A Little Rebellion

The 'Ex-PATRIOT' Act - America's Berlin Wall for Tax Refugees

 

The Futility of Copyright Laws

Resistance to the IP monopolists is growing:

The Cybernormer group at the University of Lund has published a followup report from a 2009 study, showing that the current ban on sharing culture and knowledge remains utterly without public support, despite harshenings of the copyright monopoly law itself as well as of its enforcement.

• 61% of 15-25-year-olds in Sweden share culture online, in violation of the copyright monopoly.
• This fraction has not changed in size over the past three years.
• The fraction who share heavily has even increased somewhat, from 18% to 20%.

The results are conclusive; despite tougher laws against sharing knowledge and culture in the past years in Sweden, these laws have not even made a scratch in the attitudes around file-sharing. If anything, the activity has even increased slightly. In the Swedish experience, the social pressure is typically to be a good citizen and share, and not to obey the monopolies. The study agrees:

“We can safely say that the repressive legal developments in this field have very weak support in informal social control mechanisms of society”, says Måns Svensson, Ph.D. in judicial sociology, one of the researchers doing the study. “The social pressure is close to non-existent.”

Yet, the overall political trend has been tougher monopolies as well as harsher enforcement of them. Svensson sees a small dent in the behavior, but not necessarily the kind that leads to respect of the monopoly laws against the social norms – rather, many people find other ways to keep sharing and sleep well at night:

“Such strategies seem to have a minor deterrent effect on young people’s inclination to fileshare online”, Svensson continues. “However, without support in social norms, people tend to look for countermeasures, such as anonymity services. Or they turn to sneakernetswhen sharing media.”

(“Sneakernet” is a general term for offline technologies for sharing culture – such as bringing your two-terabyte portable hard drive over to a friend’s home.)

The researchers also note the overall implications on society of having monopoly laws that are this disconnected from the social norms:

“Of course, laws that lack societal support risk undermining people’s trust in democracy and the rule of law in the long run”, Svensson concludes.

This study – that harsher enforcement only serves to move file sharing into unenforceable territories, and even then, only in small amounts – is interesting in itself. But we should also take a look at the almost-two-thirds that share culture, and put that number in a household context.

Seeing that the 61% in the study covers people who directly partake in sharing of culture, a reasonable conclusion would be that practically 100% in this age group do it directly or indirectly – meaning that it’s usually one person in a household who does the file sharing, but all people in the household happily enjoy that culture once it’s brought to the household. When those who share directly reach as high a fraction as 61%, we are far beyond the saturation point where there are no more indirect beneficiaries of the activity. So while this was not part of the study, modeling on other social patterns, it would be a safe assumption that culture sharing has a practical 100% penetration in people’s daily lives in this age group.

This holds great promise for the future. The young of today do not accept repressive laws, and either ignore them or actively subvert them.

(thanks to @VicPopuli)

'War is a Racket'

Smedley Butler's classic masterpiece against war, empire, and the military-industrial complex is the perfect antidote to the flag-waving, red-white-and-blue statist fever of Memorial Day.

Sick of War: Europe Feels 'War Fatigue' While America Extends Afghanistan Commitments

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In his visit to Afghanistan over the weekend, French President Francois Hollande reiterated his commitment to pull out all French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year. Many other NATO members are agreeing with Hollande, and are urging major defense cuts as well. “The idea that we have to be a good policeman of the world has been totally discredited, and we’re going to stay home for a while,” said Nick Witney, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “War fatigue” is hitting Europe, but will it finally spread across the Atlantic to the U.S. as well?

Although I disagree with much of Hollande’s and other European leaders’ economic ideas, their public discussions of the financial costs of military intervention, support for withdrawal from Afghanistan and a changing role for their militaries is an encouraging sign. Their governments are deeply in debt and their economies are struggling to grow; a huge reduction in military commitments overseas is perhaps the best thing they can do to address their problems at home.

Meanwhile, while promising to abide by NATO’s 2014 withdrawal date and claiming that the war is “over,” the Obama administration has signed a pact with the Afghan government that would keep a heavy U.S. military presence in Afghanistan until at least 2024.

At the same time, Republicans appear to have no problem with the current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under President Obama or the levels of military spending. In fact, their only criticism seems to be that the president isn’t intervening or spending enough overseas. It is also ironic that the self-labeled “socialists” in Europe want to reduce government spending while the “conservatives” in America see anything other than infinitely increasing military budgets as appeasement and isolationism.

In other words, when it comes to those who have political power and those who influence foreign policy in American, there is not only no “war fatigue,” but an endless supply of war energy. But in a trend that appears to all too commonly, the American people feel a lot of differently.

In an overwhelming majority, Americans are sick of the war in Afghanistan, and of overseas war in general. When facing foreclosure, debt, and high unemployment, Americans are rightly wondering why it is in our interest to take sides in a Syrian civil war or to stir up hornets’ nests by pummeling countries with drone strikes. 

Besides, we simply can’t afford it. While borrowing almost half of every dollar, the U.S. government spends over $1 billion per day in Afghanistan and over $1 trillion per year to maintain a global empire. The Europeans are wisely facing up to the fact that they can’t afford their military obligations, and theirs pale in comparison to ours.

And speaking of Europe, the U.S. also has troops, bases, and nuclear weapons stationed all over Europe. Why shouldn’t Europeans pay for their own militaries and defense? Now that the Soviet Union has broken up, why is NATO not only not disbanded but expanding eastward? President Washington warned us about the dangers of entangling alliances and the tripwires for costly wars that they set, and it appears that NATO is now a tool for offensive military force and intervention, not a defensive deterrent.

The American people are sick of war. Although it is unlikely that a national politician will actually listen, basic economics dictates that this level of spending and military commitments cannot go on forever. And the quicker we realize this, the better off we will be.

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson Peace Ads

"I think that people want peace so bad that one of these days governments better get out of the way and let them have it." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

(h/t to Lew Rockwell)

Ron Paul Forming His Own Party as Obama and Romney Join Forces

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

With the party conventions and the 2012 presidential elections inching closer and closer, the media has been reporting on the constantly changing horse race between former Governor Romney and President Obama in great detail with weekly national polls, petty arguments between the candidates, and the vetting of each other’s pasts. Fed up with this coverage and the lack of attention to the real issues facing America, Obama and Romney have stunned the country today in announcing to join their campaigns and run together.

According to reliable sources within the administration, President Obama will make the official announcement tomorrow, telling reporters that Romney approached him about joining forces. 

“The governor told me that he is sick of the division in the country and bickering over pointless, inconsequential issues. And in order to bring the country together and increase bipartisanship, we are joining forces,” the president told reporters over the weekend. “Romney will, of course, run as my Veep,” Obama continued to chuckles from the press, “but I am absolutely thrilled to have his advice, guidance, and counsel.”

Since both Obama and Romney agree on almost every substantial and important issue, especially those with which a president has power over, rumors of joining campaigns have been circulating inside the Beltway for weeks. And top members of Congress, excited to finally move forward without gridlock, couldn’t be more thrilled.

“I congratulate Romney and Obama for putting the interests of the country ahead of partisan fighting,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said. “Their support for the NDAA bill, for torture, and the lack of concern for archaic notions of civil liberties shows that Washington is truly dedicated to fighting terrorism,” Graham added. 

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) sounded youthful as ever, saying, "I have applauded Obama’s willingness to use military intervention around the globe in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. And with Romney’s promises to increase the military budget by $8 trillion, Iran is next.” McCain spoke as he had his arm around Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke was also visibly excited, but showed a calm demeanor as he heaped praised on Obama and Romney. 

“Instead of bickering over emotionally powerful, but minor, issues, we have two statesmen joining forces to allow the Fed to have unaccountable power to print money, bailout banks and politically-favored industries, devalue the currency, and manipulate interest rates,” Bernanke said as he left his office on Sunday.

In response to this display of bipartisanship, Congressman Ron Paul has decided to run against what he calls the “Republicrat” Party. Fed up with the treatment Paul and his supporters have received from the leaders of the Republican Party, Paul has formed his own coalition against the Obama-Romney move.

In an intimate interview with economist Jim Grant, Paul made a final plea to the American people: “My libertarian views are pretty well-known, but now I am running solely under the platform of peace and the Bill of Rights. They are the War Party, we are the Peace Party...disaffected Democrats, frustrated Republicans, independents, Greens, and anyone who values constitutional rule of law now have a voice,” Paul told Grant with a slight smile. 

“Our coalition does not agree on everything, but we agree on what matters: and end to the American empire and a restoration of civil liberties.”

While the Obama-Romney campaign currently has about 60% support among the American people, Paul’s independent run has tremendous grassroots support and enthusiasm which should make this one of the most interesting presidential elections in recent memories.

UPDATE: Thanks to Lew Rockwell for posting this article on his Political Theatre blog (and thanks to Chris Klippel for submitting it!).

Another Reason Not to Buy T-Bills

Caesar's assets are full of Treasury bonds and bills (in other words, government debt).

Hey, at least he puts his money where his mouth is. While borrowing and printing money on the backs of his subjects to fund his empire, his portfolio containing millions of dollars worth of fiat paper money means he's going down with the ship when the US dollar finally crashes.

Just one more reason to keep your money as far away as you can from government T-bills and bonds. Not only are you helping the state continue its operations, but they provide small returns that don't even come close to countering the ever diminishing value of the dollar that results from all this debt and money printing. What good is a 3% return if the dollar is worth 90, 80, or even 70 percent of what it was when you first bought the bonds?

So keep buying that paper money, Caesar. Us cooky, fringe, paranoid libertarians will keep buying gold. 

Gold Tells the Truth

Via Zerohedge:

One of gold’s greatest powers is that it is a unit of account which cannot be fudged nearly as easily as the fiat all-you-can-print buffet.

Feel like your wages are buying less in real terms?

They are:

Feel like your dollar is buying less, even though the financial press claims that the dollar is strong?

It is buying less — but so are the other fiat currencies:

Feel like the housing bubble hit you hard?

It hit you harder in gold-denominated terms:

Feel like you have less disposable income?

You do:

Feel like U.S. treasuries are really falling in value, even though the popular press keep telling investors that treasuries are priced at all-time highs?

John Maynard Keynes, Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett all said or implied that gold was a barbarous relic. But what’s the barbarous relic? The precious metal that shows prices without a veneer of manipulation, or the paper currency that smudges the true state of supply and demand through money printing, thus misleading markets and society? Charlie Munger says gold is not for civilised people, but in reality gold may be the most civilised currency of all — because it allows civilised people to purchase insurance against the risk of civilisation failing.

A central bank can claim to have demonetised gold. It can claim gold is a barbarous relic (even while keeping thousands of tonnes on its books), or just an “instrument to hedge tail risk” (although Jamie Dimon surely disagrees — J.P. Morgan prefers to “hedge tail risk” by making huge speculatory prop bets on credit derivatives).

But gold is still gold. It’s still that same shining yellow metal that investors have for thousands of years held up as a unit of account and store of value, and a medium of exchange.

Central bankers can’t just abolish history. On the other hand, history may very well abolish the central bankers and their fiat currencies.

We Own You For Life, Citizen

How dare heroic capitalists and entrepreneurs not kneel in total and complete submission to the US government? Apparently, they didn't tear down the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain after the Cold War, they just moved it to DC. The latest from the Imperial Senate:

WASHINGTON -- Populist anger at Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship -- a move that could save him hundreds of millions in taxes if his Facebook stock gains value after the company goes public on Friday -- has inspired two senators to propose legislation that could hit Saverin with heavy taxes and bar him from ever reentering the United States.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) are unveiling the Ex-PATRIOT Act, which stands for "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy," on Thursday. The bill would force anyone who "expatriates for a substantial tax purpose -- as judged by the Internal Revenue Service" to pay a mandatory 30 percent tax on future capital gains. The ex-citizens would also be turned back at the border if they ever tried to come back.

"This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong," Schumer told reporters Thursday. "Eduardo Saverin wants to defriend the United States of America just to avoid paying taxes. We aren't going to let him get away with it."

Schumer called Saverin's behavior "outrageous," arguing that "Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him and helped him become a billionaire."

Schumer also predicted the GOP would go along with the measure.

"Why wouldn't they?" he said. Casey added, "I'd like to hear the reason why not."

According to his lawyer, Saverin renounced his citizenship in September, although his name just showed up on an Internal Revenue Service list two weeks ago, and has become a permanent resident of Singapore.

Marijuana vs. Alcohol

(via Libertopia)

Ron Paul A to Z: A Summary of RP Libertarian Political Positions

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Love or hate him, Texas Congressman Ron Paul just might be the least understood presidential candidate in recent history. To his opponents, Paul is stuck in the 19th century, a cranky closet-segregationist who wants to isolate us from the rest of the world and is prone to conspiracy theories. To his supporters (myself included), he is a Jeffersonian prophet and a true statesman, warning us all about the dangers of government power and defending liberty, peace, and a free economy.

Part of this confusion and conflation comes from the fact that despite being a 12-term congressman and serving on multiple committees in the House, Paul’s actual policy positions and philosophy are not fully understood. Is he “conservative” because he’s a Christian who supports the free market and economic freedom? Is he a “liberal” because of his firm opposition to empire and violations of civil liberties?

In order to do my part to help understand not just Paul, but libertarian philosophy in general, I put together a brief summary of where Paul stands on specific political issues taken from his speeches and writings.

Abortion: Paul’s views come from both his Christianity and his career as an obstetrician. He has sponsored legislation that would define life at conception at the federal level, arguing that it is a scientific, not political, statement and prefers no federal involvement. Opposes government subsidies for abortions, as well as a deregulated adoption market.

Bailouts: Paul opposed TARP, the financial bailouts of 2008, and socializing the losses of industries in general. In response to the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, Paul said “where many mortgage-backed securities and other similar assets are horribly overvalued. The market response would be to allow these assets to be sold on the market at whatever price they would bring. This would result in a shakeout of bad debt and a shorter, sharper correction than would otherwise occur.”

Capital Punishment: While supporting it earlier in his political career, Paul is now against the death penalty for fear that an innocent person may be executed.

Drug War: Firmly opposes federal involvement in the regulation of the sale and use of drugs. Supports medicinal marijuana, the pardoning of non-violent drug offenders, abolishing the DEA, and views drug addiction as a health issue, not a criminal one.

Economics: Supports free-market, “Austrian” economics, and opposes Keynesian economics and government intervention in general. According to Paul, the free market is the most humanitarian system in the world because it allows human beings to be free, produces wealth, and creates cooperation, order, and peace.

Education: Paul sees no authority for the federal government to be involved in education, and if elected president, wants to abolish the Department of Education. Paul supports homeschooling and decentralization of responsibility. He argues that schools should be accountable to parents, not to federal bureaucrats, and that subsidies increase cost.

Energy: Opposes subsidies to energy industries and wants the free market to allow producers and consumers to find the best sources of energy. He also believes that private property rights are a far better way of protecting the environment and resources as opposed to government programs like the EPA.

Executive Power: He argues that a president has important, but narrow functions specifically delegated in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. Paul Opposes executive orders that create legislation and the idea that presidents can wage non-defensive war without a declaration of war from Congress.

The Fed: Paul has been a thorn in the Fed’s side for decades, stemming from his Austrian economics background. He sees the Fed’s interest rates as price-fixing because only the market can determine the price of money. Paul supports competing currencies and a repeal of legal tender laws. He claims central banking allows governments to spend without limit and is the only way to pay for a welfare-warfare state as well as destroys the dollar’s purchasing power. His book on the subject spawned chants of “End the Fed!” at his rallies. Paul was inspired to run for public office after President Nixon removed the last gold-backing of the U.S. dollar in 1971.

Foreign aid: Government-subsidized foreign aid is an unconstitutional wealth-transfer. If people want to help those around the world, they should do so voluntarily through private charities, non-profits, etc.

Health care: Paul opposed Obamacare, Medicare Part D, and opposes any federal involvement in the distribution of medicine and insurance. He would like to see a much freer health care market (like the technological sector) where prices go down and quality goes up. Paul argues that government intervention cartelizes service and drives up costs.

Immigration: Paul supports bringing the National Guard (and other military forces) home from border disputes around the globe in order to better enforce U.S. immigration law. He believes immigrants tend to be scapegoated during tough economic times even though they provide more benefits than costs. He supports the expansion of private property rights and boundaries along the border rather than a fence.

Marriage: Marriages should be privatized. People should be free to contract with whomever they choose.

NDAA: Paul strongly opposes the provisions that give the federal government the authority to arrest U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.

PATRIOT Act: Paul was one of only 66 congressmen to vote against the bill in 2001, and has opposed it ever since. He has said that the bill basically nullifies the Fourth Amendment and gives the federal government too much broad power to wire tap without a warrant, monitor communications and financial transactions, and undermine basic civil liberties.

Taxes: Taxation is essentially the initiation of force, and Paul wants taxes to be as low as possible. Paul routinely calls for the elimination of the federal income tax and argues that private citizens should spend their money as they see fit, not as directed by politicians and bureaucrats.

Torture: Torture is not only immoral and uncivilized, but it produces little reliable evidence. It is unconstitutional and illegal as well. “It is un-American to accept, on principle, that we will torture its captives...” Paul said in a 2011 GOP debate.

War and National Defense: Since the beginning of  his congressional career, Paul has advocated a consistent foreign policy based on armed neutrality, diplomacy, and trade and a Christian “just-war” philosophy that argues that war is only justified in self-defense. He wants an immediate withdrawal from the multiple “hot” wars being engaged in, an end to the stationing of troops and weapons across the globe, and the U.S. out of NATO and the United Nations (see his collection of House speeches against empire, preventive war, entangling alliances, and interventionism).

Whisteblowers: Paul supports Wikileaks and Julian Assange, arguing that a free society depends on openness and transparency. He opposed the treatment of Private Bradley Manning and has said that under a Paul administration, Manning would be protected, not tortured and imprisoned without a trial.

-

I know I have probably left something out, but I think that’s a fairly objective summary of Paul’s opinion on a variety of important and relative policies and issues.

And while always making sure to remind us of the value of the Constitution and the authority and power it grants the federal government (and most importantly, the powers it doesn’t grant), Paul’s philosophy derives from the non-aggression principle. Neither liberal nor conservative, Paul’s starting point on any issue is the liberty of the individual, which leads to a rejection of force (whether government or private), property rights, peace, free markets, and civil liberties.

Although Paul will likely not be the next president (though I hope and pray he runs third-party), here’s hoping Paul’s message — and libertarianism in general — became a bit clearer for anyone unfamiliar with it. I firmly believe these concepts and ideas behind Paul’s message represent the future of American politics if only they are heard, understood, and spread.

More Casualties of the Drug War

Anyone who supports the drug war is at least implicitly helping sadistic violence like this to occur. These ruthless cartels exist solely because of the unbelievably high mark up of price that exists in the black market.

Why not let a legal, free market handle the supply and production of drugs? Even if one rejects the non-aggression principle and individual ownership of one's own body, would the alternative be any worse?

Without alcohol prohibition, beer companies aren't shooting each other in the streets; they handle their differences in court and in the marketplace because it's a legal market that is out in the open.

It's not perfect, of course, but it is far better than what would happen if alcohol was banned again. This is because freedom and the market always work better than coercion and the state.

End the drug war once and for all!

This is What a Revolution Looks Like

After sweeping delegates in the last ten Republican state conventions, Ron Paul has way more delegates than the media suggests. And after he was excepted to pick up a huge majority delegates from Oklahoma and Arizona yesterday, it looks like the establishment GOP is getting irritated.

From Charles Burris at LRC:

On Saturday Governor Mary Fallin was roundly booed by hundreds of delegates during her address to the Oklahoma GOP State Convention when she called on the assembled delegates to unite behind Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In a haughty and stentorian tone, Fallin said Romney was the party’s decided choice (as if votes in remaining contested state primaries and caucuses throughout the nation were already negated) and Ron Paul’s substantial grass-roots candidacy and wide support among the Sooner State party faithful did not exist. At this disdainful treatment the crowd erupted in volcanic shouts of “Ron Paul, Ron Paul,” and the governor quickly exited the stage. As for the rest of the convention's duplicitous proceedings, they would have made Mayor Boss Daley and his Chicago ward heelers proud.

From Kevin Kervick at Examiner.com:

The GOP in Oklahoma has some explaining to do.

As of this writing, the GOP convention in Oklahoma is being continued in the parking lot because the temporary chair ended the convention illegitimately before a roll call for delegate selection could take place. Party rules state that a convention can be ended if two thirds of the attendees approve dissolution. Apparently that did not happen, but the temporary chair adjourned anyway.

Instead of conducting a roll call vote, which is required by Party rules, the chair asked for a voice vote for a predetermined delegate slate that was favorable to Mitt Romney, despite objections from the floor. The reason provided for this decision according to the chair, apparently oblivious to influence from the audience, was that ‘It was the way they always did it’. This appears to be a clear case of Establishment GOP corruption because the insiders wanted to select a slate of delegates that was not supported by the majority of attendees at the convention.

Additionally, an observer at the scene said that after the convention prematurely ended, the lights were immediately turned off and the walls to the convention center started to close in on the attendees. Roberts’ Rules of order, which are supposed to govern the convention, were flatly ignored as the GOP pushed its autocratic agenda.

Contrary to popular belief, nominees for the Republican Party are not selected when the state holds its local caucuses. That vote is nothing more than a beauty contest designed to gauge the popular support for candidates. The delegates that select the eventual nominee are selected at state conventions. In this way, the candidate that has the best grass roots support and the most invested supporters often sees improved chances when the state conventions convene.

This is the way the Founders envisioned the process working because they wanted the citizens that were most invested in the outcome to have the greatest influence. They feared the tyranny of the majority, which is a flawed pure democracy system in which a special interest could galvanize a majority of voters to select a poor candidate who might be supportive of a particular popular agenda or be a favorite of a big money interest that can buy a lot of votes. This is precisely what GOP operatives seem to have attempted to orchestrate in Oklahoma in an attempt to force Mitt Romney on a group of delegates that wanted to vote for Ron Paul.

In Oklahoma, the party leaders made a complete mockery of the democratic process. According to many witnesses on the scene in Oklahoma, and with verifiable evidence from a live video feed from the event, the following violations to Roberts’ Rules of Order occurred.

·        Delegate credentials were never verified.

·        A convention chair was never appointed, which is required by Party rules.

·        Many motions on the floor and calls for division were ignored by the existing chair.

·        The temporary chair adjourned the convention even though the vote to adjourn was rejected by an estimated two thirds of the attendees.

From the Red Dirt Report:

OKLAHOMA CITY – “Not for sale! Not for sale!” and “Follow the rules! Follow the rules!” That is what was being chanted by Republican delegates and attendees of Oklahoma Republican State Convention, as it moved out into the parking lot of the Embassy Suites in Norman late Saturday afternoon.

Red Dirt Report received calls from UStream viewers from around the country after our name and phone number was posted filmed at the site of the rump convention. All of the viewers (and likely Ron Paul supporters) were very polite and informative and were wanting media to cover the unfolding events. 

As this political drama unfolded, emails flooded our Red Dirt Report inbox as well. Joseph wrote: “Romney tried shutting down convention. Ron Paul fighters conducting business in parking lot now.”

Marie Mentesana, a photographer for Red Dirt Report, was quickly dispatched to the scene of the parking lot convention in Norman and along with another freelance reporter were able to talk to a number of conventioneers.

As Mentesana explained: “The Oklahoma GOP was holding a delegates conference and they were not allowing everyone to vote. They shut down everything and left. They took it out to vote in the parking lot" ... and pizzas were provided by Ustream viewers.*

“People are mad," added Mentesana, who also sent us several photos from the scene.

In a voice memo Mentesana sent to us, one attendee explained to her that the convention was adjourned illegally and proper protocol was allegedly not followed by the party leadership. 

"We had to move it outside and adjourn it ... we were electing delegates for president," explained one man.

In the background chants of "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!!" filled the air. Pizzas were also being passed around to the hungry crowd.

Indeed, Ustream.tv/channel/suriyahfish# was streaming the rump convention in the Embassy Suites parking lot. Everyone was excited when pizzas were ordered for the excited crowd. Some pizzas were ordered for the folks by people in the Netherlands.

Axxiom for Liberty's Kaye Beach also kept us up-to-date on developments as day turned to night and a civil rump convention was conducted in the hotel parking lot.

It is interesting to note that Mitt Romney visited Oklahoma City right before the convention, which was closed to most media. Red Dirt Report was not allowed to cover that visit, despite being allowed to cover the Romney's prior visit to Oklahoma City in October.

Red Dirt Report attempted to reach Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Matt Pinnell Saturday night and we were unsuccessful. If we do hear from Pinnell, we will be sure to add his comments as well. 

UPDATE: As we have discovered (and suspected) it was UStream viewers who paid for those pizzas, not the Ron Paul campaign. There may have been some confusion on the ground. Regardless, people were fed and people were clearly working to make things right. We hope to have more information on this political drama as it continues to develop. Thanks again to all the people who contacted Red Dirt Report today!

UPDATE II: The rump convention adjourned at a little after 9:30 p.m. Freedom and liberty is alive and well in Oklahoma, despite the actions of some at the convention. The Daily Paul and UStream audiences really came through on this one. Thanks so much!! We have learned that Scott Mitchell on News 9's Sunday morning program Your Vote Counts will be discussing this incident and showing pictures taken by our crack photographer Marie Mentesana.

*Our photographer said in the chaos and excitement of the situation, she misunderstood who provided the pizza dinners. 

The Machinery of Freedom

A video illustration of David Friedman's classic work on libertarian philosophy, ethics, and stateless solutions to a multitude of problems.

 

Excusing the Murder of Children

An Obama drone strike in Afghanistan that kills 20 people, including a mother and her five children, is excused away by the Empire as "collateral damage." When the Empire spills blood all over across the globe, it's always a mistake. An accident. This is war, folks, people die. 

This imperial attitude and excuse for mass murder is "grounded in America’s central religious belief that the country has the right to commit violence anywhere in the world, at any time, for any cause," says Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald continues:

At some point — and more than a decade would certainly qualify — the act of continuously killing innocent people, countless children, in the Muslim world most certainly does reflect upon, and even alters, the moral character of a country, especially its leaders. You can’t just spend year after year piling up the corpses of children and credibly insist that it has no bearing on who you are. That’s particularly true when, as is the case in Afghanistan, the cause of the war is so vague as to be virtually unknowable. It’s woefully inadequate to reflexively dismiss every one of these incidents as the regrettable but meaningless by-product of our national prerogative. But to maintain mainstream credibility, that is exactly how one must speak of our national actions even in these most egregious cases. To suggest any moral culpability, or to argue that continuously killing children in a country we’re occupying is morally indefensible, is a self-marginalizing act, whereby one reveals oneself to be a shrill and unSerious critic, probably even a pacifist. Serious commentators, by definition, recognize and accept that this is merely the inevitable outcome of America’s supreme imperial right, note (at most) some passing regret, and then move on.

The crimes and blood lust of our overlords in DC truly knows no bounds.

Greenwald also discusses Obama's death robots being used in Yemen:

Yesterday — a week after it leaked that it was escalating its drone strikes in Yemen — the Obama administration claimed that the CIA last month disrupted a scary plot originating in Yemen to explode an American civilian jet “using a more sophisticated version of the underwear bomb deployed unsuccessfully in 2009.” American media outlets — especially its cable news networks — erupted with their predictable mix of obsessive hysteria, excitement and moral outrage. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last night devoted the bulk of his show to this plot, parading the standard cast of characters — former Bush Homeland Security adviser (and terrorist advocate) Fran Townsend and its “national security analyst” Peter Bergen — to put on their Serious and Concerned faces, recite from the U.S. Government script, and analyze all the profound implications. CNN even hauled out Rep. Peter King to warn that this shows a “new level” of Terror threats from Yemen. CNN’s fixation on this plot continued into this morning.

Needless to say, the fact that the U.S. has spent years and years killing innocent adults and children in that part of the world — including repeatedly in Yemen — was never once mentioned, even though it obviously is a major factor for why at least some people in that country support these kinds of plots. Those facts are not permitted to be heard. Discussions of causation — why would someone want to attack a U.S. airliner? – is an absolute taboo, beyond noting that the people responsible are primitive and hateful religious fanatics. Instead, it is a simple morality play reinforced over and over: Americans are innocently minding their own business — trying to enjoy our Freedoms — and are being disgustingly targeted with horrific violence by these heinous Muslim Terrorists whom we must crush (naturally, the solution to the problem that there is significant anti-American animosity in Yemen is to drop even more bombs on them, which will certainly fix this problem).

Indeed, on the very same day that CNN and the other cable news networks devoted so much coverage to a failed, un-serious attempt to bring violence to the U.S. — one that never moved beyond the early planning stages and “never posed a threat to public safety” — it was revealed that the U.S. just killed multiple civilians, including a family of 5 children, in Afghanistan. But that got no mention. That event simply does not exist in the world of CNN and its viewers (I’d be shocked if it has been mentioned on MSNBC or Fox either). Nascent, failed non-threats directed at the U.S. merit all-hands-on-deck, five-alarm media coverage, but the actual extinguishing of the lives of children by the U.S. is steadfastly ignored (even though the latter is so causally related to the former).

This is the message sent over and over by the U.S. media: we are the victims of heinous, frightening violence; our government must do more, must bomb more, must surveil more, to Keep Us Safe; we do nothing similar to this kind of violence because we are Good and Civilized. This is how our Objective, Viewpoint-Free journalistic outlets continuously propagandize: by fixating on the violence done by others while justifying — or, more often, ignoring — the more far-reaching and substantial violence perpetrated by the U.S.

Double Agent Plot Shows Everything That is Wrong with the CIA

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

As it turns out, the recent would-be underwear bomber at the center of a supposed Al Qaeda terrorist plot was actually an informant working for the CIA and the Saudi government. While the Obama administration used this news to claim how effective their anti-terrorism efforts have been, administration officials soon acknowledged that the plot was run by the CIA from the start and had never actually posed a threat. 

Not only is this incident a microcosm for much of the anti-terrorism efforts over the last decade, but it also reveals how Obama’s antiterrorism policies are actually greatly enhancing the threat of terrorism against the U.S.

This type of infiltration by U.S. intelligence agencies is nothing new. Since 9/11, nearly every single terrorist “plot” that has been discovered inside the U.S. was directly organized by the intelligence agencies themselves. 

According to a recent report by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkeley, the FBI “infiltrates communities where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out ‘lone wolf’ attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully materialize.”

In other words, U.S. intelligence agencies have been using taxpayer money to use borderline entrapment, organization, and infiltration to incite terrorist plots that they know are doomed to fail and they then arrest the individuals too foolish to recognize an informant.

By “thwarting” supposed terrorist plots on U.S. soil, and inflating the threat of terrorism, the agency involved not only has the opportunity to expand its budget among the 16 total intelligence agencies competing for funds, but it is used as a justification to expand policing and surveillance, restrictions on liberty, security theater, and the promotion of fear.

At the same time that U.S. intelligence agencies are manufacturing most of the terrorist threat, the Obama administration is pursuing policies that greatly increase this minimalthreat. Terrorism is a predictable response to foreign military intervention, and Obama’s liberal use of military aggression abroad can only enhance the chance of attack. 

According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are creating far more terrorists than they kill, and are the primary source for the growth of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The first underwear-bomber plot was a direct response to Obama’s 2009 cluster-bombing of Yemen. Similarly, in 2010, Faisal Shahzad attempted to bomb Times Square as “payback” for the horror unleashed by U.S. drone strikes in Shahzad’s native Pakistan. 

Since 9/11, Americans have been justifiably concerned about terrorist attacks. What is unjustifiable, however, are U.S. intelligence agencies organizing phony terror plots to exploit that fear and presidents using it as an excuse to expand counterproductive military intervention overseas. With election season approaching, it is likely that this fear-mongering will only continue.

Ron Paul's Lasting Impact: Austrian Economics Expert Jeffrey Herbener Calls for Elimination of Fed

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

The House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy is holding a hearing Tuesday morning called “Improving the Federal Reserve System: Examining Legislation to Reform the Fed and Other Alternatives.” There will be two Congressmen and five professors addressing the Committee about the Federal Reserve, but the highlight should be Dr. Jeffrey M. Herbener’s testimony, which was released yesterday. Herbener, a Professor of Economics at Grove City College, makes a brilliant and detailed case against the Federal Reserve and the justifications used to defend central banking, while providing much-needed alternatives.

The Federal Reserve attempts to establish interest rates (the price of money) and regulate the money supply. But as Herbener argues, this is impossible because a central bank lacks the profit-and-loss price mechanism of the market that is so essential to rational economic calculation. “By subjecting all production, including that of money and baking, to the test of profit and loss, the market renders an integrated system of production that economizes the use of all resources for society at large,” Herbener writes. 

Money, like any other good, is subject to the law of supply and demand and only the coordination of the pricing mechanism can determine the right amount of money in the economy. Without the regulation that the market provides, “production of fiat paper money must be regulated by policy;” in other words, by political influences and considerations rather than the desires of producers and consumers.

Defenders of the Federal Reserve make three central claims about paper money that supposedly trump market-based money: that it keeps price levels stable, that it prevents price deflation, and that it can accelerate economic growth. As Herbener explains, nothing could be further from the truth.

“Price stability” actually makes the task of entrepreneurs more, not less difficult. The changing price of money, regulated by people’s demands, can easily be anticipated by entrepreneurs in the same way that the prices of goods and services change. “Entrepreneurs can earn profits and avoid losses by anticipating these changes just as well as changes in prices of other goods. If they anticipate rising prices for goods overall, then they will increase their demands for resources by bidding up wages today. Likewise, lenders will insist on higher interest rates today.” Additionally, “two of the periods of most rapid economic growth in U.S. history were from 1820-1850 and 1865-1900,” where the purchasing power of the dollar doubled.

Central banking supposedly prevents price deflation, where consumers withhold their consumption in anticipation of even lower prices, which then restricts production and employment. Herbener smashes this Keynesian fallacy, arguing “people in the real world can only obtain the services of goods by buying them. They choose at some point, to buy a good even if they expect its price to fall further. This happens every day in markets for consumer electronics as people buy tablet computers, cell phones, and so on knowing that prices will be lower and quality higher in the future.” Falling prices of consumers goods, which benefit the middle-class and poor, are actually one of the best aspects of a recession! Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve, especially in the housing market, keeps trying desperately to keep prices artificially high.

Lastly, there is the claim that a central bank accelerates economic growth. But by regulating interest rates by political consideration and not the market, the Fed produces boom-and-bust cycles, not real growth. “Credit expansion suppresses interest rates below the levels determined by people’s time preferences and increases funds for investment beyond the amount determined by people’s preferences for saving.” Capital comes not from a printing press, but from production and savings, in that order. From the extraction of raw materials to the purchase of the final product at the register, every step must pass the profit-and-loss test. This is how capital, and real economic growth, is created.

I know economics can be a bit dry sometimes, but understanding these basic concepts is absolutely vital. And this is where the massive growth and influence of the Ron Paul campaign is so important. Although he is sweeping state delegates left and right in the presidential race, his real impact has been and will continue to be the spread of sound economics. Can you imagine a House hearing on the Fed with an Austrian free market economist like Herbener without Paul? Or Fed Chairman Bernanke hosting a press conference defending his printing presses against the wave of anti-Fed sentiment?

The rock of secrecy that has protected the Fed, fractional-reserve banking, and the pyramiding of debt is finally being lifted, and the American people don’t like the little they have seen so far. Thanks to Paul, rational economists like Herbener and many moredefending sound money, liberty, and free markets finally have a voice. This, more than anything, is Paul’s legacy.

Brave Woman Turns Back on Obama's War Propagandist

 

Ron Paul Wins Maine, Nevada, and Iowa

And is posed to continue to do very well as the delegate process finally unwinds after the meaningless straw polls a few months ago. Paul will likely get a huge amount of delegates heading to Tampa out of Louisiana, Alaska, Idaho, Washington, Missouri, Minnesota, and has been campaigning hard in California and Texas. 

If this continues, there could (fingers crossed) possibly be a brokered convention this August where Romney fails to secure over half of the delegates. If that is the case, many delegates are "unbound" and can vote their conscience the second time around. It's happened before, and it could happen again. The crooked GOP and the warmongering Obamaites are scared to death of this possibility, but oh how sweet it would be to see the Paulians take over the convention.

Paul actually has a real shot, and his chances grow by the day. 

Kent State Shooting Anniversary and the Future of Protests in America

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Friday marked the 42nd anniversary of the infamous Kent State shootings. When President Nixon told the American public in a speech on April 30, 1970, that U.S. forces had invaded Cambodia, anti-war protests erupted across the country, especially at Kent State University. Nixon called antiwar protesters “bums,” and Ohio Governor James Rhodes compared them to brownshirts and communists. Tension was building on campus, including some vandalism and property damage, and a few days later, Ohio guardsmen fired shots into the crowd, killing four students and injuring nine others. 

Over four decades later, should we be worried about another Kent State event and our ability to freely protest and petition? A closer look at the incident, and American history, is not a promising sign. 

Up until the Guardsmen pulled the triggers, undercover FBI agents were heavily involved with the protesters on campus, and even fired the first shots at the Guard units. The Guardsmen were nearly 100 yards away when they fired back and killed four students, including Jeffrey Miller, who was immortalized in this famous photo.

Jeffrey Miller after he was shot and killed at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

The U.S. government has a long history of not only infiltrating popular or growing dissident movements, but of violently suppressing them. In 1789, George Washington personally led an army of 15,000 men to force Americans protesting a tax on whiskey to pay it. While only a few people were killed, the message was clear: Refusing to pay a tax on British tea was an act of bravery, but refusal to pay a tax on American whiskey was an act of insurrection. And just one year prior, Congress signed a bill that outlawed public criticism of them.

In his 1869 book American Bastille, John Marshall chronicled the U.S. government’s response the huge amount of dissent and protest, in the North and the South, to the Lincoln administration’s violations of civil liberties and law during the Civil War. Mass arrests and executions without trials were a common response to anyone who dare protest the president.

After World War I, over 40,000 veterans and their families gathered in Washington, D.C., demanding the money and benefits that the U.S. government promised them for fighting the war in Europe. Eventually, a platoon of six Army tanks led by General Douglas MacArthur quickly squashed the protest.

More recent incidents at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, prove the lengths the U.S. government will go to use deadly force against American citizens to stifle dissent and enforce its dictates. 

What’s going to happen when another swell of brave veterans stage mass protests against the post-war treatment they have received? Or when the global debt bubble pops and the Social Security checks can’t buy much of anything thanks to the devaluation of the currency? The passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and H.R. 347, two bills that made our vanishing Bill of Rights even weaker, are not good signs for the future of any mass protests.

But more than the brute force of government power in suppressing dissent, I fear that the unnecessary and artificial Left-Right divide in America will provide all the enforcement needed. When unarmed Occupy protesters across the country are pepper-sprayed and beaten, “conservatives” revel and cheer. When right-wingers are labeled as seditious by the Department of Homeland Security, “liberals” get giddy. The Left and Right battle every few years over control over the force of the state and use or threaten its use against each other’s perceived interests. Who needs the NDAA when you have Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity?

The Kent State shootings should be a reminder of the dangers of government force and government power and the lengths governments will go to violently defend their interests and oppose dissent. Ron Paul is the only candidate in the 2012 election who has adopted this message as a central part of his campaign. As Paul suggests, the most effective form of policing and enforcement comes not vertically from the state, but horizontally from the artificial divisions that are created between us by the media, popular culture, and political demagogues that pit us against each other while ignoring the real enemy: political power wielded over others.

Top 10 Most Amazing Ron Paul Campus Stump Speeches

New PolicyMic article about Paul's best stump speeches so far as he continue to travel across the country, giving the greatest speaking tour on behalf of peace, sound economics, and the Bill of Rights in history.

Is There a War on Science?

Fellow PolicyMic'er Cameron English has a great post up today where he interviews Dr. Alex Berezow, editor of RealClearScience.com, about Berezow's new book, "science journalism, and the relationship between science and politics."

Cameron English (CE): After earning a Ph.D. in microbiology, why did you go into science journalism instead of an academic research career?

Alex Berezow (AB): About two-thirds of the way through grad school, I realized that I loved science, but not research. Scientific research is one of those pursuits where you become such a highly specialized expert, that only a handful of other people in the world know the field as well as you do. That didn’t really appeal to me. I’m a “big picture” guy, and I was interested in too many different topics (including ones outside of science) to spend my entire career studying one molecule. So, I shifted gears when I left grad school.

CE: What do you look for when choosing articles to feature on RealClearScience?

AB: Primarily, we try to choose articles that are accurate, interesting, relevant, and within what we would consider to be mainstream scientific thinking. We try to avoid articles that we feel violate those general guidelines, and we also try to avoid articles we feel are purely hype or an exaggeration.

CE: What do you think about the current state of science journalism? 

AB: Science journalism went through a rough patch several years ago when many news outlets dropped their science coverage. However, science journalism appears to be making a comeback. One very good development has been the willingness of scientists to blog about research or other relevant topics. Many scientists are gifted communicators, and the explosion of blogging has helped reenergize science writing.

CE: Some science writers, Chris Mooney for example, claim that Republicans are anti-science. Are Mooney et al. correct?

AB: No. Holding anti-science beliefs is truly a bipartisan phenomenon. There isn’t anything unique about Republicans who hold anti-science beliefs because some Democrats have their own pet causes that are contradictory to mainstream science. I actually wrote an article about this in USA Today.

CE: In another recent column, you said scientists and libertarians are a lot alike. How so?

AB: I think more so than any other political ideology, libertarians are driven by a small set of easily defined beliefs (mostly based on enhancing personal freedom) with a focus on reality. This is similar to the scientific method: Rely on a small set of easily defined premises (the scientific method) with a focus on data. Libertarians, just like scientists, aren’t afraid to be contrarians. If the data doesn’t support a policy, throw it out.

That’s why many libertarians have rejected the war on drugs, interventionist foreign policy, or promotion of economic equality. In my opinion, more so than any other ideology, libertarians (again, just like scientists) deal with the world the way that it is, rather than the way they want it to be. Whether or not I actually agree with their conclusions, I almost always find their arguments intellectually appealing.

CE: Tell us more about your book.

AB: Every election cycle, we routinely hear that conservatives are anti-science, but the anti-science beliefs of progressives are almost never scrutinized. It is true that some conservatives hold anti-science beliefs, most notoriously in regard to evolution, climate change, and human embryonic stem cell research. But some progressives have their own anti-science beliefs. 

Among their ranks, you will find influential people and politicians who are anti-vaccine, anti-Western medicine, anti-animal research, anti-nuclear power, anti-genetic modification, anti-science education reform, anti-technology, etc. My co-author (Hank Campbell, the founder of Science 2.0) and I wanted to throw back the curtain on anti-science progressive beliefs. Our goal is not to defend conservatives or demonize all progressives. Instead, our goal is to tell, as Paul Harvey might say, “the rest of the story.”

CE: Are Americans ignorant of science? If so, what do we do about it?

AB: One study showed that Americans were 28% scientifically literate, while China was 3% literate. Our K-12 education system is decidedly mediocre, but our higher education is the best in the world. Certainly, we have room for improvement, but the sky isn’t falling either.

CE: What science topics are people most misinformed about? 

AB: That’s really hard to say. I think a lot of people could benefit from a little more scientific knowledge in everything from biology and chemistry to astronomy and physics. Many scientific issues today are interdisciplinary. To truly understand genetics, you need a solid grasp of biology and chemistry. To understand medical news, you need a basic grasp of statistics and epidemiology. To understand nuclear power, you need a basic grasp of physics. And to understand any of those fields, you need a fundamental understanding of math and logic. So, I guess my advice would be: Study hard in school and keep learning throughout life!

CE: Is there a conflict between religion and science? 

AB: Absolutely not. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions. Science asks, “How?” and religion asks, “Why?” Because of that, they use fundamentally different tools. That’s why it is often illegitimate to apply the tools of science to religion and vice versa.

CE: It's definitely a good idea to learn about science from celebrities, right? (Sorry, I had to ask.)

AB: The trustworthiness of a celebrity is inversely proportional to how often they speak in public.

Marijuana Legalization Being Crushed By Special Interest Groups

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

It truly makes absolutely no sense that marijuana is illegal in this country. It is a naturally occurring weed, serves many medical benefits, is virtually harmless, public polls show a growing favorability to at least decriminalization, and it is finally no longer becoming a fringe issue. Even President Obama had his drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, tell a liberal think-tank (falsely) about the drug war “reforms” that they have made to please their base. With marijuana legalization gaining more press and public acceptance, how is it still illegal?

A huge reason is that there are very influential special interests that make sure the drug war is being fought with vigor. A recent Republic Report by Lee Fang lists the top five industries and groups that spend lots of money lobbying various levels of government against any law or reform on the side of more freedom. Police unions helped California’s Prop 19 fail; Prison corporations back pro-drug war candidates and harsh sentencing; the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries spend millions blocking their cheaper, safer possible competition; and prison guard unions help make sure the prisons are filled with non-violent drug offenders.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that a few, well-connected special interests have more sway in policy than the larger voice; this is the nature of a corporatist economic system combined with a powerful, centralized state. Contrary to public school folklore, more often than not the state protects wealthy and established interests at the expense of consumers and the little guy, wrapping it in the rhetoric of “the public good.”

For example, almost 75% of all farm subsidies go the richest 10% of farmers. Since 9/11, the U.S. government has spent $8 trillion on “defense,” which has been one large welfare transfer from the American people to politically popular corporations. Federal regulations tend to be enacted not from a bottom-up, democratic concern for safety but by special interests. Wal-Mart supports government medicine and minimum wage laws, and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries helped pass Obamacare, which included a mandate to purchase their services. Although hemp can produce textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, and ropes with less cost and less pollution, yet politically-connected industries lobbied the government to ban it.

There are countless other examples, but the reason that this phenomenon occurs is because of the state’s ability to initiate force and the incentives this creates for well-connected interests that cozy up to it. Special interests spend money lobbying for benefits that will reap them huge and nearly perpetual rewards, with rules and regulations backed up by the aggression of the state. 

But without this centralized multi-trillion-dollar-a-year auction, special interests would actually have to compete in the market. And it’s easy to see why they are afraid of such a thing. Not only is the market unpredictable, spontaneous, and filled with the ever-changing desires of customers, but without the force of government power propping them up, they may find themselves quickly irrelevant and out of business. 

In the market, customers might soon find that marijuana is a less dangerous vice than alcohol and a far safer medicine than prescription pills. State police, too, might even be out of a job once people are no longer forced to pay for their services and have competition and options for their security and protection. 

Like so many aspects of the economy and society, marijuana prohibition is an example of state power colluding with special interests to prevent the market and the demands of the many from gaining traction. But without this centralized coercive state, special interests would have to rely on pleasing customers, not lobbyists, to gain influence, and we’d all be better off.

More Iran War Lies

While many chickenhawks screech from their ivory government towers and media megaphones to wipe Iran off the map for refusing to properly kneel before the US government, there have been countless lies and distortions. Everything from their supposed "nuclear program," Hezbollah agents in the Western Hemisphere, their desire to bomb Israel, and their supposed crazed lust to go down in an Islamic suicidal fire are all nothing more than war propaganda (see Gareth Porter's indispensable reporting).

But not only are the blood-soaked, forked-tongued minions of the Empire and their shills in the media lying about the pretext for war with Iran, they're willing to underestimate the damage that would occur in the event of such a horrific event. According to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, US and Israeli officials are deliberately underestimating Iran's ability to fight back and how devastating a war with Iran would be.

A New York Times story on March 19 reported that there might be “perils” for the U.S. in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran and warned that “it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation” with “dire consequences for the region and for United States forces there.” The story received wide play in the media, a respite from the barrage of persistent press coverage that has been portraying a new Middle East war as both inevitable and a legitimate response to a burgeoning threat. The conclusion, based on the outcome of the Internal Look war games concluded in early March, is not particularly surprising, as many inside and outside the government have long been arguing that it would be impossible for Washington not to get involved in such a conflict given the U.S. military presence in the region and expected pressure from Israel and its friends.

But the real story of the still-classified war games, which were designed primarily to test internal communications and response coordination between Central Command in Tampa and operational units in the Middle East, was the ability of the Iranians to counterattack effectively against American forces and U.S. regional allies. The Netanyahu government has been arguing that any Iranian response to an Israeli air attack would be manageable, with few casualties among Israelis, because Iran would fear an escalation that would bring U.S. forces to bear. Yet even modest retaliation from Iran would almost unavoidably draw the U.S. into the fray. The war games tested a number of scenarios in which U.S. forces were hit either deliberately or by accident, producing a reaction from Washington that included sustained bombing of Iranian coastal defenses and nuclear sites, which quickly escalated into a full-scale regional conflict.

The war games demonstrated that the United States Navy would have considerable problems in dealing with Iranian offensive operations in the narrow waters of the Straits of Hormuz. Iran is believed to have more than 5,000 mines available, many of modern design and exceedingly difficult to detect, sweep, and disarm. The Iranian Navy has also become adept at small-boat swarming tactics, in which large numbers of light vessels attack larger warships in what have been described as suicide runs. U.S. warships have been training to deal with such tactics and it is believed that they can counter them somewhat effectively, but the games revealed that there is a high probability that American vessels will be sunk with considerable loss of life. Iranian cruise missiles also pose a threat. Iran has Chinese sea-skimmer models and has also developed its own variants. Again, U.S. warships have countermeasures, but sustained attacks at sea level combined with missiles that approach their targets vertically from high altitude could cause considerable casualties. In the earlier Millennium Challenge war games carried out in 2002, a combination of Iranian cruise missiles and swarming small boats employing innovative tactics and operating on internal lines defeated a much larger U.S. Navy squadron. The result was so disturbing that the game was canceled before it was concluded.

No-Fly Zone Over Chicago

At this May's Imperial NATO Summit, the politicians, generals, and bureaucrats in charge of looting domestic subjects of their wealth to feed the insatiable appetite of their bloody empire will be "protected" by a no-fly zone over Chicago enforced by a shoot-to-kill order. 

No-fly zones are one of the favorite tools of the American Empire, used over the skies of poor, defenseless countries like Iraq and Libya (is Syria next?). Now, as all empires do, it's coming to "the homeland" to intimidate domestic subjects.

Dissent and outrage among Americans with our masters is at an all-time high thanks to the Internet, free information, and spread of the ideas of liberty, and they can smell it. But no matter how many "no-fly zones" or police-state methods are used to huff-and-puff, they don't stand a chance against us and a message that is growing by the day.