The Hypocrisy of the State Regarding U.S. Soldiers

The hypocrisy of the state is deafening.

According to a December 2007 piece in the Washington Post, a U.S. soldier, who's recently got medical treatment for a "mental disorder" because of an alleged self-inflicted gunshot wound, was brought on charges of attempted suicide and "endangering the life of another soldier while serving in Iraq." If convicted, the 25-year-old Army veteran reservist could spend the rest of her life in prison.

Although leniency was brought against her, she tried to commit suicide again, underscoring the evils of the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars and unsavory and unsanitary conditions of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other VA hospitals like it.

The state can draft you, train you to be a murderous soldier (a government-paid hit man for the deified state), and send you off to a far-a-way land to fight a war on the battlefield, thus killing and maiming you in the name of "defending freedom and democracy." But once you try to commit suicide and put other soldiers like you out of their misery, the state turns on you and becomes your enemy while building a vile and diabolical case against you.

That's hypocrisy of the worst kind. No wonder the state is its own worst enemy.

Global Bank Run by Monday

Here's an interesting excerpt from Marketwatch:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Acting quickly to prevent a run on major global financial firms, the Federal Reserve cut its discount rate by a quarter percentage point to 3.25% and offered to lend money to a longer list of firms than ever before.

I think the GOP might want to consider switching its support of John McCain to Ron Paul.

Pepsi Raw the New Pepsi?

Pepsi, which is a subsidiary of parent company PepsiCo, is launching a new product called Pepsi Raw, which will be arriving in England first and then most likely the U.S. This new product basically replaces the high fructose corn syrup, which is, by all medical standards very unhealthy, with cane sugar.

Although cane sugar is far from a perfect healthy option next to corn syrup and even aspartame, it will certainly be an improvement over their current line of drinks like Diet Pepsi, Diet Pepsi Max, Pepsi One, etc. Moreover, this cane sugar version of the product will be competing with a cane sugar product that's already in the U.S. -- Jones Soda.

The Booming Gold

Investments in gold have been soaring in a crazy fashion. Although it recently skyrockted to a $1,000 an ounce, now it has gone up to $1,030 an ounce.

This is a reflection of the ever-deteriorating U.S. dollar, thanks to the ominous Fed and its quasi-governmental, monopolistic practices, including its unabated expansion of the money supply. The demonetization of our money is at hand.

The Bear Sterns Bailout Epitomizes Our Ever-Growing Economic Fascism

The recent federal bailout of Bear Sterns by pro-state, pro-government financial firm JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve (a quasi-public central bank that was propped up by the U.S. federal government and many international bankers in 1913) epitomizes and even unveils our never-ending growing system of economic fascism, which is currently under the rubric of "capitalism."

Bear Sterns, for those of you who are not aware, is a colossal mortgage investment bank which has been crumbling financially because of its ties to securities firms supported by shady subprime mortgages. This firm, which has been in business for 85 years, also had two hedge funds that drowned in a sea of red ink last summer, shows exactly how the U.S. federal government, under the rule of George Bush II, has embraced capital as an excuse for the government to intervene with capitalism.

Let's call a spade a spade for once and for all. The subprime crisis has always been the by-product of the wedded government and business intervention. The policies, which are the heart of the problem, are devised to bring assistance to the housing industry and financial lenders who are responsible for writing the mortgages. Unsurprisingly, the economic and financial chickens are coming home to roost. The huge lenders and investors, which have always been attracted to the globs of federal government intervention in the financial sector and the subsidies attached to them, are now mired in this mess. After all, although they are specialized in securitized mortgages, they are completely in over their heads, yet they will collect their bailout check under the "we the big firms can't fail" doctrine. This undoubtedly will set the stage for another round of government interventions in the already government-coddled, government-regulated financial sector that will result in poor decisions. Moral hazard is what it is.

Does this have anything to do with the free market? Yes and no. This certainly is not a free market, but leftists, socialists, and many populists will call out against laissez faire. Why would they? Because corporatism, which is a government-subsidized, government-protected, government-assisted brand of capitalism, will erroneously, although understandably, be associated with laissez-faire capitalism. Kevin Carson, who describes himself as a "free market anticapitalist," is known to have said, "If this is the free market is, then I'm against it."

Why is this not a free market? Because the free market is a profit and loss system devoid of government involvement, control, and regulation, including privilege. If a business fails (and many do), it is supposed to fail, not to be handed over to the taxpayers to underwrite its losses. All we have at this point is a corporatocracy (which is a fusion of Big Business and the government), which is also identified as corporatism, ecoonomic fascism, and state (or crony) capitalism.

If we want to help allies of libertarianism, we must study and understand economics ourselves as well as our own history. One fact that substantiates the existence of this system is that profits are private, yet the losses are socialized. The term "socialized" means that taxpayers are coerced -- at the barrel of a gun -- to cover the losses without actually possessing any political clout.

We must reject vulgar libertarianism and embrace the free market and a return to limited government, personal responsibility, human liberty, and a foreign policy of interventionism. The recognition of abject failure in government because of its interventionistic policies -- both domestic and abroad -- will hopefully pave the way back to the federal republic that we once had.

Big Brother's Secret Meeting on Surveillance Bill

Big Brother -- errm, Congress -- gathered together for a clandestine meeting to discuss and debate a vile, diabolical surveillance bill which would, if passed by Herr Bush, reform the Leviathan's own anti-terrorism/pro-surveillance laws. This closed session, which is the first one since 1983, was requested by the governing body's own GOP minority.

Here's an excerpt of the CNN's coverage of the affair:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives met in secret session Thursday night to debate revisions to federal surveillance laws, closing off the chamber for the first time since 1983 at the request of its Republican minority.


President Bush says the proposal would 'undermine America's security.'

Rep. Roy Blunt, the House minority whip, asked for the closed session to use classified information to argue against a Democratic-backed overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

'I did have some information that I thought would help the debate, that rose to the secret level that all of the members otherwise would not hear,' said Blunt, R-Missouri.

Several Democrats raised concerns about the closed-door meeting but eventually agreed to the request. However, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said he would not stay for it.

'We ought to be proceeding with the utmost caution in going in this direction,' said Kucinich, of Ohio, a former Democratic presidential candidate.

The nearly hour-long session took place late Thursday after a security sweep of the chamber. The House plans to hold an open debate on the Democratic bill at 10 a.m. Friday.

Here's what the next two key paragaphs in the piece say:

President Bush and his GOP allies have spent weeks pressuring the House to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that took part in the administration's warrantless surveillance program after the September 11 attacks.

The Senate already has voted to protect the phone companies from lawsuits filed by privacy advocates, who argue that the surveillance program was illegal.

Isn't this latest stunt on the surveillance bill just a way for Congress to sell the country down the river and drop the latest salvo on our civil liberties as well as our human liberty at the same time? How are we really being "protected" in the name of fighting the War on Terror if this surveillance bill will be used to intrude upon Americans' privacy while ignoring the terrorists who really attacked us on 9/11?

The insulting part of this insanity is that the phone companies that willingly signed up for Bush's wiretapping program have been granted legal immunity from any civil liability for going along with the administration's imperalistic, nation-building, and hawkish orgies.

This, coupled with the Bush administration's corporatocratic indulgences (which are all part of corporatism - the fusion of government and private enterprise as one governing, ruling body), is indicative of why so many leftists and populists express a strong yet incessant hatred for and contempt for capitalism. As Kevin Carson, a self-described "free market anti-capitalist" libertarian, noted in recent years, these actions are elements of corporatism (a.k.a. state capitalism, crony capitalism, and economic fascism) -- elements that most Americans identify with our current corrupted system of capitalism. As he recently put it, "If this is the free market, then I'm against it."

As for the surveillance bill, if this is devised to "protect our freedoms," then their concept of freedom is atrociously and ridiculously skewed. The administration, in recent years, imposed upon the populace its "enemy combatant" doctrine, which states that the military can be employed to kidnap any American by taking him into custody, implement torture techniques on him, and incarcerate him for the remainder of his life without due process and any allowance of a trial by jury as stipulated and mandated by the Bill of Rights. If an American is subjected to be placed in military confinement (which is really imprisonment) in the name of the War on Terrorism, he will not be allowed any access to a civilian attorney and will be tried before a military tribunal, with the prospect of him being found guilty before the tribunal's panel of judges.

Not only can Americans be apprehended and imprisoned for the rest of their lives, this also applies to foreigners, even though the doctrine is touted only to affect foreigners who are believed to have committed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. This is definitely how the label is being used for these purposes. This is "protecting our freedoms"?

Not only that, habeas corpus has been eviscerated thanks to the passage of the Military Commissions Act. The law, of course, purports to deny habeas corpus protections to foreigners who are illegally detained without due process and even a trial by jury, especially when the individual arrested for committing the government-recognized sinful act of berating the state for its policies (even if that criticism is unpopular in the eyes of the state). However, the law can also be employed on American citizens who hold unpopular, alleged anti-American views. What makes those who support the law think that this will only apply to foreigners, whether they're legal or illegal? Do we really believe that the law is only limited to that scope? Of course not. There's nothing in the provisions of the MCA that limits it only to aliens.

This surveillance meeting makes it possible for the omnipotent state, as deified as it is, to promote its anti-freedom/pro-socialist, social-engineering agenda on us while shredding what's left of our human liberty here in America.