Trump’s Friend Calls For POTUS To Pardon Obama Admin Political Prisoners

The Bundy family is still being held by the federal government InfoWars – July 20, 2017

Good news for Western (so-called) “public land” ranchers in general and the Bundy’s in particular. Be sure to watch both videos. — jtl, 419

Trump friend and advisor Roger Stone calls for the full pardon of 14 Obama Admin political prisoners. Stone and Infowars are going to launch a petition to call for President Donald Trump to research their case and issue a pardon.

 

 

Posted in Bundy Ranch, Public Lands Ranching, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Why Our Kids Never Went To Public School–Fifth and concluding part

The series started with Columbus…and it went through the end of “reconstruction” after the War of Northern Aggression. It stopped after that. Later, someone asked Pastor Wilkins why he had stopped after that, and I never forgot his reply. He said “Because everything after reconstruction was Post-America.” In other words, everything after “reconstruction” was not the America the founders had given us–it was a whole different animal. He was right. None of us alive today has ever lived in the “real” America passed down from the Founders. We have lived in a clever counterfeit and most don’t even realize it. The War of Northern Aggression was our French Revolution, and like France, we have never recovered.

 

Very well put. Indeed, the day that General Lee walked out of that courthouse was the day America died. It was the day that it became “official” (through military violence that murdered over 600,000 Americans–the modern day equivalent of 5.5 million), from that day forward the FedGov was to be the sole judge to the limits of its own power. It is not surprising that it has since judged that there are no limits to that power.

UN-reconstructedly yours, jtl, 419

by Al Benson Jr. via revisedhistory

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

 

As my wife and I settled into the concept of home schooling we found that we needed some sort of structured curriculum that we could be comfortable with. Even in the late 1980s there were quite a few home school curriculums out there, though probably not as many as today. One of our daughter’s friends, one time, commented to us “You guys home schooled before home schooling was cool.” I hadn’t thought of it that way but I guess she was right. In 1986 it hadn’t been all that long since people in some states had had their kids removed out of their homes because they refused to put them in public schools. After all, for many officious bureaucrats Government schools were the sacred cows of the hour.

So my wife and I started attending home school book fairs and conventions when we could get to them. We started checking out books and listening to various speakers.

One thing I found with various home school curriculums was that the selection of history books was, for me, somewhat discouraging in the main, and the same held true for books I saw on government. Some of the books I saw at fairs looked pretty much like government school material with a few Bible verses sprinkled over it–just enough to make them palatable to home school families that didn’t know an awful lot of history (and weren’t likely to learn much with some of these books).

We finally came up with a curriculum for our kids, but I didn’t use their history material. For our son I came up with a five volume series by Clarence B. Carson called A Basic History of the United States. It was published by the American Textbook Committee of Wadley, Alabama, originally copyrighted in 1983. It was a good, solid basic U.S. history that didn’t dwell on a pile of politically correct drivel and I found that, when it came to the volume on the War of Northern Aggression, they got it right. Our son worked in that series until he completed high school. I also had him read current events articles out of the New American magazine and write out short reports on these.

For our daughter we came up with a book by Donzella Cross Boyle called Quest of a Hemisphere for American history. I liked this book because it went into the differences between republics and democracies–something most history books almost totally ignore. Our daughter was three years younger than our son and that seemed a better choice for her at that point.

In early 1989 we moved from Indiana to Illinois and my wife and I went to work for a Christian home school program there. The folks in our church in Indiana gave us a going-away party, at which they presented me with an electric typewriter. As I stated earlier, they were not bad folks, but I think some of what I did made them nervous and some of them were probably relieved to see us go. I seem to have had that effect on a couple churches over the years.

For awhile our daughter worked in the curriculum used by the home schooling program we worked in. One of the books they used for American history was an A-Beka book. This was a high school book and the title escapes me at this point. The home school program in Illinois used this as a two-year course in American history. So our daughter started reading in it and working through it and she finished the entire book in less than six months. Her comment to me at that point was “Dad, can we go on to something else for American history? This book was shallow.”

So we did. A friend I worked with lent me a home school American history course that consisted of 16 cassette tapes, a whole book of notes and a great big bibliography to go with it. It had originally been done as a series of lectures by Pastor Steve Wilkins when he was still in Forest, Mississippi. It was called America–the first 350 years. Contrary to much of what I had seen for American history over the years, this was history with some meat on the bones! This series had all the stuff most history books, even for the home school audience, either ignored or played down. The man who put this series together was not just a pastor, he was also a historian, and a historian from a Reformed Christian perspective. This was history our daughter could sink her teeth into–and she did–nothing shallow here!

We did the series together, tape by tape, late at night when it was quiet and if we came to something on one of the tapes she wasn’t sure about, we shut the tape off and talked about it. She sat with a notebook on her lap and took notes through the whole thing. She finished her home schooling with this tape series and both of us learned much we had not known previously. This was like “all the history the historians leave out.” The series started with Columbus, though Pastor Wilkins commented on possible European involvement here before Columbus–and it went through the end of “reconstruction” after the War of Northern Aggression. It stopped after that. Later, someone asked Pastor Wilkins why he had stopped after that, and I never forgot his reply. He said “Because everything after reconstruction was Post-America.” In other words, everything after “reconstruction” was not the America the founders had given us–it was a whole different animal. He was right. None of us alive today has ever lived in the “real” America passed down from the Founders. We have lived in a clever counterfeit and most don’t even realize it. The War of Northern Aggression was our French Revolution, and like France, we have never recovered.

Rev. Wilkins’ history series was pivotal in our daughter’s understanding of accurate American history and it made enough of a difference in her outlook that our grandchildren, who were home schooled, used this series also. The cassette tapes are long gone, but I think you can still find the series in MP3 today.

Had our children attended government schools, especially in the North, they would never have had the opportunity to learn accurate history. All they would have learned of history in the government schools would have been the “cunningly devised fables”, taught to government school students, and that bemuse most evangelical Christians in our day–in other words, it ain’t real history!

After working with the home school program in Illinois for several years, my wife and I moved to  North Louisiana, where the church we attend has a classical Christian school and where the youngsters are taught correct history, not politically correct history.

Some may think I belabor the history question too much, but history is the area my calling has been in, and I have learned over the years, that if you don’t get your country’s history (and the world’s) history correct, then you will most often come down on the wrong side of every political and historical discussion you ever get into because you will not have done the homework. Ask your average evangelical Christian, even in the South, what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over and 90% of them will say “slavery.” And that is the culturally Marxist reply. It’s not that these folks are intentionally Marxist, it’s just that they don’t know. The government schools most of them attended only ever gave them the culturally Marxist  answer to the question of what the War was all about.

Among evangelicals in our day (and before) this has been a major problem–in the main, we don’t know our history–and we will seldom get it in government schools. This is not said to belittle the efforts of those in government schools that try to teach accurately, but it is a sad commentary on the system they work for, that does not want them to teach accurately, no matter what the educational apparatchiks try to tell you. Until our evangelical brethren begin to understand this and remove their kids from the government school leviathan, not much will change. I have said this in the past, but will repeat it here in closing–if our view of the past is faulty, then our vision for the future will be also.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits Combat Shooter's Handbook

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) 

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

A Handbook for Ranch ManagersA Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

You might also be interested in the supplement to this Handbook: Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual.

Posted in secession, States Rights | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Latest Progressive Smearbook

The book is also an attack on libertarianism in general, as MacLean cherry picks quotations here and there from various libertarian-oriented writers, usually out of context, in order to critique and ridicule them. Oddly, there is only one mention of the most famous (non-academic) libertarian in the world, Ron Paul.

Over the time I took to graduate from high school and gain 3 university degrees (BBA, MS, PhD), I sat in many economics classes. Not once during all of that “public education” did I ever hear the names Mises, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo, et al so much as mentioned. That, in and of itself, should tell us something about the role academia has assumed in the Culture War. — jtl, 419

By via LewRockwell.com

Book Review: Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America by Nancy MacLean, New York: Viking Press, 2017, 334 pp.

The primary theme of Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean, a Duke University history professor, is that participation in American democracy by conservatives or libertarians threatens the destruction of American democracy by imposing restraints on the unlimited growth of government. She claims to have only realized this dire threat in “the early 2010s” when “something extraordi-narily troubling had somehow entered American politics” (p. xv). Rather than the usual “bipartisan” support for the never-ending growth of government by both parties, a few “actions” of a few Republican governors and congressmen “seemed intended in one way or another to reduce the authority and reach of government….”

To Nancy MacLean this was “a fire bell in the night,” to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson.

The alarming things that were so disturbing to MacLean were the actions of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker attempting to save his state from bankruptcy by restraining the political clout of teachers’ unions and other public employee unions; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s criticisms of the teachers’ unions in his state; opposition to proposals to allow voter registration without showing proper I.D.; and the existence of articulate arguments in opposition to more socialist central planning of health care (a.k.a. “Obamacare”).

Everything seemed to be going swimmingly, with the most far-left ideologue in history occupying the White House, and Democrat Party dominance of Congress, and then all of this happens. Leftists like Nancy MacLean claim to have been blindsided by political opposition that they thought had been completely neutered. So left-wing academics, armed with their generous government and (left-wing) foundation grants, immediately “tried to get a better handle on what exactly was driving this sortie from the right.” This sudden opposition to the practice of effectively granting unlimited powers to raise taxes to public employee unions, and critiques of socialized medicine, is un-American, un-democratic, and a mortal threat to the American way of life, she claims.

There’s no need to panic, however, for MacLean claims to have discovered the root of the problem. Other leftist academics have attempted to uncover some kind of secret and sinister “master plan” to transform America into the dreaded (by the Nancy MacLeans of the world) free society by investigating the writings of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and F.A. Hayek, she says. But with no avail. “[S]uch inquiries ran aground, because none of the usual suspects had sired this campaign” (p. xvii). “The missing piece of the puzzle,” she victoriously announces, “was James McGill Buchanan” and the Public Choice school of economics (p. xvii). This, she claims, is “the true origin story of today’s well-heeled radical right.” Without Buchanan and public choice economics, the “far right” would be “incapable of doing serious damage to American society” (p. xvii).

The mortal threat to MacLean’s cherished goal of the relentless push toward unlimited government (i.e., totalitarian socialism) that the public choice school supposedly poses is that it has taught a great many people a great deal about how government actually works. Once they understand the process, it then becomes possible to propose changes to the process—or to the constitutional rules of the game—that could re-impose founding-father-style consti-tutional limits on the growth of government. All those years of Hamiltonian manipulation of “the living constitution” by leftist government lawyers in black robes could conceivably be reversed!

Indeed, Buchanan himself often said that public choice was essentially a rewriting of much of the writings of men like James

Madison and Jefferson in the language of modern public choice economics (it was Jefferson who said that “the natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield”; and that government needed to be “bound by the chains of the Constitution”). He also was fond of saying that “no one could be a socialist” if they understood public choice theory. Perhaps Nancy MacLean is on to something here.

In Nancy MacLean’s mind, there’s nothing wrong with America’s government establishment employing vast resources educating people how to use the levers and processes of government to expand its size, scope, powers, and budgets. This is accomplished today with the help of the vast university system which has become one giant taxpayer-financed think tank for statism with only a handful of exceptions; through a “mainstream media” that seems every bit as propagandistic as Pravda was during the Cold War; hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats at all levels of government, every one of which is a propagandist/lobbyist for bigger government; a K-12 school system that is thoroughly embedded with leftist political correctness; huge armies of political consultants, lobbyists, and paid propagandists; a popular culture that endlessly repeats anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian, and pro-statist themes; and thousands of government-funded nonprofit organizations, from the AARP to the Wilderness Society, that promote more interven-tionism and less freedom. On top of that are private foundations like Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller that have showered leftist academics with foundation grants for decades, not to mention the contributions of socialistic billionaires like George Soros, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates. For years, the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. published an annual study entitled Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy that documented that for every $1 corporate foundations gave to a conservative or libertarian organization, between $2 and $3 was given to a left-of-center group.

All of this is apparently a proper if not essential part of American democracy, but not the writings of James Buchanan and other public choice scholars, and certainly not conservative or liber-tarian foundations that would financially support such research and writing, even if their multi-million dollar donations are a mere pittance compared to the funding of the Left. Hence the purpose of Democracy in Chains is to discredit and even defame Buchanan, the public choice school, and especially wealthy conservative or libertarian philanthropists like Charles Koch who have funded such research and education. The bulk of the book is a relentless critique, sometimes bordering on libel and slander, of James Buchanan and Charles Koch, the bogeyman of the American Left.

MacLean learned a great deal about Buchanan by spending what must have been weeks, or months, going through all of his personal files in “Buchanan House” on the George Mason University campus. (When James Buchanan and his Public Choice Center moved from Virginia Polytechnic Institute to George Mason University in the mid 1980s the old president’s house was allocated to Buchanan as his office and was named “Buchanan House”).

MacLean boasts of how Buchanan’s intellectual heirs at George Mason left the door to Buchanan House unlocked so that someone like herself could rifle through all of the Nobel laureate’s private papers and files and use them to write a book that attempts to defame him. (She does call him a genius, but an “evil” genius).

The book is also an attack on libertarianism in general, as MacLean cherry picks quotations here and there from various libertarian-oriented writers, usually out of context, in order to critique and ridicule them. Oddly, there is only one mention of the most famous (non-academic) libertarian in the world, Ron Paul. MacLean mentions in passing on page 144 that, in the late 1970s, Ron Paul once voiced approval of a Reason Foundation proposal for city governments to put city services up for competitive bidding.

MacLean’s critique begins with a chapter about John C. Calhoun, of all people, who is not even cited a single time in Buchanan’s magnum opus (with Gordon Tullock), The Calculus of Consent. I never heard Buchanan mention Calhoun when I took his Ph.D.-level Public Finance course at VPI in the fall of 1977, or when I was a colleague of his for a few years at George Mason University in the 1980s. If he mentioned Calhoun in any of his writings, I am not aware of it. Neither is Nancy MacLean, apparently, for she does not present a single footnote to make the point that Buchanan was somehow following in Calhoun’s footsteps.

Nevertheless, Calhoun did write in the same philosophical spirit as Madison and other founders, and MacLean quotes Murray Rothbard (p. 2) to that effect. Buchanan did consider much of public choice theory to be derived from the kind of thinking possessed by the framers of the Constitution. Her discussion of Calhoun, however, is often distorted, just plain incorrect, and even cartoonish. For example, she claims that the only people in Calhoun’s South Carolina who would have been harmed by the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which imposed an extortionate, 45 percent average tariff rate on imports, were wealthy plantation owners. The man who was supposedly Buchanan’s intellectual inspiration, she is saying, was a mere apologist for slave owners.

Such talk is simply a joke, for high tariffs on woolen blankets (100 percent), shoes, farm tools, leather goods, and myriad other consumer products negatively affected the entire population. Moreover, the Tariff of Abominations was a deeply regressive tax that imposed a harsher burden on the lower-income people whom MacLean, as a card-carrying leftist, claims to be championing.

MacLean is also factually wrong when she calls South Carolina’s opposition to the Tariff of Abominations “the first regionwide tax rebellion in U.S. history” (p. 6). The Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion (1791) and Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts (1786) occurred decades earlier. The American Revolution itself was in part a tax rebellion (“Taxation Without Representation!”). Did the American colonists fight a revolution so that they could maintain the system of slavery that the king of England had imposed on them? This is what MacLean’s logic, such as it is, would suggest.

These facts illustrate another falsehood in the book, namely, MacLean’s assertion that such tax protests “did not arise where slavery was absent” (p. 7). Yes, they did, and they were led mostly by yeoman farmers in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts who protested the imposition of national whiskey and property taxes.

MacLean’s apparent strategy here is to falsify history by insisting that all early-American tax protests occurred only to “protect slavery” for the wealthy “propertied class.” She quotes another leftist historian who wrote incorrectly that “the anti-government rhetoric that continues to saturate our political life is rooted in [support for] slavery rather than liberty” (p. 7). This would imply that all of the anti-government rhetoric of the founders, including Jefferson’s “train of abuses” in the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Thomas Paine, and much else was all designed only to “support slavery.” What nonsense.

She then makes numerous analogies to today’s libertarian intel-lectual critics of Big Government, arguing that they of course are not slavery defenders, but their motives are not much better—they are merely paid intellectual prostitutes defending the super-rich. The academic recipients of multi-million-dollar government or (left-wing) foundation grants, on the other hand, are assumed to be as morally pure and objectively honest as the driven snow.

Like all radical socialists, MacLean is a harsh, sneering critic of private property, following in the footsteps of Marx and Engels who called for the “ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY” in The Communist Manifesto. She repeats her mantra in several chapters that libertarian defenders of property rights are really only defending the rights of perhaps the top one-half of one percent of income earners—the wealthiest of the wealthiest. Not even the “one-percenters,” she says, but the one-half-of-one-percenters. Who needs private property if only the wealthiest of the wealthy, who became wealthy in the first place by exploiting the rest of us, benefit from it?

That was supposedly true in Calhoun’s day, as it is today, she insists. She cites Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, and Friedman as though she has read their writings on property rights, but she either hasn’t or chose to ignore them. Mises was especially clear when he wrote in The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth (p. 67) that “Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will…. It thus becomes the basis of all those activities that are free from violent interference on the part of the state. It is the soil in which the seeds of freedom are nurtured and in which the autonomy of the individual and… material progress are rooted.” Secure property rights are a prerequisite for market exchange, market prices, the division of labor, and the human civilization created thereby.

Like other advocates of unlimited powers of the central state, MacLean also falsifies the history of nullification and interpo-sition by asserting that the idea began with Calhoun, and was only meant to defend slavery. But as Tom Woods (2010) shows in his book, Nullification, the American colonists were the first nullifiers. Jefferson and Madison then adopted the concept in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that nullified the outlawing of free political speech through the Sedition Act that was being enforced by the Hamiltonian Federalist Party. Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, and Ohio nullified the chartering of branches of the Bank of the United States within its borders. New Englanders cited Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve to justify nullifying President Jefferson’s trade embargo and to decline participation in the War of 1812.

McLean also falsely asserts that Calhoun was the first to talk of two conflicted classes in terms of net taxpayers (producers) and net tax consumers. This, too, was not original with Calhoun, but was introduced to American political philosophy by Jefferson and others who were familiar with the writings of the French “Industrialist School” of such writers as Augustin Theiry, Charles Comte, Charles Donoyer, Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Benjamin Constant, and Jean-Baptiste Say (Raico, 2006). Nor was Calhoun the lone American writing about what is known as libertarian class analysis; William Leggett, the owner and editor of the New York Post during Calhoun’s time and a well-known abolitionist, was a prolific libertarian writer who also wrote of the injustice of empowering “net tax consumers” to plunder their fellow citizens.

MacLean really did her homework after spending all that time in Buchanan House, for a good portion of the book is a biographical sketch of James Buchanan, beginning with his birth in Gun, Tennessee in 1919. She briefly discusses his intellectual exodus from Middle Tennessee State Teachers College (triple major in English, Economics, and Mathematics), his time on the staff of Admiral Nimitz during World War II, the University of Tennessee (Master’s degree in Economics), the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, UCLA, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and George Mason University. She discusses at length the Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy and Social Philosophy that Buchanan founded at the University of Virginia, which produced many fine scholars in the classical liberal tradition.

Throughout the book, MacLean strains mightily to distort Buchanan’s views to make him sound as outlandish as possible. For example, on page 49 she quotes Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia as having been opposed to any government borrowing at all for “public investments” and then writes that Byrd “would have applauded the book on public debt that Buchanan was writing at the time.” She is implying here that Buchanan shared this view of debt, which he did not. If she had read Buchanan’s book on public debt she would have learned that he approved of government debt for infrastructure, for example, as long as the taxes to service the debt were earmarked for that purpose.

There is a long-winded discussion of the resistance to desegre-gation of education in Virginia in the 1960s, which seems totally irrelevant to the supposed theme of the book, or to anything Buchanan was writing about at the time. Again, her purpose here seems to be to argue that the origins of modern libertarianism are in the Virginia opponents of desegregation. “In these final hours of the massive resistance [to desegregation] era… can be found the seed of the ideas guiding today’s attack on the public sector and robust democracy alike,” she writes on page 72.

Another  outlandish  falsehood  in  Democracy  in  Chains  isMacLean’s statement on page 79 that “the major deficiency” of the Virginia School (i.e., the Public Choice School), is “the failure to search for empirical tests of the new theories.” If MacLean had looked at any one issue of the journal Public Choice she would have learned that this is unequivocally untrue. Public Choice became very mainstream, and Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize for his part in it, precisely because there had been hundreds, or thousands, of published econometric tests of its propositions. Bob Tollison alone, Buchanan’s most prolific student, authored and co-authored literally hundreds of academic journal articles that were econometric tests of various hypotheses drawn from public choice theory. I personally attended every weekly Public Choice seminar, and every economics department seminar, at VPI from September 1976 to June 1979 as a graduate student and can attest that at least 90 percent of all the papers presented there contained some kind of empirical test. MacLean’s assertion is preposterous.

It’s hard to believe that with all the effort that went into this book, sitting in Buchanan House for weeks on end, she never once looked at an issue of Public Choice on the shelf in Buchanan’s office.

Among the mountain of falsehoods in this book is the further statement on page 98 that public choice scholars involved in the rent-seeking literature “depicted as rent-seeking any collective efforts by citizens or public servants to prompt government action that involved tax revenues” (emphasis added). This is another silly falsehood. Buchanan and Tullock were not anarchists; they were proponents of limited, constitutional government who generally approved of the use of taxation for the constitutional functions of government. This viewpoint is quite pervasive in the rent-seeking literature for anyone who looks for it. This literature is highly empirical, as most of public choice research is, yet MacLean falsely claims that it only involves “hypothetical scenarios with no true research—no facts—to support them . . .” (p. 98).

MacLean discusses Buchanan’s departure from the University of Virginia after Gordon Tullock was denied a promotion to full professor for the third time, an act that Buchanan believed was an outrage, considering Tullock’s achievements and reputation in the economics profession at the time. MacLean basically slanders the late Gordon Tullock by quoting an anonymous person who supposedly called him a “twit;” writing that “he was an awful teacher;” and “his publication record—apart from the book he coauthored with Buchanan—was undistinguished.” He didn’t deserve the promotion, in other words, so there must have been some other reason for Buchanan’s departure from Virginia.

I took Gordon Tullock’s Ph.D.-level seminar course in Public Choice in the fall of 1977 with some of the survivors of the first year of the graduate economics program at VPI (about half dropped out or flunked out after the first year). The Calculus of Consent was one of the textbooks and Tullock, being a University of Chicago-trained legal scholar, conducted the class like a law professor—or at least like the Harvard law professor portrayed in the movie Paper Chase.

He would come to each class with a couple of questions that were of the sort that they could have been final exam questions, research paper topics, or even dissertation topics in public choice. He would arbitrarily hand one of us a piece of chalk, and instruct us to stand in front of the rest of the class at the blackboard and explain how we would go about answering the question. It became a team effort, led by the professor, to think through the problem. He was always helpful and encouraging, sharing his great learning with us. He was not an “awful” teacher.

As for MacLean’s smear that Tullock’s publication record was “undistinguished,” she should have taken ten seconds or so to Google “Gordon Tullock vita.” She would have discovered that by the time Buchanan and Tullock left Virginia Tullock had published six books, not one (The Calculus of Consent with Buchanan; The Politics of Bureaucracy; The Organization of Inquiry; Toward a Math-ematics of Politics; Private Wants, Public Means; and The Logic of the Law). In addition, he had published four articles in the prestigious Journal of Political Economy, four in the American Economic Review, and others in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Economic History Review, Oxford Economic Papers, Economic Journal, Western Economic Journal, Il Politico, and Social Science Quarterly, among others. All while founding and editing Public Choice and refereeing at least half of all the articles himself.

The second half of Democracy in Chains is mostly about Charles Koch, the network of conservative and libertarian organizations that he has funded, and his relationship, such as it was, with James Buchanan. MacLean accurately states that after spending many millions of dollars over some three decades, Koch’s efforts “produced few results” (p. 127). She details how Koch worked with Murray Rothbard to co-found the Cato Institute, but says nothing at all about how Koch later confiscated Rothbard’s shares in the organization and disassociated himself with Rothbard. No mention is made of this, or of the reasons why the two men had a falling out. She does get much of the Koch story backwards, however, by saying that Charles Koch insisted that his well-funded minions remain “uncompromisingly radical” (p. 145). That, in fact, is why Rothbard was booted—he was in fact uncompromisingly radical whereas Koch, who moved the Cato Institute from California to Washington, D.C., was not. He wanted to pursue a patently un-radical plan of trying to teach free-market and libertarian prin-ciples to the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy—at least in a watered-down and compromised form that would not be too offensive to them.

That has always been the Cato Institute’s business plan.

In the middle of her discussion of Koch, MacLean inserts a diversion chapter to take one more swipe at Buchanan by noting that he, like Milton Friedman, had accepted an invitation from faculty members to speak at a Chilean university after the overthrow of the socialist government there in the 1970s. (The faculty members were University of Chicago graduates). He offered advice to the Chilean students and faculty about a balanced budget, an independent central bank, and the importance of some kind of system of consti-tutional checks and balances. MacLean uses this narrative to repeat once again the ridiculous falsehood that “there was no empirical research” in the public choice literature (p. 158) in order to make the argument that Buchanan was spouting nonsense to his Chilean hosts. The main purpose of this diversion chapter is apparently to once again attempt to imply that “libertarianism” is really an evil, stealthy, centuries-long plot to benefit dictators and billionaires at the expense of the rest of society. And MacLean claims that it is public choice economists who lack facts and evidence!

One interesting and informative part of the book is MacLean’s discussion in the last two chapters of how Charles Koch and his lieu-tenant, Richie Fink, talked seventy-nine-year-old James Buchanan into lending his name to an organization on the George Mason campus that would become essentially a lobbying arm of Koch Industries. The James Buchanan Center, funded by a $10 million grant to George Mason University in 1997, was staffed mostly by non-academics who conducted “outreach” programs for “Senators, Congressmen, and state legislators, legislative staff and regu-lators….” (p. 199). Some academics were involved, but they were in the minority, writes MacLean. Most were apparently Richie Fink’s political cronies from the D.C. corporate lobbying world.

Buchanan was not happy with this arrangement. MacLean uncovered a September 17, 1998 memo from Buchanan to Fink in the files at Buchanan House in which Buchanan wrote: “Quite frankly, I am pissed off.” What was being done under his name “verges on fraud and surely, at a minimum amounts to exploi-tation of me, of you, of JBC [the James Buchanan Center], of the university” (p. 201). “Buchanan had been played like a fiddle” by Koch and Fink, writes MacLean, and she is right. Buchanan retired to his farm in Blacksburg soon thereafter.

Buchanan was not the only George Mason faculty member who was disgusted with the Koch/Fink gambit. The late Charles Rowley, a distinguished public choice and law and economics scholar whom Buchanan had brought from England to George Mason and the Public Choice Center in 1985, wrote on his blog in 2012 that Richie Fink, Charles Koch’s top “strategist,” was “a third-rate political hack” and “a man who is very appropriately named” (p. 209). “Far too many libertarians have been seduced by Koch money into providing intellectual ammunition for an autocratic businessman,” he wrote. Many libertarians understood this, Rowley said, but remained silent because “too many of them benefit financially from the pocket money doled out by Charles and David Koch.”

When Buchanan died in 2013 Nancy MacLean attended the memorial service for him in Fairfax. “[N]either Koch nor Fink… bothered to attend his memorial service,” she noticed. “Why should they? His days of usefulness to them had passed” (p. 204).

MacLean’s concluding chapter repeats for about the hundredth time her neo-Marxist, ad hominem theme that the whole history of classical liberalism, or libertarianism, is that of a small number of people working as paid apologists first for slave owners, and now for billionaires who want to use the powers of the state to line their own pockets at the expense of the rest of society. This is perhaps why, in a book about libertarianism in America, she completely ignores Ron Paul’s extraordinary, worldwide popularity; the millions of voters who wanted him to become president; his voluminous writings and speeches; and the millions of dollars of spontaneous individual contributions to his campaigns based on nothing more than his recitation of libertarian economics, defense of civil liberties, and his advocacy of a foreign policy of national defense instead of offense.

MacLean also completely ignores the educational institution that Ron Paul is most closely associated with, the Mises Institute, and the more than two dozen Mises institutes around the world (Chafuen, 2014). Not to mention the thousands of independent libertarian scholars, bloggers, columnists, authors, radio and podcast hosts, television personalities, and others. Acknowledging the existence of any of this would contradict her hoary Marxist-inspired, ad hominem theme that opponents of socialism and defenders of freedom and property rights are all “capitalist tools,” paid liars for corporate plutocrats. This reality also makes her conspiracy theory of “the radical right’s stealth plan for America” appear to be simply crazy.

REFERENCES

Chafuen, Alejandro. 2014. “Ludwig von Mises: Inspiring Think Tanks

Across the Globe.” Forbes, August 20, 2014.

Raico,    Ralph.  2006.  “Classical  Liberal  Roots  of  the  Marxist

Doctrine of Classes,” Available at https://mises.org/library/ classical-liberal-roots-marxist-doctrine-classes.

Woods, Tom. 2010. Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo

A Handbook for Ranch ManagersLand & Livestock International, Inc is offering a “Free” week-long ranch management-planned grazing seminar-workshop.

What follows is a business model we have been following that has worked very well for us and for our clientele.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualWe are seeking individual ranchers to sponsor/host workshops. The sponsor/host (and spouse or key employee) get the training at his/her ranch for no charge. This is an extra special benefit to the host as his/her land will be used for the “lab” work and hands on demonstrations. This provides a great start in the implementation of his/her program.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewIn return, he/she takes care of the logistics involved in putting on the event. This includes arranging for the venue, booking a block of rooms for lodging, arranging for meals (if any), putting out the advertising, setting and collecting the fees and so forth.

We are then responsible for putting on the workshop.

During the interim we will each keep track of our out of pocket costs (from our end, that will be mostly travel and lodging). Then, when it is all over, we both are reimbursed our out of pocket costs and split any funds remaining 50:50.

If this sounds like something you might be interested in, click here and let us know. If the link won’t work for you, copy and paste info@landandlivestockinternational.com into your browser.

Posted in Culture War, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Environment: We’re in Era of Mass Extinction — of Reason

 Of course, that man has driven and is driving certain species to extinction is true and tragic. We’re obliged to be good shepherds of the Earth and respect creation. But we can’t solve problems if we prefer fiction to fact…The first step in preserving the environment is to stop polluting the environmental debate with lies.

Just another tactic useful to gain more control. — jtl, 419

Written by  Selwyn Duke Via The New American

Environment: We’re in Era of Mass Extinction — of Reason

“Earth is on its way to the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, scientists warn,” reads a recent headline. “Era of ‘Biological Annihilation’ Is Underway, Scientists Warn,” proclaims another.

And this is all bunk, a different scientist tells us.

Of course, that man has driven and is driving certain species to extinction is true and tragic. We’re obliged to be good shepherds of the Earth and respect creation. But we can’t solve problems if we prefer fiction to fact.

The headline-spawning study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, makes the case that “thousands of animal species are in precipitous decline, a sign that an irreversible era of mass extinction is underway,” as the New York Times puts it. “In most parts of the world,” the paper later writes, “mammal populations are losing 70 percent of their members because of habitat loss.”

The Atlantic provides the example of lions, “whose numbers have dropped from 1 million at the time of Jesus to 450,000 in the 1940s to 20,000 today — a decline of 98 percent.”

Interestingly, one of the study’s authors is Stanford University biology professor Paul Ehrlich, who penned the 1968 book The Population Bomb. He has admitted in reference to the current research, “I am an alarmist. My colleagues are alarmists,” and this is true. What he’s not is generally honest.

As Walter E. Williams pointed out in 2008, Ehrlich “predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and [that] ‘in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.’ Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million [it’s now 326 million]. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: ‘If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.’”

Today Ehrlich says about mass-extinction episodes, “We are now moving into another one of these events that could easily, easily ruin the lives of everybody on the planet.”

Question: Would you take investment advice from someone with a history of losing stock predictions? Why is anyone still listening to this man?

Smithsonian paleontologist and extinction-event expert Doug Erwin implies that we shouldn’t because we’re not — in a mass extinction. Quoting him, the Atlantic writes, “‘If it’s actually true we’re in a sixth mass extinction, then there’s no point in conservation biology.’ … This is because by the time a mass extinction starts, the world would already be over.”

It’s also true that 99 percent of the Earth species that ever existed no longer do; as with individuals and civilizations, species eventually die.

None of this means we should dismiss matters here, because there is a problem: Species are disappearing and many more are threatened. But upon reading people’s conceptions of the causes (in comments sections, for example) — mainly, overpopulation, consumption, and climate change — it’s clear our cures may be errant because our diagnoses are.

Myth: The world’s human population is increasing inexorably.

Reality: Fertility rates are below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in the better part of 100 nations, a number growing continually. Western and Eastern European countries, and lands such as Japan, have aging native populations in precipitous decline. Even the fertility rate of Mexico, whose women once had almost seven children each, is now 2.3 — and falling.

Consequently, demographers report that the Earth’s population will begin decreasing after 2070.

Myth: Man-caused “climate change” threatens species.

Reality: While naturally occurring climatic changes (i.e., ice ages) have caused past extinctions, we don’t know of one species meeting its end because of so-called anthropogenic global warming. The man-caused problems threatening wildlife are habitat loss and, to a lesser extent, pollution.

Myth: The problem is that the Third World wants to live like us, when in reality consumption must be curtailed.

Reality: Most of the habitat loss and threatened species are in Third World countries. In contrast, the United States has more forested area now than 100 years ago, with the forest volume being 380 percent greater than in 1920. Consequently, animals such as bears, cougars (a friend saw one in upstate New York), and moose are returning to old northeastern habitats.

Why more forest now? The modern economic phenomenon of urbanization, while causing city sprawl, also means people live more densely clustered. Moreover, industrial farming and livestock production mean far greater yield per acre, reducing the land area needed to feed the population. And abandoned land returns to nature.

In addition, wealthy peoples care about, and can afford to, take care of the environment. A Third World family suffering privation won’t hesitate to burn jungle for subsistence farming or kill an endangered animal to feed the children. They’re desperate.

The point? If this Western economic phenomenon — associated with wealth creation and far greater consumption — means more wildlife in the United States, why wouldn’t it mean the same in Africa? So it’s not that Third Worlders can’t live as we do. It’s that they must live as we do.

The first step in preserving the environment is to stop polluting the environmental debate with lies.

Land & Livestock International, Inc is offering a “Free” week-long ranch management-planned grazing seminar-workshop.

What follows is a business model we have been following that has worked very well for us and for our clientele.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualWe are seeking individual ranchers to sponsor/host workshops. The sponsor/host (and spouse or key employee) get the training at his/her ranch for no charge. This is an extra special benefit to the host as his/her land will be used for the “lab” work and hands on demonstrations. This provides a great start in the implementation of his/her program.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewIn return, he/she takes care of the logistics involved in putting on the event. This includes arranging for the venue, booking a block of rooms for lodging, arranging for meals (if any), putting out the advertising, setting and collecting the fees and so forth.

We are then responsible for putting on the workshop.

During the interim we will each keep track of our out of pocket costs (from our end, that will be mostly travel and lodging). Then, when it is all over, we both are reimbursed our out of pocket costs and split any funds remaining 50:50.

If this sounds like something you might be interested in, click here and let us know. If the link won’t work for you, copy and paste info@landandlivestockinternational.com into your browser.

Posted in Radical Environmentalism | Tagged | 1 Comment

Rapper DMX Arrested for Trying to Stop the State from Stealing His Money

 Thanks to a lifetime of propaganda, people will argue relentlessly that taxation is not an act of violence, they will deny that it perpetuates a complicated form of slavery, and many times get deeply offended when you point out the fact that it is theft.

And thanks to a lifetime of authoritarian indoctrination, most folks do not realize that government is not “us.” “We” are not the government. Government is a relatively small group of elite men (and a few mentally retarded women like Nancy Pelosi) that holds a regional monopoly on the use of force and violence–a monopoly that it most likely acquired by the use of force and violence.

It is nothing but a Mafia-like criminal organization that commits heinous crimes on a daily basis and a massive scale–crimes that they would lock the rest of us up for. It commits extortion and theft and gets by with it by calling it “taxation” or “paying your fair share.” It commits counterfeit and gets by with it by calling it “quantitative easing.”  It commits mass murder and justifies it by calling it “war” or “family planning.” They get by with armed robbery by calling it “public safety.” They conceal their slavery by calling it “conscription.”

They control every facet of our lives from conception to way beyond the grave.

Free yourself. — jtl, 419

By John Vibes via Activist Post

Legendary rapper DMX was recently arrested and charged with tax evasion for allegedly withholding over $1.7 million from tax collectors.

U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim, who is working the case, said in a statement that, “For years, Earl Simmons, the recording artist and performer known as DMX, made millions from his chart-topping songs, concert performances and television shows. But while raking in millions from his songs, including his 2003 hit ‘X Gon’ Give it to Ya,’ DMX didn’t give any of it to the IRS. Far from it, DMX allegedly went out of his way to evade taxes, including by avoiding personal bank accounts, setting up accounts in other’s names and paying personal expenses largely in cash. He even allegedly refused to tape the television show ‘Celebrity Couples Therapy’ until a properly issued check he was issued was reissued without withholding any taxes. Celebrity rapper or not, all Americans must pay their taxes, and together with our partners at the IRS, we will pursue those who deliberately and criminally evade this basic obligation of citizenship.”

However, DMX is long past the prime in his career, and most of the income in question was earned many years ago.

IRS agent James D. Robnett said, “While most individuals file truthful tax returns and pay their taxes, the indictment against Mr. Simmons alleges various tax crimes, including that he failed to file personal tax returns for several years and did not pay his fair share of taxes. IRS-Criminal Investigation will continue to focus our investigative efforts on those who try to conceal their income in order to evade their taxes.”

DMX is now looking at serious jail time, and is facing 14 different charges in court.

According to court documents, “Count One carries a maximum sentence of three years. Counts Two through Eight each carry a maximum sentence of five years. Counts Nine through Fourteen each carry a maximum sentence of one year.”

Some people would point out that DMX had plenty of money, and that he could have easily handed over his extortion fee and still be able to eat. However, if a wealthy man was walking down the street and was attacked by a mugger, would people still carry that same perception? Would everyone condemn this person for attempting to stand up against his mugger? Because DMX, and every other person who is forced to fill out a tax form, is by principle a victim of theft.

Thanks to a lifetime of propaganda, people will argue relentlessly that taxation is not an act of violence, they will deny that it perpetuates a complicated form of slavery, and many times get deeply offended when you point out the fact that it is theft.

Yet, peaceful people are taken against their will and thrown in cages every day for not paying taxes. If this action was not carried by the state, everyone would recognize it as a violent kidnapping. Whats worse is the fact that if any of these people made any attempts to defend themselves on their own property as they would against any other intruder, they would have been killed and treated as if they were the aggressor.

John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. John is currently battling cancer naturally, without any chemo or radiation, and will be working to help others through his experience, if you wish to contribute to his treatments please donate.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View Combat Shooter's Handbook Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)   

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our Online Rancher Supply Store

Posted in Government Interventionism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Financial Martial Law

 According to The Washington Post, since 2007, the DEA alone has seized more $3.2 billion in cash from Americans in cases where no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash.
Oh well, what’s new? The Internal Revenue Code allows “those people” to take 100% of everything you own, should they decide to. We have only one option. — jtl, 419

A Note From Nick Giambruno:

I consider “Financial Martial Law” a must-read.

In this timely article, which I’m sharing below, my friend and colleague Chris Lowe warns that banks have become arms of the US government.

This means terrifying things for your savings.

When I read this article, I knew I had to pass it along to International Man readers.

Chris is the editor of Bonner & Partners’ Inner Circle publication, which shares insights from Bill Bonner’s personal network of analysts and investment experts around the world.

Bill and Doug Casey are decades-old friends and colleagues.

Like Doug, Bill thinks the worst is yet to come. He says the next financial collapse will be worse than the market crashes of 1987, 2000, and 2008.

The window of opportunity to protect your money is rapidly closing. As Chris explains below, capital controls are already here.


Financial Martial Law

By Chris Lowe

Already, as an American, you are not free to spend your money as you see fit. (For a full breakdown, see “Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Explained” below.)

JPMorgan Chase—the country’s biggest bank—has banned cash payments for credit card debt, mortgages, and car loans. It has also banned the storage of “any cash or coins” in safe deposit boxes.

Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Explained

By Bonner & Partners analyst Joe Withrow

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires US financial institutions to assist federal agencies in preventing money laundering.

All financial institutions are required by law to keep records of all financial activity, including cash purchases of “negotiable instruments”—checks, money orders, etc.

These records are open to government inspection at any time. They are also subject to periodic audits by both federal and state governments.

All financial institutions must immediately file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the federal government whenever a customer engages in transactions the institutions deem strange or inconsistent with normal behavior. This is open to interpretation.

There are also specific BSA regulations requiring financial institutions to file government reports. They are:

Currency Transaction Report (CTR): A CTR must be filed for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer by, through, or to a financial institution that involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.

Multiple currency transactions must be treated as a single transaction if the financial institution has knowledge that: (a) they are conducted by or on behalf of the same person and (b) they result in cash received or disbursed by the financial institution of more than $10,000.

Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIR): Each person (including a bank) who physically transports, mails, or ships, or causes to be physically transported, mailed, shipped, or received currency, traveler’s checks, and certain other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 into or out of the US must file a CMIR.

Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR): Each person (including a bank) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States having an interest in, signature, or other authority over one or more bank, securities, or other financial accounts in a foreign country must file an FBAR if the aggregate value of such accounts at any point in a calendar year exceeds $10,000. A recent district court case in the 10th Circuit has significantly expanded the definition of “interest in” and “other authority.”

Designation of Exempt Person: Banks must file this form to designate an exempt customer for the purpose of CTR reporting under the BSA. In addition, banks use this form biennially (every two years) to renew exemptions for eligible non-listed businesses and payroll customers.

There are also plenty of regulations about opening a bank account in the US…

Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification: Applicants must be able to provide a taxpayer ID and certify under penalty of perjury that their ID is correct. The bank is required to enforce the IRS’s “backup withholding” rule if applicable. This means it must withhold customer funds if the IRS determines that you failed to provide a valid taxpayer identification number or failed to pay taxes on 1099 income.

Identification Requirements: Applicants must provide their name, permanent address, taxpayer identification number, and date of birth to verify their identity. Applicants must also submit a valid driver’s license, state ID, passport, or other primary identification documents.

Office of Assets Control (OFAC) Compliance: The bank must make sure the applicant is not on OFAC’s prohibited individuals list. This list includes individuals who have engaged in transactions with governments or individuals located in Cuba, Burma, Myanmar, Iran, and Sudan.

Unlawful Transactions: Applicants must certify that their account will not be used for internet gambling or any other illegal activity.

And all US banks now view large cash withdrawals as suspicious.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, if you withdraw $10,000 or more in a day, your bank is required to file something called a Currency Transaction Report with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This is a special bureau within the Department of the Treasury that’s tasked with combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.

And your bank is required to file something called a Suspicious Activity Report with FinCEN if it believes you are trying to avoid triggering a Currency Transaction Report by withdrawing smaller cash amounts. This puts all cash withdrawals under the microscope.

And taking out cash from the bank isn’t the only activity the government deems suspicious.

Other actions that will trigger a report being filed with the feds include: depositing $10,000 or more in cash with your bank… a foreign exchange transaction worth $10,000 or more… taking more than $10,000 in cash into or out of the US… receiving more than $10,000 in cash in a single payment as a business… or having more than $10,000 in accounts outside the US during a calendar year.

And even if you manage to get your cash out of your bank, having it on your person also makes you a target of the authorities.

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police and federal agents can confiscate any cash you might have on you if they merely suspect it was involved in a crime. They don’t need to bring criminal charges against you or prove any wrongdoing. And they can keep any seized cash for themselves.

According to The Washington Post, since 2007, the DEA alone has seized more $3.2 billion in cash from Americans in cases where no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash.

And forget about opening up a bank account offshore to diversify your risk of these kinds of clampdowns.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, became law in 2010. It imposes a lot of red tape on foreign banks with US clients. And the costs of complying with all this red tape means opening up bank accounts for Americans no longer justifies the benefits of overseas banks.

As a result, it’s now extremely difficult for Americans to open accounts overseas. It’s de facto capital control, even if the government won’t admit it.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The Best of Nick Giambruno

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

FBI Director Candidate Wray’s Adopting Language of Left on Guns Merits Further Scrutiny

Trump will never get the swamp drained simply because the Cultural Marxists are so embedded as to make it impossible for guys like this to ever give a straight answer to a straight question. We only have one option left. — jtl, 419
by David Codrea via Oath Keepers

Will Wray swear an oath to enforce “commonsense” gun legislation or to “support and defend the Constitution”? (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing/YouTube)

Attorney Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, gave a response to a “gun control” question in Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that raises flags for right to keep and bear arms advocates. Per The Daily Signal, Wray was being “pressed” by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “on whether he would back universal background checks for gun buyers.”

Wray tried to get around specifics at first, talking in general terms about “efforts to deal with gun violence” and how he “would want to take a look at any specific legislative proposal and get back to you once I have evaluated [it].” But Blumenthal, as committed an enemy of the Second Amendment as ever put one hand on a Bible, raised the other and proceeded to lie though his teeth, was intent on scoring points by wringing out exploitable sound bites.

“I wouldn’t rule out any commonsense gun reform legislation without having a chance to review it,” Wray finally admitted. “I would have to review it and make an assessment based on the circumstances. But I can commit to you that being tough on gun violence is something that I would want to be as director of the FBI.”

While he did not actually commit to anything, the language Wray chose to use is troubling. Case in point, from Blumenthal’s website:

“I am fully committed to seeing common sense legislation to reduce gun violence signed into law.”

Does anybody see any discernible difference in professed philosophies?

“My loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law,” Wray told the Committee in his prepared testimony. “They have been my guideposts throughout my career, and I will continue to adhere to them no matter the test.”

What are the hearings if not an entrance exam?

It would have eased some concerns if that pledge had been the response he gave, including an explanation of why fidelity to “the supreme Law of the Land” means some edicts and orders must not be obeyed.  Instead, he won Blumenthal’s endorsement for confirmation.

For some reason a George Carlin line comes to mind.

Donald Trump was elected over Hillary Clinton because he made the right noises about the guns that she was eyeing covetously. Now that he’s in power, it shouldn’t be too much to hope for him to make good on those words in actions, appointments and expectations of his subordinates.

It shouldn’t be but chances are it is, considering the importance the elites place on their continued membership in the big club.

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is in a position to assist the buyer in purchasing ranches like these anywhere in the Western United States and Northern Mexico. Pre – purchase services include help with due diligence, estimates of carrying capacity and potential for improvement, cash flow projections, etc. Post purchase services include everything from part time consulting to complete turn-key management.

Contact us at info@landandlivestockinternational.com or through our web site at www.landandlivestockinternational.com

Dripping Springs
Mule Creek, Grant County, New Mexico

The Dripping Springs Ranch is a highly improved working cattle ranch in a very desirable part of southwest New Mexico. Access to the Ranch from State Route 78 is excellent, and it is an easy drive to either Silver City, N. or Safford, Az. 232 deeded acres, 13,000 USFS acres, 150 AU. $2,500,000

Walking L Ranch
Wickenburg, Yavapai County

The Walking L Ranch’s 52+ square miles adjoin Wickenburg from the Hassayamapa River into the Wickenburg Mountains. The ranch originally consisted of the 10X Ranch on the south end and the Rincon Ranch on the north end.  The old Rincon Dude Ranch was added to the ranch’s Headquarters by the current owner. The ranch’s land tenure consists of deeded land, State and BLM Grazing Leases.  Topography is rolling to steep with elevation’s ranging from 2,100’ along the river to over 2,700’ on San Domingo Peak.  The ranch borders US 60 on the south side of Wickenburg.  The ranch’s deeded land is in seven non-contiguous parcels throughout the ranch.  The headquarters consists of 110.88 deeded acres on Rincon Road and the Hassayampa River with approximately 30 acres irrigated.  Another headquarters for the 10X is on the state lease. $5,000,000

Dos S Inholding
Fountain Hills, Maricopa County

The Dos S is a 22.78 acre private inholding surrounded by Tonto National Forest on Sycamore Creek.  It is located just off the Beeline Highway behind a locked gate 20 miles from the Shea Boulevard & Highway 87 intersection at Fountain Hills.  Payson is 40 miles to the north. $1,025,100

Posted in Gun Control, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment