Proposed County Charter Would Create a Corporative State

So I just received in the mail, a copy of a proposed county charter, which you can read here, http://newashtabula.wordpress.com/ashctycharter/. I am personally opposed to this planned change in government. With it's administrator, and economic developement commission, I feel that it will mean the rise of creeping, cryptic, social fascism. This would obliviate the difference between the public, and private sectors, and create a corporative state, with crony state capitalism. The tax payers will then have to foot the bill for business expenses, which would only serve to favor special interests, rather than simply the general welfare. I do not feel that economic developement planning by itself can effectively better the standard of living, and/or bring about financial prosperity. After all both Stalin, with his five year plans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union, or Mao, with his "great leap forward" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward, were able to completely,effectively manage the resources, and businesses, of the nation. So I feel that most ideally, the socio-economic system should be made up of co-operation between voluntary associations, instead od governmental regimentation, and patronage. Corporatism is most unamerican, and many persons fought, and died to combat it. But as many voters are ignorant of political science, I fear that this ballot proposal might very well pass. For the majority of the people would not recognize fascism if it bit them on their collective rear, and if it were to return under another name, they will tend to be taken in by such a social movement, and will come to support it. But, as for me, I favor a co-operative commonwealth libertarian munincipality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Commonwealth_(society)#Co-operative_commonwealth. But, at any rate, it should by rights be the people as a whole whom shall be entrusted with determining the type of social system we all have. And we shall receive the regime we most deserve, for better or worse.

Americans Accross the Political Divide Oppose Military Action in Syria

And in case anyone reading my blog secretly feels I might be a kook, for having doubts as to the justification, and even the motivation, of the proposed air strikes against Syria, I'm not alone in this regard. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/proudly-patriotic-but-skeptical-on-syria-attack.html Plus, for what it's worth, and if anyone cares, Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee stated that he wondered if this might be like the film "Wag The Dog", in which an American president launches a war under false pretenses, in order to divert adverse attention from domestic problems. http://video.foxnews.com/v/2654379993001/syrian-conflict-threatening-the-us-economy/ I've heard it said, by those on the left, that Obama's administration is as if it were another term of George W. Bush. But I think that it's more like a remake of Clinton's, when we got embroiled in various military interventions, such as in Somalia, and Afghanistan. I remember, I was around back then. And I do not feel that it made America more secure from terrorist attacks, as evidenced by 9-11-01. I'm just glad that it's Democrat in office, as president, so that the Republicans, both elected officials, and registered rank and file members, will tend to more so have the strength of their convictions, in opposing government excesses, just as I remember it being when Clinton was in office, as opposed to Bush 2. But I also think that all those whom believe in the value of voting should come apart from the two major parties, which are disgraced by both incompetence, and injustice. I feel that all good charectered Democrats should join the Green Party, and that all well intentioned Republicans should go over to the Libertarian Party. Only then will I expect we will be able to enjoy a new birth of freedom, and peace.

Plot Allegedly Uncovered Concerning a False Flag Operation in Syria

It now appears that the Obama Administration has been implicated in a conspiracy, in cahoots with radical islamists, such as Al Qaeda, which largely make up the so called Free Syrian Army, to launch chemical weapons, and then blame it on the regime of Bashir Assad. If this account is true, then it would parralel the attack on Poland, commited by Germany, under the authority of Adolf Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler As you should be able to see, from the link I provided, what is alleged has eery similarities with what the Obama administration supposedly is up to, in inciting the U.S. military to intervene in the ongoing civil war in Syria. I trust that in time the truth of the matter, whatever it might be, will be revealed. But at any rate, I do not feel that it is called for American forces to enter into this foreign military affair. Not only are none of the combatants altogether justified in their respective actions, with Assad acting as a sponsor of, and conduit for Iranian supplies to, Hezbollah, and the Free Syrian Army made up of radical islamists, who've commited attrocities themselves, but also Turkey, amongst other Middle Eastern nations, have already sided with the FSA rebels, and France plans on following suit. The only side within Syria that I feel support for is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coordination_Committee_for_Democratic_Change. I've never felt more ashamed of my country.

Right-wing Terrorist Groups Threaten to Take Over Rural Villages

Yesterday I saw this on tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_uAPO9vv2Y As I've mentioned before, I was born in PA. And spent part of my life growing up there. There tends to not be all that much of a local police force. So mostly the residents just provide for their own self defense. But this situation is not simply a gun club formed with the intention of hunting wild game, and protecting one another. The group in question constitutes a paramilitary political gang. It's starting to resemble the social situation that existed in Weimar Republic Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_paramilitary_groups And worse than Jamel, Germany, of today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10065697/Little-welcome-for-strangers-in-Germanys-neo-Nazi-village.html. So I feel that if the state has it's hands tied, and/or is unwilling to confront the problem, then the left should form it's own armed partisan group to counter the aggressive hostile threat. Sort of like the "Reichsbanner" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbanner_Schwarz-Rot-Gold Only I fear that the center-left liberal establishment might prove to be lilly livered. So what might come to be would be a far-left militia, reminiscent of the "Red Front" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund What I find to be frustrating, and foolish though is that it seems that the powers that be, and the public at large, are more alarmed by the militant left than the fanatical right. I mean if someone were to publicly have displayed a Vietcong flag, such as this ,like how certain people on the right display a Confederate battle flag, and then go out into their back yard, and practice shooting with an automatic rifle, and.or handgun, I imagine that a sizable number of residents would become concerned, and inform the police, or perhaps even form a vigilance commitee to take matters into their own hands, rather than to feel compelled to have to simply put up with it, until the stuff hits the fan, so to speak. In answer to Thom Hartmann's question, about what I'd do if beset by such a scene, if I myself were to have a gun in my vehicle,I likely would have openned fire upon his "constitutional security force". Certainly, if there would ever be a time for pre-emptive attack, it would be then, in facing an imminent threat to the safety, and order, of the public. And this is also why I've largely lost confidence in this government's competance in securing our homeland from attacks. They can not seem to even get a handle on the various street gangs, much less private militias. And then when they do attempt to investigate reports of shots fired, they wind up hassling the likes of me. Presumabley because the authorities have become aware of my philosophical anarchist sentiments. I mean, in a way I get it. After all it was a self described anarchist whom assassinated Pres. William McKinley. But that was an example of a fanatical ideologue. Most left-libertarians, including your's truely, only justify using violence in countering aggression, in order to protect ourselves. And the state should only be cracking down on people who are overt threats to the public, not simply for the point of view they might hold. And, just as I'm not like the Weather Underground http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground ,in all fairness, not all conservatives, even the old right, are like this right-wing paramilitary outfit. So we should all be held to account due to our actions, rather than our opinions.

Bill Is Introduced To End Exemptions For Closed Workshops

http://harper.house.gov/press-release/harper-authors-bill-provide-fair-wages-disabled This is a rare occasion when I actually have praise for the actions of a Republican office holder. :) I have long been a foe of Goodwill Industries, stemming from my own experience having been sent there for evaluation, by the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. I actually consider them to be an example of modern day indentured servitude. And besides not paying much, if anything, they also lock the workers inside, while they're in operation. This is not only confining, but also potentionally dangerous, given what happened in this one case http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/p/trianglefire.htm, and also this http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/factory-workers-locked-flames-spread/story?id=17832077. So I feel that under equal protection of the law, such enterprises should not be permitted to be exempt any longer. America is supposed to guarantee liberty, and justice for all, regardless of social status, and/or special needs. I first read of the public awareness being raised about this issue in this article. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal?lite I wanted to address some of the comments made by some of the persons interviewed, First off, there are a number of people, not simply those whom are regarded as being disabled in some way, which is actually a broad category which would include neurodiverse persons such as myself, who have such conditions of a PDD http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/development-disorder, whom would be willing to work for free, in return for sustainance. However, as of yet, we do not live with a gift economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy , where in there is no cost for anything, and Goodwill certainly is making substantial profits off of the products they sell, and the labor they exploit. If however you feel that a job well done should be it's own reward, then you are what's known as an anarcho-communist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism. Now I have no quarrel with such people, but I think that Goodwill might take issue with it, and deny them the so called opportunity of fulfilling work, given this one case. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html Now some people might be thinking, even with all of this being said, that those with various special needs might be in need of vocational rehabilitation, in order to prepare them for the workforce. But who gets to decide who is qualified to be given gainful employment? I'd suppose that such businesses as Goodwill, who utilise such bond laborers will want to keep them for as long as they can get away with it. Unless the "client", as they call their wage slaves/indentured servants, happen to be older. Then they give them credits right off the bat. And furthermore, if such a program were required of every person, before they may seek employment in the job market, the people would regard it as being state sponsored bondage, like something out of Mao Zedong's China. And in response to such a policy, there would be a popular revolt, like perhaps with guns, and the like. So why expect others to do what you yourself would find to be intolerable? I do not feel that it's elitist to have self respect, and to demand to be treated fairly. Oh yeah, by the way, already in certain places those on welfare are being forced into unpaid labor, as my one British counterpart blogger posted about. http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-workfare-slavery-tory.html, http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/letter-fans-workfare-slavery-tory.html So these are all of the points I can think to make at this time. So I will close by expressing thanks to Rep. Gregg Harper, of Miss. I consider his action on this to be worthy of the historic political party of Abraham Lincoln. I just hope that it shall pass, and subsequently be signed by Pres. Obama. But I suppose that it will receive not only bipartisan support, but also bipartisan opposition. But at least it's a worthwhile try.

School Boy Is Chided For Intervening In A Knife Attack.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/06/was-a-canadian-student-punished-by-his-school-after-stopping-a-knife-wielding-classmate/  As a philosophical anarchist, I often here the refrain that if anarchy were to take effect, it would lead to chaos. I like to respond by asking what do you call what we have now, if not chaos? I actually feel that if persons were empowered to take initiative, in handling interpersonal/social problems, then such threats could be directly nipped in the bud, at a grass roots level, before it would have opportunity to develope into a stronghold of violent crime. I therefore support a do it yourself approach of indivisual responsibility. Now this certainly does not mean that there are never times when one should seek help from others, or that violence is always the best way to deal with conflicts. We should certainly not resort to becoming vengeful vigilantes, lest we set off a vicious cycle of violence. But sometimes just, and proportionate force is called for in dealing with dangerous situations. And furthermore, I would like to address what I see as being the hypocritical, and nonsensical, atiitude which people such as namely Americans have towards violence. If someone, such as Briar Maclean, the boy mentioned in this story I linked to, get mixed up in a fight, though no one is killed, or even seriously hurt, he is faulted. But, if someone goes overseas to fight in a war, and ends up killing many people, including inadvertantly civilians, he will be lauded, and if killed honored with a memorial shrine. And religions, such as namely Christianity, do not help matters either. For it has a seemingly incoherent view of violence. It's position ranges from nonresistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance#Christian_theology, to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Compassionate_belief_and_religious_influence, with the more nuanced view of Just War Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory in between. But more than this, I've noticed that Christians tend to cite various Bible passages, that are alternatately pro, and anti- violence, however they feel is convenient to suit their purposes. If you study the Bible, with the standpoint of "tota scriptura", it will be left to you to try and make over all sense out of it's precepts, such as pertains to the existance of violence, and what our position should be in relation to it. Now speaking for myself, as one whom might be described by some as being a Christian deist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism, I adhere to the non-aggression principle http://nap.univacc.net/. Though probally most Christian anarchists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism abide by absolute pacifism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism. But whatever principled position you might take, let's resolve to acts as we deem fit, in not only pursuing happiness for ourselves, but also the wellbeing of others. We should not have to be made to feel dependent upon the government in being benevolent. The welfare, and warfare, state can not do as optimal a work as voluntary mutual aid, and mutual defense, between persons within a given community. And upon such time as the people are altogether mature enough to be able, and willing to do so, the only sort of government we shall have will be self-government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance, which in my view is the best government.

Snowden Shows How The Secret Police Are Violating Civil Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-basic-liberties_n_3414824.html As I have suspected for some time now, according to the testimony of Edward Snowden, whom I consider to be an exceptional example of an honest, conscientious, government agent, the various intelligence agencies have been using their expanded powers to spy on Americans. As part of the "Prism" program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), telecommunications, and digital data can be accessed, and recorded. Now, if this were specificly used to target known enemies of the U.S.A., and were subject to the due process of the law, I would not have a problem with it. I think that it would be necessary in order to keep current with the modern digital information age. However, as I've pointed out before, in prior blog posts, it's not just groups such as Al Qaida that are being focused on, and the operations aren't altogether taking place within the scope of the criminal justice system. In fact, comparabley to Nazi Germnany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichssicherheitshauptamt, various police agencies are now collaberating together under the direction of the secret police. http://rt.com/usa/fusion-center-director-spying-070/ And as I've alluded to if you're either left, or right of center, and might have opposition towards, and/or concerns about the government, you might come under suspicion, and even under fire, by the secret police, and their storm troopers. Look, if their is a valid concern about an imminent threat, then they should be permitted to get a warrant in order to investigate, and if needed apprehend suspected seditionists, and saboteurs. But we should not be targeted, and subsequently persecuted, simply based upon our opinions. Just think about it, if the federal government were to have possessed this power, and followed this policy, during the time leading up to the Civil War, it would have used it to crack down on abolitionists. Remember, the Fugitive Slave Act was in effect. And the raid on the Harpers Ferry arsenal was carried out by a fanatical abolitionist, John Brown.  http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html So, abolitionists would have been regarded as being criminal subversives, just as like how today anarchists such as myself will tend to likewise be viewed with animosity. But before some of you start to think that we have it coming, due to our opposition to institutions of power in our society, including the state, I for one, amongst others strictly adhere to the principle of non-aggression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle / value of non-violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violence. So I do not feel that it would be justified to initiate force for any reason, not even to try to effect desired social change. And also, as I mentioned earlier in this article, it's not just those on the far left whom are being suppressed, but also various persons who are old right. http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/were-all-terrorists-now.html, http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/ So just because you might think that you're a good person, who has done nothing wrong, and therefore should have nothing to hide, and be worried about, doesn't mean that the powers that be will automaticly agree. Sometimes those in government might become prone to jump to conclusions, and over react. Which is why it is necessary for us to have the protections of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, in order to keep the political powers in check. P.S. To those whom might be thinking that it's my fault that all of this is happening, since you presume that either I voted for Obama, or did not vote at all, you'd be wrong. Eventhough I largely consider myself to be a libertarian Democrat http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat, I voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein, as I have been concerned about a number of Pres. Obama's policies, such as the NDAA. I feel that we should always strive to vote for candidates who are pro-freedom, and I also prefer that they be in favor of social justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice as well. So that's why I sometimes will vote for Greens over Democrats. But also, to any right-libertarians, and/or disgruntled Republicans, whom might be reading this, I feel that the Libertarian, Gary Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson was not all that bad a choice either. And I hold no hard feelings towards those who chose to vote for him.