Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Why I Will Stop Blogging For A While

Dear readers of Letter of Liberty:

I will stop blogging for a while on my blog. Why? Because I want people to be able to read all the posts that are already existent on the blog. I want them to be able to learn more of what I have written before I start writing again.

I had introduced several friends to my blog; however, they won't have enough time to read every single thing on it, so I will keep it up like this so that they will be able to look up what is already here.

Thanks and sorry for any slowness of blogging.


Anand Venigalla

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Why Christians Should Be Concerned About the Surveillance State

Ed Stetzer at The Exchange explains why we Christians ought to be concerned about the ever-increasing surveillance state and not run away from the issue as if only Christophobic ACLU folks believe in civil liberties.

Says Stetzer:

"Almost immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration were created. After stumbling through an impromptu round of "God Bless America" on the capitol steps, both sides of the aisle were quick to put aside their regular differences in order to put forward their most secure faces.
"Neither party wanted to be seen as soft on terrorism.
"Almost twelve years later, we must face the snowball effect of those initial efforts and have a real discussion about where the priority of "security at all costs" ends and the honoring of civil liberties begin. For Christians, this is an important conversation because it involves biblical issues such as the dignity of all persons, a healthy view of human depravity, and our belief in Christian ethics."
Read the rest here. Enjoy.

I would like to comment on several things in Ed Stetzer's piece, particularly on his somewhat naive (in my opinion) believe that George "Dubya" Bush (under whom most of these surveillance programs started) and Barack Obama want to protect America and are merely misguided in their approach. I don't believe so. That may have been the cause before they entered power; however, as they went into power, they were corrupted (or maybe they were like that before even entering power; only God knows). They began to focus on their own glory and power and honor, and thus they used these tools as a means to increase their own power. As the classical-liberal historian Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Also, I had a beef with the way Stetzer dealt with conspiracy theories. He says that they make us look bad and ridiculous. I will agree with him to a degree. While there are most certainly ridiculous theories (such as the theory of Bush using some super-duper technology to create Hurricane Katrina), there are those which, while they may sound ridiculous, are actually quite plausible when one really starts to think about it. Some of these theories include the involvement of LBJ in the assassination of JFK, Nero's burning of Rome and blaming it on Christians, and maybe even to a degree, the 9/11 truth movement. I have not fully subscribed to any of these theories, but I am open to the possibility of their being true. I would also like to note that, deep down, many people are not against conspiracy theories per se; they just don't want those theories to be targeted against their sacred cows (like the military, the president, and most importantly, the State).

Friday, July 19, 2013

The Myth of Democracy

Michael Rozeff at exposes the myth of "government for the people, by the people, and of the people" that has been promoted by both the Republicans and the Democrats, the conservatives and the liberals.

Says Rozeff:

The U.S. government is certainly NOT of the people, NOT by the people, and NOT for the people. In the vernacular of the day, what do we have? Government of the People, by the People, for the People. NOT.

Read the rest of his brilliant expose here. It will open your eyes to the false claims of those who claim that "we are the government." This myth must die now. 

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Meaning of Liberalism (Part 2): The Shift from Old to New Liberalism

Introduction: This is the second-part in the series on the meaning of liberalism. It will explore how liberalism shifted from the libertarian kind to the modern, statist "liberalism" we have come to know. For Part 1, see here

Now, having laid out the wonderful heritage of classical liberalism, we will explore how this type of liberalism was abandoned for the modern-day liberalism which celebrates wealth redistribution, social democracy, a strong central government, collectivism, and a host of other interventions from the government. First, we will look at the term "liberal" and how it went from the individualists to the progressives. Then, we will look at some of the flaws within classical liberalism itself that led to the shift from old to modern liberalism.

First, let us look at the term "liberal." How did that term shift from the belief held by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Benjamin Constant, Lord Acton, Adam Smith, James Mill, and the liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to the belief held by modern-day "liberals" as Saul Alinsky, John Dewey, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Barack Obama, John Rawls, Paul Krugman, Jeremy Bentham (who was originally a classical liberal), John Stuart Mill (for more information on John Stuart Mill, readers are requested to refer to Murray N. Rothbard's An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. II, chapter 8) and many others. Ralph Raico documents in his 1992 history of classical liberalism that the change was partly because of "the new class of intellectuals that proliferated everywhere. That they owed their very existence to the wealth generated by the capitalist system did not prevent most of them from incessantly gnawing away at capitalism, indicting it for every problem they could point to in modern society." Also, "the rise of democracy may well have contributed to liberalism’s decline by aggravating an age-old feature of politics — the scramble for special privilege. Businesses, labor unions, farmers, bureaucrats, and other interest groups vied for state privileges — and found intellectual demagogues to rationalize their depredations. The area of state control grew, at the expense, as William Graham Sumner pointed out, of 'the forgotten man' — the quiet, productive individual who asks no favor of government and, through his work, keeps the whole system going." Also, in America and Britain, "social reformers around the dawn of the 20th century conceived a particularly clever gambit." The reformers hated the term with a vengeance, and thus "they hijacked the term 'liberal.'" What followed was tragedy and war, particularly in the form of World War I; a reversion to the ancien regime ensued, with increasing federal control and statism. The Marxists claimed the mantle of progressivism that was originally the helm of the classical liberals and the radicals (the term which was used for the more extreme of the classical liberals), and they brought death and destruction instead in the form of the Russian Revolution. 

The central force behind this reversal, as Murray Rothbard documented in the first chapter of For A New Liberty, was conservatism. It was, in the words of Rothbard, "a conscious attempt to undo and destroy the hated work of the new classical liberal spirit," being led by two reactionary thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre and Louis Jacques Maurice de Bonald, as well as the ex-libertarian Edmund Burke. Conservatism "yearned to replace equal rights and equality before the law by the structured and hierarchical rule of privileged elites; individual liberty and minimal government by absolute rule and Big Government; religious freedom by the theocratic rule of a State church; peace and free trade by militarism, mercantilist restrictions, and war for the advantage of the nation-state; and industry and manufacturing by the old feudal and agrarian order." However, by the end of the 19th century, the conservatives quickly realized that they would fail if they stated their goals explicitly, because, as Ralph Raico said, "liberalism was the spectre haunting Europe — and the world." Thus, as Rothbard noted, the conservatives "decided to shift their gears and to update their statist creed by jettisoning outright opposition to industrialism and democratic suffrage. For the old conservatism's frank hatred and contempt for the mass of the public, the new conservatives substituted duplicity and demagogy." These new conservatives (or neoconservatives, as they had come to be known in the mid-20th century) claimed to admire capitalism, liberty, and private property; yet at the same time they supported regulations on business for the "public good," organized, top-down cooperation, war, protectionism (Pat Buchanan-style), and a "strong national defense," which in reality was a strong "empire." Thus, rather than looking to absolute monarchy to fulfill their goals, the conservatives looked to democracy, which was originally the goal of the classical liberals, to engineer the citizenry and establish daily "consent" to the increasing state. They "had to gull the public in many crucial and fundamental ways," such as convincing them that "tyranny was better than liberty, that a cartelized and privileged industrial feudalism was better for the consumers than a freely competitive market, that a cartelized monopoly was to be imposed in the name of antimonopoly, and that war and military aggrandizement for the benefit of the ruling elites was really in the interests of the conscripted, taxed, and often slaughtered public." They did this by using the intellectual forces of the day, for "in all societies, public opinion is determined by the intellectual classes." They allied the intellect with the State, the professor with the city official, the scholar with the president, and many other statist alliances with the intellectuals. Thus, after all this, the statist conservatives "appropriated to themselves the words 'liberal' and 'progressive,' and successfully managed to tar their laissez-faire opponents with the charge of being old-fashioned, 'Neanderthal,' and 'reactionary.' Even the name 'conservative' was pinned on the classical liberals. And, as we have seen, the new statists were able to appropriate the concept of 'reason' as well."

Now having laid out the truth behind the co-opting of liberalism by the statists and the conservatives, let us look at some of the inward flaws within the classical liberals themselves, as well as in many of the nineteenth-century manifestations of classical liberalism. The flaw was a change from early libertarian radicalism to "conservative" gradualism, from purity to compromise, from revolution to evolution. 

What happened to the classical liberals that they should fail and that liberalism became the mantle of the statists and conservatives? What happened that they should abandon their fervor for liberty and be content with their partial victories? The classical liberals, as Murray N. Rothbard documented in his classic essay "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," "increasingly abandoned their radical fervor and, therefore, their liberal goals, to rest content with a mere defense of the uninspiring and defective status quo." The two roots were "the abandonment of natural rights and 'higher law' theory for utilitarianism" and "evolutionism, or Social Darwinism, which put the finishing touches to liberalism as a radical force in society." The first root resulted in the lack of the framework that resulted in the success of classical liberalism in the first place. The second root, which saw the world through rose-colored glasses and through Darwinian utopianism, tarred the reputation of classical liberalism among many moralists, particularly amongst Bible-believing evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics. This fatal flaw was exemplified in the libertarian Herbert Spencer. While Herbert Spencer was not the Social Darwinist statist historians claimed him to be, Murray Rothbard documented that he "began as a magnificently radical liberal, indeed virtually a pure libertarian." Sadly, "as the virus of sociology and Social Darwinism took over in his soul, Spencer abandoned libertarianism as a dynamic historical movement, although at first without abandoning it in pure theory." Thus, Spencer went too far in his optimism and became the naive caricature of libertarians among many liberals and conservatives. Also, as Rothbard documented further in his essay, "the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century." This was exemplified, particularly among British classical liberals, in their attitude toward the liberation struggle in Ireland. Their blindness resulted in the British classical liberals abandoning their liberalism for gradualism. Therefore, "there was no longer a party of hope in the Western world, no longer a 'Left' movement to lead a struggle against the state and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order." What would replace the classical liberal society of the late 18th century and much of the 19th century? Who would be the "leftists" in place of the classical liberals?

The answer to that question was socialism. It was a mixture of the classical-liberal ideal and the conservative ideal, that sought for libertarian ends through statist/conservative means. In "Left and Right," Murray Rothbard documents that contrary to the idea of most libertarians and conservatives, socialism is not the diametrical opposite of libertarianism (or classical liberalism, as the two terms are synonymous in my opinion. Rather, socialism "accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc." Because of this gaping contradiction within the socialist creed, there existed two very different strands of socialism; "one was the right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism; but especially the smashing of the state apparatus to achieve the 'withering away of the State' and the 'end of the exploitation of man by man.'" Surprisingly, as Rothbard further shows, the Marxist theory “replacement of the government by men by the administration of things” was actually a harkening back to earlier French libertarians as Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer. The other "Marxist" theory about "class struggle" was actually a corrupted version of the classical-liberal/libertarian class theory, "except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen versus workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus." Having fallen prey to the inner contradiction between liberalism (or libertarianism) and conservatism, the socialists "turned sharply rightward, "completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering away of the State and became cozy conservatives permanently reconciled to the State, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neo-mercantilism, State monopoly capitalism, imperialism, and war that was rapidly being established and riveted on European society at the turn of the twentieth century." Thus, the conservatives "had re-formed and regrouped to try to cope with a modern industrial system and had become a refurbished mercantilism, a regime of statism, marked by State monopoly privilege, in direct and indirect forms, to favored capitalists and to quasi-feudal landlords." Thus, we see modern examples such as government surveillance, wiretapping, and a host of other violations from the government of the right to privacy. Not only that, we see conservatives defending the surveillance state, as they did during the Bush Administration (2001-08), with the Patriot Act that set the stage for a massive surveillance enterprise that would wiretap into the cellphones, emails, and snail-mail of the American people. 

Here is the tragic story of how the wonderful ideology of classical liberalism was turned into the modern, faux "liberalism" of today. It is a sad story to remind us Christians that we should not give up or compromise on the Gospel message; otherwise, it will be watered down to a point where the Gospel is barely recognizable. It is also a reminder to us libertarians that we should not compromise on the libertarian message. While we may have disagreements within libertarian circles over intellectual property, abortion, federalism and states' rights, anarchism and the role of government, we should always agree on this thing: our enemy is the State, and for the Christian, our enemy is Satan.

Fortunately, with all this abandonment of genuine, classical liberalism and radicalism, there gleamed a ray of light within libertarian movements throughout the 20th century, with leaders from the Old Right, a movement of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to opposing the New Deal and U.S. entry into World Wars I and II. It was also dedicated to restoring the Old Republic that our Founding Fathers fought and died for (though the more extreme of the Old Right libertarians sought to restore the Articles of Confederation that existed before the Constitution). The group consisted of people such as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane (the only living daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder), Garet Garett, Robert Taft, Charles Lindbergh, Leonard E. Read (founder of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)), Frank Chodorov, Zora Neale Hurston, Ayn Rand, F. A. Harper (founder of The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS)), John T. Flynn, and Murray N. Rothbard. It even included non-libertarians such as Herbert Hoover, who criticized FDR for going too far with the New Deal. In his book The Betrayal of the American Right, Murray Rothbard links the Old Right to the modern libertarian movement. Hope was not lost. There are still libertarians in this country who are dedicated to the principles of the old liberals and who seek to restore our country to the classical-liberal principles on which it was founded on, and not only that, the libertarians of today want to surpass the classical liberals of the past and apply their principles more consistently. 

For the next part of the series, I will explore whether the classical liberal political philosophy (otherwise known as libertarianism) is compatible with orthodox, biblical Christianity.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Five Lies About the NSA Leaks

Josh Gerstein, White House reporter for POLITICO, uncovers the five stubborn myths about the NSA leaks in his report today.

Says Gerstein:

"The continuing saga of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden — along with revelations of aggressive Justice Department prying into reporting by The Associated Press and Fox News — has resulted in a string of congressional hearings and endless rounds of Sunday chatter.

"So there’s plenty of information out there describing how the law deals with leaks, just how unprecedented the Obama administration’s recent leak-sleuthing tactics have been — and whether it’s really possible to investigate leaks without intruding on the First Amendment.

"Unfortunately, much of that information happens to be wrong."

Read the rest of the report here

Monday, July 8, 2013

The Ethics of Whistleblowing

Ben O'Neill has written a brilliant deconstruction on the ethics of whistleblowing for today's Mises Daily (which, of course, I read daily) and how it relates to Edward Snowden and the NSA scandal from a libertarian framework. This is part one of a part-two series.

Says O'Neill:

"For supporters of the massive power apparatus of the US government, Snowden is a criminal, deserving of scorn and imprisonment (or for some, just plain murder). To others such as myself he is an intrepid investigator who succeeded in exposing government wrongdoing where others had failed. But even to some of his supporters Snowden is a hero of the “law-breaking” variety — a man who “stole” government documents to expose the activities of its most corrupt and secretive agencies. Such a circumstance gives cause to stop and examine the basic assumptions of government claims to ownership of the secret information it collects. Implicit in the charge that documents have been “stolen” and that there has been “unauthorized disclosure” is the requirement that the documents and information in question are legitimately owned by the government, and that communication of their contents legitimately requires government authorization."

Read the rest here.

UPDATE (7/18/2013): Ben O'Neill continues on the ethics of state secrecy.

Token Libertarian Girl on Why We Should Stay Out of Syria

Julie Borowski, otherwise known as "Token Libertarian Girl," advises the US government to stay out of Syria, as it will spawn a needless war that will cost millions of lives, in the same way that the Iraq War multiplied from several weeks to nine years.

Five Reasons to Not Care About the Poor

Jordan Taylor of Blimey Cow explains to us sarcastically why we shouldn't care about the poor; his last comment is particularly funny: the government shall take care of them.

Here is his advice in all his full glory.

Saturday, July 6, 2013 Is Now Updated (LRC), the No. 1 libertarian site and one of the greatest libertarian websites out there for those who are looking for quality libertarian content, has now been updated, with a whole different look from the original as we knew it.

It has been transformed from here:

to here:

I am going to have difficulty updating some of the links I posted to, as those were from the older website, which I much prefer. So, in time, the hosts will have all the resources up there; I just need to update my links to the website.

The old site is stored at

Sorry for any inconveniences you might have when you follow the link to an LRC article. 

I will try to relink the articles from LRC and correct the original links. 

Meanwhile, here are some tips to try to read the old articles in the old website:

1. Go to

2. Use any previous LRC URL and add 'archive.' at the beginning in replacement of 'www.' or just add 'archive.' if 'www.' is non-existent.

3. When you see a URL in the 'archive.' webpage (such as, copy it and add it after 'archive.'

4. Voila! You have the articles.

For more information on what's purpose is, I recommend that you read this piece from Lew Rockwell himself that outlines the principles of LRC.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Expensive Beauty

The Daily Mail reports that photographer John Chapple took many beautiful photos with the most expensive camera in the world: the Hasselblad H3D-50, a 50-megapixel camera, as well as a Linhof Technorama 617 for super-wide shots.

These photos are some of the best out there, and they wonderfully capture beauty within nature, the nature which God created (Genesis 1:1). 

I recommend that you see these pictures and enjoy them, particularly the wide-screen shots. 

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Happy Independence Day!

Dear readers of Letter of Liberty:

Happy Independence Day! The day when we seceded from Great Britain in 1776 and declared our independence from the mightiest empire at that time. This is the day not to boast how "free" we are; rather, this is the holiday to reflect on our past, and to look to the height from which we have fallen, from a constitutionally-limited republic to a fascist central government. We must strive to restore these principles; and not only that, but we must strive to perfect on the errors of the Old Republic and go further where even the Old Republic never went, even as we seek to restore that which was good about the Old Republic: its commitment to decentralization and the libertarian principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Here is some reading for Independence Day:

"The Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Jefferson: In order to refresh yourself on the meaning of the holiday, I recommend you go back and read this brilliant document by a great man; this was the document that laid out the principles of the American Revolution: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and natural rights.

"The Meaning of Revolution" by Murray Rothbard: In this classic 1969 article from The Libertarian Forum, Murray Rothbard explained the meaning of revolution, using examples from the English Civil War, the American and French Revolutions and how they brought giant steps in the direction of liberty. He encourages us to be the revolutionaries that the earlier classical liberals were.

"Jefferson Weeping" by Judge Andrew Napolitano: Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano laments how far we have come from our roots, from liberty to a police state.

"What Americans Used to Know About the Declaration of Independence" by Thomas DiLorenzo: Libertarian scholar and senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, Thomas DiLorenzo explores the secessionist character of the Declaration of Independence, which modern-day Americans have forgotten.

"Orwell's Big Brother: Merely Fiction?" by Murray Rothbard: In his 1949 review of George Orwell's dystopian and depressing classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, Murray Rothbard explained that Big Brother may not be merely fiction.

"Who Were the Patriots and Traitors on the Fourth of July, 1776" by Jacob G. Hornberger: Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) in Fairfax, Virginia, reminds us that the revolutionaries of 1776 were not so much Americans as they were Englishmen revolting against their government.

"Just War" by Murray N. Rothbard: In 1994, Murray Rothbard's speech "Two Just Wars: 1776 & 1861" (now titled as "Just War") made the case for the American Revolution being a just war under libertarian standards.

"Happy Military Appreciation Day" by Laurence M. Vance: Christian libertarian author and adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute Laurence M. Vance explores how the wonderful holiday known as Independence Day, which was originally meant to celebrate our revolution against and secession from Great Britain, is being used as an excuse for military idolatry.

"The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism" by Murray N. Rothbard: In the excellent first chapter to his classic book For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray Rothbard explained how the American Revolution was part of our libertarian heritage.

"The Real Jefferson" by Luigo Marco Bassani: Luigo Marco Bassani, an Italian-American libertarian scholar and author of Liberty, State and Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson, blows away at the myths of Jefferson as social democrat and shows us that he was indeed a Lockean classical liberal. A complimentary article by the same author is "Life, Liberty, And . . . : Jefferson on Property Rights," which was published in the Winter 2004 issue of Journal of Libertarian Studies.

"Equality: American Idol" by Patrick J. Buchanan: Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan explains how the idol of equality is destroying the principles of liberty on which the nation was founded.

"The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July" by Jacob G. Hornberger: In 2008, Jacob G. Hornberger explained the true significance of the Fourth of July and the American Revolution.

"Myths of the Fourth of July" by Kevin R. C. Gutzman: Kevin R. C. Gutzman, constitutionalist scholar and author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, explains the myths surrounding Independence Day and explains that it is indeed a Jeffersonian, anti-statist holiday.

"Thomas Jefferson: Rebel" by Frank Chodorov: The late libertarian scholar and columnist Frank Chodorov, under whom the great Murray Rothbard was influenced, wrote this classic article on Thomas Jefferson and his rebellion against statism and tyranny on behalf of liberty and freedom.

"What Do We Celebrate on the Fourth of July?" by Tibor R. Machan: Libertarian philosopher Tibor Machan asks this poignant question. He analyzes the principles of the American revolution and how it has been betrayed in recent years.

"Celebrating Our Capitalist Revolution" by Thomas DiLorenzo: Thomas DiLorenzo goes deep into the capitalist libertarianism of the American Revolution.

"Recapturing the Spirit of Independence" by Ron Paul: A classic article from Ron Paul, one of the most principled politicians of all time and a great libertarian, which explains the stark contrast between a republic and an empire, exploring the spirit of independence inherent in a republic.

"A Republic, Not A Democracy" by Ron Paul: Ron Paul explains why America was founded as a republic rather than a democracy.

For a good book on American history from a libertarian perspective, I would recommend Murray Rothbard's four-volume Conceived in Liberty, which is now a one-volume edition from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The book was originally published by that same institute in a four-volume edition. It is available at and other stores, as well as for free download at in PDF and E-PUB formats. I would also recommend historian Thomas E. Woods's brilliant work that is The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. It will challenge your views on the founding, secession, nullification, the Founding Fathers, the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, capitalism and much more. While it is marketed to a conservative audience, it is radically libertarian, as reviews from Laissez-Faire Books (LFB) editor Jeffrey Tucker and libertarian writer Anthony Gregory (in his review for the March 2005 issue of Liberty) note. I will be writing a review for this book in the future, as I did indeed enjoy it. 

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Fred Reed on George Zimmerman and Race Riots

Fred Reed, host of FredOnEverything, has some words of wisdom on George Zimmerman and race.

Says Reed:

So do whites (which will make no difference if Zimmerman walks). After all, they ended slavery, passed the Civil War amendments, abolished segregation, passed and enforced the civil rights laws, and instituted lifelong charity for blacks in the form of welfare and affirmative action. They didn’t have to do any of these things.

But onward. It is an automatic belief among blacks that any black shot by a white was innocent, and shot because he was black. This is seldom true today, if ever it is, not because white policemen like blacks – they do not – but because every cop knows that he would be crucified in the press and probably in the courts, lose his job and pension, and become unemployable. However, white cops (and black ones, but that is another story) do abuse ghetto blacks, sometimes in front of a police reporter (me). Blacks know, and remember.

Memories are selective. People readily remember evil inflicted on them by others while forgetting their own sins. Blacks do not tolerate mention of their high rates of crime and the common – increasingly common – racial gang attacks on whites in which the victims frequently, and intentionally, end up with brain damage. These are hidden by the media, but a primer is White Girl Bleed a Lot.

Read the rest here.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Disney's 1943 Anti-Nazi Cartoon: "Education for Death"

Years ago, during WWII, Walt Disney released a brilliant short film entitled "Education for Death: The Making of a Nazi," which explored the Nazification of children since their very birth. Gary North comments that "this Disney cartoon goes beyond wartime propaganda. It raises the question of the legitimacy of tax funded education in general." This cartoon, in my opinion, transcends the simplistic propaganda of Frank Capra's Why We Fight and explores a far deeper message on the dangers of government education that most of the viewers of this cartoon failed to recognize. 

Isn't this cartoon similar to the American education system? Karen De Coster comments: "It's funny how applicable this propaganda is today, right here at home, eh?" Notice the similarities between the Nazification of education and the public school education of today. In our schools, we have an official version of history that precludes any sort of revisionism (except, of course, when revisionism benefits the establishment). Here are some of the myths: capitalism caused the Great Depression, FDR saved capitalism, nullification and secession are evil, Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest leaders of all time, the Civil War was all about slavery, discrimination is evil, the medieval period was entrapped in flat-earth theory, public education is good and so on. On capitalism and the Great Depression, see Murray Rothbard's 1959 letter to the William Volker Fund. On FDR and capitalism, see here. On the issue of nullification, see here. On Abraham Lincoln, see the King Lincoln archives at (LRC). The articles in this archive would explode your thinking on Lincoln. Also, on whether the South was all about slavery, I would refer you to the 10th chapter in historian Thomas E. Woods's book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, which I am in the process of reading. On discrimination, see here. On the flat-earth theory and medieval history, see here, and on public education, see Murray Rothbard's monograph Education: Free and Compulsory. For more information on the lies in public schools, see Listverse's list, particularly #6, which reminds us that Abraham Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator we all thought him to be. Also, for more information on public schooling in general, I would refer you to the work of John Taylor Gatto

Here is the film. Enjoy.

Note: Some of the German in the short film is not subtitled or translated. 

Letter of Liberty News Edition (7-02-2013)

So begins the second edition of my Letter of Liberty News Edition.

Walter Williams on why we ought to distrust government, as the Founders of this country did. We should also celebrate any attempt by local state governments to disobey and nullify unconstitutional laws, says Williams.

Marc Clair's new Mondays with Murray explores Murray Rothbard's classic essay "Why Be Libertarian?" The reason we ought to be libertarian, according to Rothbard, is to instantaneously abolish all invasions on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, the libertarian is an abolitionist. Also, a companion article would be the late libertarian Harry Browne's (who was also the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000) "Why You Are A Libertarian."

Ron Paul exposes E-Verify.

It seems that George Zimmerman was threatened by Trayvon Martin, who said, "You're going to die tonight, motherf***er." as he was being attacked. The Daily Mail reports on this.

Bill Sardi exposes Obamacare (Oh-Mama-Care! as he calls it) in all its evil glory.

WikiLeaks publishes a new statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow.  "For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum." At the end of the day, the Obama administration doesn't hate whistleblowers. On the contrary, "the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be."

Gawker has it out that the Washington Post is just a bitter old newspaper that wants to persecute Edward Snowden and defend power. 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have been wrongly indicted, according to Stephen Lendman.

Libertarian economist Peter Schiff on the gold cycle. 

Economist David Stockman on the free-market economist Milton Friedman as freshwater Keynesian.

Justin Raimondo at on how Edward Snowden is a symbol of politics and persona.

Jacob Hornberger on an imaginary trial of an imaginary person named Dietrich Schmoller. 

Libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy on the culture of denunciation being created.

Daisy Luther, the Organic Prepper, on how to survive a two-week power outage.

Glenn Greenwald on how the NSA is harvesting your online data and how the NSA collected bulk data for two years under Obama—under a program started by Dubya.

Glenn Reynolds at USA Today assures us not to fear the leaker.

Will Grigg comments on Edward Snowden's "safe and dreary" global prison, which is somewhat similar to the Roman Empire.

The Reformed Libertarian gives a Christian perspective on Murray Rothbard's essay "Why Be Libertarian?".

Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute blog wonders whether we should fight "for king and country" at all.

Norman Horn, host of (LCC), reviews Ron Maxwell's (of Gettysburg and Gods and Generals fame) new movie Copperhead. The movie details the story of the Northern opponents of the Civil War, who were known as the Copperheads. I haven't seen the movie; however, I might plan to some time in the future.

Investor and broadcaster Theo Caldwell at The Daily Caller asks whether America is free at all.

Alternative health doctor Joseph Mercola on how sensible sun exposure can prevent cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and hundreds of other health problems.

Her.menutics, the women's blog at Christianity Today, exposes the not-so-pretty little liars.

Why does Edward Snowden want to go to Ecuador? Harold Maass explains why at The Week

Doug Newman at the Food for the Thinkers Blog (one of the best Christian libertarian blogs, in my opinion), reminds us of the similarity between George W. "Dubya" Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, and explores the utter hypocrisy of those who hate Barack Obama but love Dubya.

Conservative Christian columnist Chuck Baldwin on what John Hagee and other evangelicals really want when they beat the war drums.

The Reformed Libertarian on homeschooling and the battle for children's minds.

Justin Raimondo at The American Conservative asks whether Edward Snowden is our ideal Randian hero 

Eric Metaxas explores what turned off atheists to Christianity. The answer may surprise you.

It seems that a liberal is arguing that abortion is good and saves money, reports Napp Nazworth at the Christian Post.

Monday, July 1, 2013

On Paula Deen, Racism, and the Cultural Marxists

Let me confess. I don't watch Paula Deen a lot, even though I love food and cooking. Also, I think that carbs (such as deep-fried cheesecake, fried chicken with Crisco shortening, and mac-and-cheese pies) were the real cause of Paula Deen's heart attack rather than butter or heavy cream.

Now, I will comment on the alleged racism of Paula Deen. Here is the case as it goes: Deen is under fire for admitting that she used the N-word thirty years ago to describe a black person who held a gun at her head. The Daily Mail reports that she lost millions of dollars from Home Depot, Walmart, and Caesars Casinos, even as her empire was collapsing with the end of her contracts with Food Network. Also, a lawsuit was filed against her for her alleged discrimination against black employees, which also revealed Deen's use of racial slurs and her desire to have a "plantation-style" wedding for her brother. The lawsuit also revealed Deen's admission to wanting black men dressed as slaves. A sobbing Paula Deen, however, claimed in her interview on The Today Show to have used the N-word only once, and that hurtful lies are destroying her reputation in a worse way than any loss of money. She also denies that she is racist and that she would never hurt anyone. She even calls for a sinless person to stone her and wants to "meet [the stoner]."

Now for my comments. Apart from my disappointment in her for saying unwise things, I am severely disappointed in the media and the cultural Marxists for their lambasting of an apparently broken and contrite woman. They smeared her as a self-pitying woman who had no concern for those she hurt.  That may or may not be true. She may have shown self-pity. She may have repented of these sins. However, the media treatment was so bad that even the Rev. Al Sharpton (or Not-So-Sharpton as the conservative talk show host Mark Levin called him) admonished the media not to judge her for old racist comments. Before judging Deen for her words, the media should follow Jesus's commands and be careful to remove the plank from their eye before removing the sawdust from Deen's eyes.  The problem with the media is not so much a genuine confrontation of Paula Deen and the flippant use of language; rather, as the libertarian columnist Ilana Mercer pointed out in her recent column, many in the media harbor a resentful attitude against Old South culture per se (not so much because of flaws such as slavery and other abominations), while neglecting the good parts of that culture. Mercer says, "Blaming Old-South culture – as the prototypical knaves of conservatism are doing – is, moreover, unlikely to help exculpate Ms. Deen in the minds of the morons who judge her for her words, rather than for her deeds. The bad Old South macro-narrative is as ineffective in mitigation as is pointing out that Deen misspoke because of a near-death experience. 'A black man [once] burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head,' recounted Deen. 'I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.'"

Even when they point out Paula Deen's alleged racism, the cultural Marxists and the media, as Tom DiLorenzo points out, "are paternalistic racists who believe that black people can never, ever, make it on their own without special help from them" and "can never admit any of [the problems of statism] because they have championed [the war on poverty, the welfare state, the war on drugs, government schooling, and the welfare state] over the past decades." As I said before, the media neglected to deal with their own problems before picking on Paula Deen.

Now, having said all this, what should Paula Deen do? Simple. Repent of her actions, apologize, and make reconciliation with those whom she has hurt. She should also watch her words next time, and she should recognize the dangers that a big "empire" could bring to the "emperor."

Blimey Cow on The Pursuit of Happiness

Blimey Cow, one of my favorite YouTube channels, has a brilliantly sarcastic video on the pursuit of happiness and exposes the lie behind this all-American myth.

Here it is. Enjoy. Then bookmark it and subscribe to the Blimey Cow channel.

Rogue Cop Comes to Christ

The 700 Club has an uplifting story of a former rogue cop who came to Christ after running away from a sentence in prison for his brutality.

Particularly interesting in his testimony is how the cop started with good intentions and was corrupted once he entered the dirty work of law enforcement. This is usually the problem with those, in my opinion, who seek to do good through the force of the State; it usually fails and it usually corrupts the person with power.

Here is the testimony. Enjoy.

NWO: United We Stand

Just today, I found out about a ten-minute short film made by independent filmmaker Tom Antos entitled NWO: United We Stand via InfoWars. It's about US soldiers who are trying to thwart an alien attack, yet cause collateral damage along the way. It also deals with what it would take to unite the world; it depicts aliens as that uniting force.

Here is the movie. Enjoy.

What I'm Working On

Hello, folks.

What am I working on for this blog? Here are some things:

1. A piece on same-sex marriage, the State, libertarianism, Christianity, and how these four things intersect.

2. The continuing parts in a series on the meaning of liberalism and how it relates to Christianity.

Look for these in the coming days.

Pat Buchanan on the South and the Union

Patrick J. Buchanan, one of the few intelligent conservative writers (even when I disagree with him on certain issues), writes on the South, the Union, and progressives.

Says Buchanan:

" matter the progress made over half a century, they do not trust the South to deal fairly and decently with its black citizens, without a club over its head. They do not believe the South has changed in its heart from the days of segregation.
They think the South is lying in wait for a new opportunity to disfranchise its black voters. And they think black Southerners are unable to defend their own interests – without Northern liberal help.
In this belief there are elements of paranoia, condescension and bigotry.

"Many liberals not only do not trust the South, some detest it. And many seem to think it deserves to be treated differently than the more progressive precincts of the nation.

"Consider Wednesday's offering by Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. The South, he writes, is the home of 'so-called right-to-work laws' and hostility to the union shop, undergirded by 'the virulent racism of the white Southern establishment,' a place where a 'right-wing antipathy toward workers' rights' is pandemic.

"The South is the 'the heartland of cheap-labor America. ... When it wants to slum, business still goes to the South.' Then there are those 'reactionary white Republican state governments.'"

I recommend that you read the piece. It exposes how much racism the modern left has toward the South, how much distrust still exists between the Northerners and the Southerners. Deep down, we as Christians must recognize sooner or later that we must love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), as Jesus Christ commanded,  even when we loathe their culture or behavior with a deep loathing. We must not let the troubles of centuries past to conflict with the possibility of restored fellowship. Also, it would help to reconsider much of the established history we have been taught, as that would clear up many, if not all, of our problems