MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

PAUL: I am not in favor of any discrimination of any form. …

…In the totality of it, I’m in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that’s, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

Right answer:

The Civil Rights Act should have been passed by the states.If you believe that the Constitution allows the federal government to pass  the laws that you are passionately for, you should be prepared to accept the laws that you are passionately against. By passing this law we created a precedent to pass racial laws. All it needs is a combination of a bad president and a bad Congress, and, maybe, a bad Supreme Court.

If you don’t like a state law you can move to another state. Where will you move when your race or your nationality is outlawed?

Depending on a state, a private business may or may not have the state right to say we don’t serve black people or KKK members. But this question should not be a business of the federal government.

Other questions

Rand Paul should answer similarly to most of other “Got Ya” issues, such as abortion and gay weddings. “I am running for a position in federal government and according to the Constitution this issue shouldn’t be the federal government business.”

Why this is the right answer?

This is not only a correct legal position, but also moral – because it protects other individuals with whom you disagree. This is also the right practical position – it’s often hard to predict all, intended or unintended consequences of a law. So, the same way as in evolution, it’s great to be able to test new laws in smaller population size. such as states. if the law is good – all other states will accept it. If the law is bad – the damage will be not be done to the entire country.

I think Krugman’s point is a lot stronger in the opposite direction. Large governments do not work because they require incorruptible politicians.
The whole point of libertarianism is to NOT have politicians or at least keep their number and influence as minuscule as possible.

The facts

Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.

Counterarguments

His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:

1. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
2. Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
3. Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
4. Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
5. Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
6. It wasn’t torture.
7. It was perfectly legal.
8. Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
9. In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.

My thoughts

1. So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
2. I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
3. Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
4. This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
5. This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
   My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you.
6. I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
   Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.)
7. On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
8. We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
9. I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.

This article was also published on OpEdNews.

“rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.“

The report comes on the footsteps of a Missouri Information Analysis Center secret guide for state troopers saying that “Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.” The center was created by the Department of Homeland Security.

I am afraid to say that Obama administration is on the path to make America a police state, the path started by Bush administration. Instead, I’ll just quote Khrushchev who discussed our situation in his famous secret speech:

“OBAMA’S … concept “RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS” … automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of DEMOCRATIC legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with OBAMA, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. The concept “RIGHT WING RADICALS” actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one’s views known on this or that issue, even [issues] of a practical nature. On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the “confession” of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, “confessions” were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of DEMOCRATIC legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals — [persons] who in the past had defended the Party line — became victims.

We must assert that, in regard to those persons who in their time had opposed the Party line, there were often no sufficiently serious reasons for their physical annihilation. The formula “RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS” was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals.

It is a fact that many persons who were later annihilated as RIGHT WING RADICALS and people had worked with BUSH during his PRESIDENCY.”

“…He [OBAMA] discarded the DEMOCRATIC method of convincing and educating, he abandoned the method of ideological struggle for that of administrative violence, mass repressions and terror. He acted on an increasingly larger scale and more stubbornly through punitive organs, at the same time often violating all existing norms of morality and of AMERICAN laws.”

Krushchev even touched on our near future:

“Arbitrary behavior by one person encouraged and permitted arbitrariness in others. Mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, … without normal investigation created conditions of insecurity, fear and even desperation.”

Passover, Tea Parties, Slavery, and Redistribution? All of these are connected.

Only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. How does socialism differ from capitalism? Redistribution. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” “Social justice.” “Economic justice.” “Fairness.”

Paying for somebody else’s housing – redistribution. Paying for somebody else’s healthcare – redistribution. Paying for somebody else’s education – redistribution. Paying different amounts of income tax per person – redistribution.

Why do we celebrate Passover? Because a long time ago, one April, Jews got up and left the country where they were slaves.

What is slavery? Using force to get other people’s property. What is redistribution? Using force to get other people’s property.

Imagine two slaves. One complains about slavery and another does not. For whatever reasons – he may be afraid, or he may even support the idea of slavery. Does it make him less of a slave? If a slave does not ask for freedom and can afford to pay part of the product of his labor, is he not a slave? How can we then be against “… tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them and didn’t ask for them?”

I am not talking about small peanuts either. Those “wealthy” Americans are working an extra 10 to 20 years of their lives not getting a penny, just to pay income tax.

The greatest irony is that the vast majority of American Jews and African-Americans, people whose ancestors suffered extremely from slavery, people who should know better, are now in favor of slavery. In favor of redistribution.

“Sacrifice.” “Give back to society.” “Ask what you should do for your country.” “Responsibility.” “Fairness.” All that is smoke to cover and justify slavery.

It’s not that we have bad politicians. The problem is that we are bad. The politicians more or less represent what we want. “Get the wealthy.” We have no shame for going after the property of others.

When you sit around your Passover Seder tonight, drink a glass of wine against slavery, against redistribution, for freedom!

Image courtesy of ibiblio.

There is little doubt that the U.S. is moving away from its main constitutional principle of limited federal government toward a tax/borrow/print and spend government usurping unlimited unconstrained unconstitutional powers. In the process the government destroys individual liberties unconditionally guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

How Did They Trick Us into Accepting the Mess?

We are on the way to a totalitarian and bankrupt (financially and morally) state. How did this happen? What was the technique the government used that tricked us into compliance and acceptance of the direction toward a “Bright Socialist Future”?

After all, by and large, Americans are proud, hard-working, freedom-loving, success-appreciating, charitable individuals. How did we become government handout and favors seekers, racial, sexual, and religious whiners, who-do-you-know what-group-do-you-belong-to and not what-can-you-do people?

The Cheburashka Scheme

After thinking long and hard, I came to realize that it’s all based on a single political technique, the Cheburashka scheme. It’s not that faced with a problem the federal government develops new and advanced methods for how to cloud our minds. They use the same technique over and over again. It’s simple and powerful. And it works.

It works on you regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and it works for the government regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat. It does not require a lot of work in selling another anti-constitutional, liberty killing, federal government expanding, money wasting government initiative. Of course, they use focus groups, polls, and speech writers to refine the technique, but they always end up with a variation of the Cheburashka scheme that a friend once told me.

Imagine a person, a young man, walking down a street in Moscow, say during the 80’s. He sees a young woman crossing his path. She slows down and opens her coat for a brief moment exposing her nakedness to the complete stranger. Then she wraps herself back up in her coat and walks away as if nothing had happened. Nobody noticed anything. The young man continues his walk when, in a couple of minutes, a man approaches him and asks: “Did you see Cheburashka?” “Yes,” replies the still somewhat confused young man. “Pay three rubles.”

So this is the scheme in its genius simplicity: provide a service that the person didn’t ask for and then present a bill.

(It is irrelevant of course that Cheburashka is a well-known Russian toy and a hero of many famous children’s cartoons, invented in 60’s by the Russian writer Eduard Uspensky. “Cheburashka” has the same relevance as Ella Fitzgerald’s chi-chi: “I can’t give you anything but chi-chi.”)

Cheburashka in the U.S.

How do politicians use the Cheburashka scheme? Here are a few examples.

“Did you see War on Terror?” “Pay.” “Did you see special programs for mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them?” “Pay.” “Farm subsidies?” “Social security?” “Drugs approval?” “Healthcare?” “Did your company receive bailouts?” “Did you get a low interest loan?” “Do you deduct your mortgage?” “Do you enjoy government-insured deposits?” “Pay, Pay, Pay!”

Like the young man on the street in Moscow, you are desperately looking around, feeling insulted, violated, yet left alone to the grace of your burglar. You realize that you are innocent but an integral part of the Cheburashka scheme: its target, its engine, and its facilitator.

So, I am not asking you to take an active position or, God forbid, resist or try to remove yourself from the scheme. No. I just want you to be aware next time when you are the target in the Cheburashka scheme.

Today, for example, the U.S. announced its intention to extend its power to seize non-bank financial companies. “… it’s a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they’re systemic,” said Geithner.

A Major Rule of the Scheme

An important rule in the Cheburashka scheme is to pretend that the whole thing is routine and insignificant. Like using innocent-sounding  words (“tools”) when taking away your basic liberties.  What comes to your mind? A screwdriver? A hammer? Sickle and hammer?  Remember Bush’s: “One of the most important tools to combat terror is the Patriot Act?” You do want the country to be protected, don’t you?

Now Obama’s publicani are asking for tools. Do you want the economy protected? “Did you see Cheburashka?”

———————
Cheburashka image from here.

Look at some of my favorite signs from this Friday’Teaparty:


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25

#26

Let me know if you know who took the picture, where it was taken, or who is holding the sign. What’s your favorite?

Look what I found on Internet:

All men are created equal. Therefore all persons alive on this earth are of equal value before the law.

Racism has no place on this planet, in any way, shape or form.

We reject positive action (or direct action, or positive discrimination) as a negative, discriminatory policy, which enslaves minorities within a social cast.

Believing in objective values, we reject quotas and other methods of social engineering. Work and functions must be allotted to those who are objectively best qualified for it, whatever their race, faith, age, gender or culture.

Striving for political neutrality, we have no business perpetuating socialist dialectic. Victims are people, who have been willfully and unjustifiably injured. Being born into a particular social cast, doesn’t constitute an injustice.

Of course, it is humane, honorable, and virtuous to help a fellow individual or a group ob people in time of need. It’s ok,  if your resources are exhausted, to ask other people to join you. But it’s not ok for person A to use person B to force person C to help person D,  especially if by doing it you are harming person E. That’s why I have doubts about affirmative action done by the government. After all, the whole idea of Publicani is based on the self-evident truth that all people are equal.

What do you think?