‘Thanks’ To One Libertarian Patriot, ‘Farewell’ To Another

Capitalism, Economy, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Objectivism, Taxation

A student of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises—Austrian economist George Reisman, author of the magisterial “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics,” is not as famous as Milton Friedman, but he’s far and away the greater economist.

Both are mentioned in the column “Burn-The-Wealth Bernie & His Partial Enslavement System.”

George writes: “Excellent column. My favorite sentence is ‘Be it Hillary or burn-the-wealth Bernie – both agree that it is up to them, the all-knowing central planners, to determine how much of your life ought to be theirs to squander.’ This really names the essence of their program.”

My thanks to George.

And my condolences to the Schiff family and to the greater libertarian community, which mourns the death of an icon.

Irwin A. Schiff died shackled to a prison bed not in China or Iran, but in the USA.

Son Peter Schiff, a great patriot, too, has penned an obituary to his father.

“Death of a Patriot” By Peter Schiff:

My father Irwin A. Schiff was born Feb. 23rd 1928, the 8th child and only son of Jewish immigrants, who had crossed the Atlantic twenty years earlier in search of freedom. As a result of their hope and courage my father was fortunate to have been born into the freest nation in the history of the world. But when he passed away on Oct. 16th, 2015 at the age of 87, a political prisoner of that same nation, legally blind and shackled to a hospital bed in a guarded room in intensive care, the free nation he was born into had itself died years earlier.

My father had a life-long love affair with our nation’s founding principals and proudly served his country during the Korean War, for a while even having the less then honorable distinction of being the lowest ranking American soldier in Europe. While in college he became exposed to the principles of Austrian economics through the writings of Henry Hazlitt and Frederick Hayek. He first became active in politics during Barry Goldwater’s failed 1964 presidential bid. His activism intensified during the Vietnam Era when he led local grass root efforts to resist Yale University’s plans to conduct aid shipments to North Vietnam at a time when that nation was actively fighting U.S. forces in the south. Later in life he staged an unsuccessful write in campaign for governor of Connecticut, then eventually lost the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination to Harry Brown in 1996.

In 1976 his beliefs in free market economics, limited government, and strict interpretation of the Constitution led him to write his first book The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You, a blistering indictment of the post New Deal expansion of government in the United States. The book achieved accolades in the mainstream conservative world, receiving a stellar review in the Wall Street Journal, among other mainstream publications.

But my father was most known for his staunch opposition to the Federal Income Tax, for which the Federal Government labeled him a “tax protester.” But he had no objection to lawful, reasonable taxation. He was not an anarchist and believed that the state had an important, but limited role to play in market based economy. He opposed the Federal Government’s illegal and unconstitutional enforcement and collection of the income tax. His first book on this topic (he authored six in total, self-published by Freedom Books) How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes, published in 1982 became a New York Times best seller. His last, The Federal Mafia; How the Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully collects Income Taxes, the first of three editions published in 1992, became the only non-fiction, and second and last book to be banned in America. The only other book being Fanny Hill; Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, banned for obscenity in 1821 and 1963.

His crusade to force the government to obey the law earned him three prison sentences, the final one being a fourteen-year sentence that he began serving ten years ago, at the age of 77. That sentence turned into a life sentence, as my father failed to survive until his planned 2017 release date. However in actuality the life sentence amounted to a death sentence. My father died from skin cancer that went undiagnosed and untreated while he was in federal custody. The skin cancer then led to a virulent outbreak of lung cancer that took his life just more than two months after his initial diagnosis.

The unnecessarily cruel twist in his final years occurred seven years ago when he reached his 80th birthday. At that point the government moved him from an extremely low security federal prison camp in New York State where he was within easy driving distance from family and friends, to a federal correctional institute, first in Indiana and then in Texas. This was done specially to give him access to better medical care. The trade off was that my father was forced to live isolated from those who loved him. Given that visiting him required long flights, car rentals, and hotel stays, his visits were few and far between. Yet while at these supposed superior medical facilities, my father received virtually no medical care at all, not even for the cataracts that left him legally blind, until the skin cancer on his head had spread to just about every organ in his body.

At the time of his diagnosis in early August of this year, he was given four to six mouths to live. We tried to get him out of prison on compassionate release so that he could live out the final months of his life with his family, spending some precious moments with the grandchildren he had barely known. But he did not live long enough for the bureaucratic process to be completed. Two months after the process began, despite the combined help of a sitting Democratic U.S. congresswoman and a Republican U.S. senator, his petition was still sitting on someone’s desk waiting for yet another signature, even though everyone at the prison actually wanted him released. Even as my father lay dying in intensive care, a phone call came in from a lawyer and the Bureau of Prisons in Washington asking the prison medical representatives for more proof of the serious nature of my father’s condition.

As the cancer consumed him his voice changed, and the prison phone system no longer recognized it, so he could not even talk with family members on the phone during his finale month of life. When his condition deteriorated to the point where he needed to be hospitalized, government employees blindly following orders kept him shackled to his bed. This despite the fact that escape was impossible for an 87 year old terminally ill, legally blind patient who could barley breathe, let alone walk.

Whether or not you agree with my father’s views on the Federal Income Tax, or the manner by which it is collected, it’s hard to condone the way he was treated by our government. He held his convictions so sincerely and so passionately that he continued to espouse them until his dying breath. Like William Wallace in the final scene of Braveheart, an oppressive government may have succeeded in killing him, but they did not break his spirit. And that spirit will live on in his books, his videos, and in his children and grandchildren. Hopefully his legacy will one day help restore the lost freedoms he died trying to protect, finally allowing him to rest in peace.

The Trump-In-Decline School Of Alternate Reality

Democrats, Media, Objectivism, Politics, Republicans

“Reports of Donald Trump’s demise are wildly exaggerated,” said one of the “astringent” minds with life tenure on the DC consultant and pundit circuit. Indeed, the school of thought that has consolidated like an aftershock after the tectonic shift in politics created by Donald Trump comprises the “adviser, strategist and candidate class” we know so well. They create their own reality and force their viewers or listeners to share their parallel universe.

Except that a LOT of Americans are having none-of it.

As was predicted in this space—and well before Monica Crowley awoke (today) to the reality of Trump (on Fox News’ Hannity)—many independents, Reagan Democrats and Southern Democrats are going to flock to Trump.

Likewise, refutations of rumors of the demise of Trump are meaningless, created among people whose intellectual output consists of wishful thinking designed to confirm a world-view friendly to power.

On the other hand, not once has a reliable, non-mainstream analyst outside this sheltered-employment clique ever suggested that Trump would peak, then crash, plateau, then decline or disappear.

DC is having a debate with itself.

As far as Trump is concerned, they can talk to the hand.

UPDATED: Medics WRONG, As They Often Are, On One-Size-Fits-All Mammography

Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, Science, Technology

Years back, paleo warrior Karen De Coster was fired by her doctor for questioning the wisdom of the prescribed annual mammogram and refusing to submit to it. Uncoordinated, and in the same month, I was given my marching orders by my medic for a related infraction.

Just the other day, at the (new) doctor’s office, I was treated as an alien for suggesting that an ultrasound be performed for an additional data point, to alternate with the mammogram the provider kept pressing for. Be a daredevil, I suggested (not in those words, of course); get a different angle on the breast tissue! The providers’ response–from doctor to radiographer: “OMG! Nooooo … there’s a heretic among us. Reach for the smelling salts. Should we call security????!!! This could escalate.”

Pretty much.

Now the data suggest that mammography belongs not as an annual rule, but, rather, in the context of a personalized, individualized healthcare strategy, tailored to a woman’s genetic and general risk profile—the kind of holistic healthcare less likely under the trillion-dollar burden of ObamaCare.

From “American Cancer Society eases mammogram recommendations”:

In a major shift, the American Cancer Society is recommending that women at average risk of breast cancer get annual mammograms starting at age 45 rather than at age 40, and that women 55 and older scale back screening to every other year.

The new guidelines, published on Tuesday in JAMA, fall more closely in line with guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel of experts that recommend biennial breast cancer screening starting at age 50 for most women.

The Task Force’s 2009 recommendations to reduce the frequency and delay the start of mammogram screening were based on studies suggesting the benefits of detecting cancers earlier did not outweigh the risk of false positive results, which needlessly expose women to additional testing, including a possible biopsy. …

… The differences between the two sets of guidelines shows there is no single or correct answer for when and how often women should be screened for breast cancer, said Dr. Nancy Keating of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Keating, who co-wrote a commentary accompanying the new guidelines, said the differences between the two groups emphasize the need to talk to patients and understand their preferences about breast cancer screening. …

UPDATE: There are risk in radiation and in the exploration of false positives (biopsies or further interventions that cause disease). Overall, the data show that the annual mammogram doesn’t reduce mortality from breast cancer.

Time For A Canadian Community Organizer

Canada, Economy, Elections

Canadians (not this ex-pat) want their own Barack Obama, so they elected Justin Trudeau: a community organizer with a better political pedigree, a prettier face, more privilege and less brain power than even the ass with ears, Obama.

By profession, young Justin Trudeau is “A substitute drama teacher” to quote Kathy Shaidle. His resume is emptier than a banker’s heart.

Canada has enjoyed solid economic fundamentals, having averted the economic meltdown of 2008 due to more conservative fiscal policies, including no affirmative action in money lending.

The Central Bank of Canada is not nearly as inflationary as our Fed. Its banks, in fact, were the healthiest in the world as ours collapsed in 2008. The Canadian immigration system is generally geared to serve the country’s shifting needs. The country’s corporate tax rate is lower than ours.

The voters, however, thought it was time for less austerity and more government spending.

“Sunny ways my friends. Sunny ways,” Trudeau told his enthusiastic supporters in Montreal. “This is what positive politics can do.”

Very weird. Is “Sunny ways” some sort of a chant?