difference is that they have decided that living in the land of the free and the home of the brave means not being a slave of the US government.

The way to stop the brain and capital drain is readily at hand. Relinquish controls. Stop taxing people abroad. Adopt laissez-faire. Reinstitute freedom. Reject militarism and nationalism. Only that path will inspire optimism in the future of this country. Until that happens, we can expect this trend to continue, and to advise the young and successful families who ask us, to get out while the getting is good.

Books by Lew Rockwell

April 27, 2010

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of See his books.

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

Obama Sends in the Clowns

Posted: 04/27/2010 by Lynn Dartez in CFP

By Matt Barber  Monday, April 26, 2010

With a potential political bloodbath looming in November, liberals are understandably desperate. They see it all slipping away and it shows. The grassroots groundswell of opposition to Obama’s neo-Marxist, secular-humanist agenda intensifies daily despite the left’s best efforts to silence dissent.


Democrats, media elites and the usual gaggle of left-wing pressure groups have ramped-up the unhinged “right-wing-extremist” twaddle

Commensurate with plummeting poll numbers and evaporating public trust, Democrats, media elites and the usual gaggle of left-wing pressure groups have ramped-up the unhinged “right-wing-extremist” twaddle to historically hysterical levels. For those who delight in watching the self-styled “progressive” movement implode, it’s priceless.
“How can it be?” they ask. “The stars were aligned.” With Barack Obama in the White House and his egalitarian enablers running Congress, liberals found themselves at ship’s helm on the USS Hopey-Changey, sailing unabated toward the perfect storm of Euro-socialist reform. America’s elite class would, at long last – curse these two-plus centuries of “constitutional” government – be as those erudite Europeans our homespun lefties so pitifully parrot.
Oops… something happened on the way to the Communism. Middle America, channeling Dana Carvey’s Bush-one, said: “Nope, not gonna’ do it… wouldn’t be prudent.” According to the latest Pew poll, America’s trust in today’s godless Obama-Pelosi-Reid federal government is at an all time low of 22 percent, little more than a year after Obama took office.

Plan B: Demonize Dissent

Mahatma Gandhi once said: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” His words are eerily applicable to the elitist acrimony we see in response to the rapid resurgence of America’s traditionalist zeitgeist.

After months of ignoring the burgeoning constitutionalist movement and dismissing it as “Astroturf,” the left hit the panic button. Jig was up. It had become painfully apparent to all that this measured, monotone young president who carried with him such high hopes for so many was, in fact, the radical leftist ideologue those Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-types had warned of.

And so, the mainstream media hit back, latching like pit-bulls to a poodle on iffy reports that Tea Partiers had shouted racist and “homophobic” slurs at black members of Congress and, well, Barney Frank (claims which, as it turns out, were apparently fabricated whole cloth).

Conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 reward to anyone able to provide video or audio of the alleged slurs. Despite scores of television cameras in the immediate vicinity, no one has produced a shred of evidence.

Capitalizing on the media’s deliberate mischaracterization of Tea Party conservatives as racist, inbred seditionists, some despondent Obama supporters then devised a strategy to “crash the Tea Parties.” Throngs of constitutionally challenged, Berkeley-esque short-bussers (you shall know them by their patchouli covered bong pong) infiltrated many of the conspicuously peaceful “Tax Day Tea Parties” with racist and misspelled signs, screaming bigoted and inane slogans in an effort to paint Tea Partiers in a bad light.

Again, the strategy backfired with hilarious results as these boorish boobs outed themselves by posting their intentions on the internet in advance of operations. Legitimate Tea Partiers were ready for these “decaf” counterfeits, peacefully surrounding them when they showed up and calling them out in comical fashion.

Conservatives are Domestic Terrorists

Others have taken to the gutter deeper still. Most recently it was Bill Clinton with his lip-bitingly ominous warning that Tea Party conservatives and talk radio will cause another Oklahoma City. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla) issued a scathing statement, calling Clinton’s remarks “unconscionable,” and chided the former president: “This is an over-the-top effort to try to stop a movement of people who aren’t amenable to supporting Obama programs, like cap and trade, government-run health care and closing Gitmo.”

And then there’s the Alabama Alinskys. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hard-left Montgomery-based outfit that claims to “monitor hate groups and racial extremists,” remains the liberal media’s go-to smear merchant. Perhaps more than any other group, the SPLC has overplayed its hand in vilifying opponents of Uncle Sam’s extreme makeover.

SPLC director Mark Potok, for instance, compared Tea Partiers to “domestic terrorists,” saying they’re “…shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.”

Filed under “absurd acts of transparent desperation” – the SPLC recently lumped-in with the KKK, neo-Nazis and “potentially violent” militia groups, a list of 40 high profile conservatives – to include three sitting U.S. representatives – who are apparently facilitating sedition (a federal offense).

Among the treasonous “enablers” of the “antigovernment patriot movement” (read: Tea Partiers and pro-life/pro-family Americans) are Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn); Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex); Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga); Glenn Beck (Fox News host); Judge Andrew Napolitano (Fox News legal analyst); and Joseph Farah (Editor of

Seriously, guys? The SPLC would save us all time and energy if it simply released a list of conservative pundits, politicos and organizations that are not on its official “right-wing watch list.”

Perhaps the one charge SPLC nailed is that America is currently experiencing a “far-right resurgence” (read: conservative comeback). The good news is that such dishonest smears are causing the SPLC – already hemorrhaging credibility – to just bleed-on-out.

Mainstream media, you’re on official notice: Continue to cite the activist “analysis” of this discredited gang of kneecappers at your own peril. You risk losing completely, your own already vanishing credibility.

I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

In the meantime, what these panicked “progressive” pixies fail to understand, is that the more they malign the ever-growing millions of red-blooded, God-fearing Americans who feel compelled to push back against Obama’s weighty radicalism – the more they humiliate and embarrass themselves.

The more the left attempts to marginalize our nation’s center-right mainstream with disingenuous charges of “racism,” “homophobia” and “potential violence” – the more it marginalizes itself.

Still, I say marginalize away. Political self-neutering may just be these frowny clowns’ one true act of patriotism.