Current issues and information by members and leaders of the Libertarian Party of Monterey County.

See NEW Material on UPDATES Menu. Below are some of our older posts from previous years.

Great Link: Was Hitler a Communist and/or a Social Democrat back in 1919

Submitted on Fri, 2019-02-08 13:06

Was Hitler a Communist and later a Social Democrat? New evidence has been discovered by German historian Thomas Weber that has been published in several of his books. There is now a website with the new information, which had been available on the “Bavarian Soviet Republic” Wikipedia page until an editor censored the material despite its noteworthy footnotes. Link below


Annual Meeting of the Libertarian Party of Monterey County–Feb. 28, 2019

Submitted on Sat, 2019-02-02 09:07

Our annual Libertarian Party of Monterey County meeting will be Thur., February 28, 2019 at Roundtable Pizza in Seaside (1717 Fremont Blvd.,). At about 5:30 PM we will provide pizza and beverages. After eating and socializing, there will be a short business meeting with elections and discussion of our 2019 activities.

Be prepared to support the county party by renewing your annual dues.

The 2019 LP of California Convention will be held April 5-7 at the Concord Crowne Plaza, 45 John Glenn Dr., Concord, CA 94520. We need to assign delegates. Hope to see you there.

More information on the LPC Convention: https://ca.lp.org/convention/

–Lawrence Samuels, LPMP Chair

The tragic outcome for some who fight our wars — Letter to Monterey Herald

Submitted on Wed, 2018-11-14 17:04

Thomas Lee wrote an insightful letter on guns, war, and PTSD for the Monterey Herald. Tom has been an elected member to the Libertarian Party of Monterey County executive committee in the past. Like myself, he is a member of the Peace Coalition of Monterey County– Lawrence Samuels

Letter to the Monterey Herald by Thomas Lee, 11-14-2018

The tragic outcome for some who fight our wars

Polls showed health care and immigration at the top of Americans’ concern for the fall election. American wars and militarism were hardly mentioned at all. It’s no wonder since the media ignores the on-going scope and cost of American wars abroad. So it came as a shock that an ex-Marine who saw horrendous action in Afghanistan killed 12 people in Thousand Oaks. One theory is that he contracted PTSD.

But Thomas Burke, a chaplain embedded with the killer in the same Marine Corps regiment (quoted by CNN), had a different take. “PTSD doesn’t create homicidal ideation,” Burke said. “We train a generation to be as violent as possible, then we expect them to come home and be OK. It’s not mental illness. It’s that we’re doing something to a generation and we’re not responding to the needs they have.”

Most Americans want to forget the endless wars fought on our behalf. Perhaps we know they’re wrong, but feel powerless to act effectively. But too many of the soldiers sent to fight these wars don’t forget, haunting us for decades to come. The Peace Coalition of Monterey County says enough!

Thomas Lee, Monterey, CA

Why Do So Many Anti-Water Activists Advocate Stealing?

Submitted on Fri, 2018-10-12 14:08

Published in the Carmel Pine Cone as a 1/2 page advertisement, Oct. 12, 2018.

–Using the POWER of the STATE to Steal!–

Because, like thieves of the night, they believe that since they breathe, everyone owes them stuff. If they cannot buy Cal Am by voluntary means, they will simply use the power of the state to take it. And if there is resistance, the thieves will simply pull out their state-issued guns and take everything by physical force, reminiscent of the ugly ideologies that plagued Europe in the 1930-1940s.

To invade and pillage others was the typical mindset of the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists. They not only plundered other nations, but many minorities as well, stealing everything they owned, their homes, businesses, clothing, even gold fillings from their teeth. One German business man wrote of this state thievery in Günter Reimann’s The Vampire Economy (1939), asserting that “These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth’” and are involved in the “confiscation of private property.” (1)

Mussolini also favored abolishing private property, arguing in a convoluted socialist way that “private property is theft” and then suggesting that its abolishment would move Italy “through the phase of collectivism forwards to the ultimate goal of communism.”(2)

Originally, eminent domain in America was solely employed to get ownership of road easements in order for the public to maintain them. Now, everyone’s homes, businesses and property are under an authoritarian chopping block.

There is no moral principle which allows someone to steal what they cannot get through voluntary exchange. It is simply a form of “legalized theft” that has been used by every tinhorn dictator and ideological extremist since the dawn of mankind.
Most parents tell their children: “Don’t hurt others and don’t take their stuff.” You would think that stealing would be unacceptable by the 21st century! But these anti-water activists simply harken back to the old brutal days when “might made right.”

Stealing Is Still Wrong!
Vote NO on Measure J

Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE), Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association (STA)

SEE Link:
www.committeeagainstfascism.org (CAFE)

Material comes from the forthcoming book– Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the ‘Free Left’ and ‘Statist Left’ — by L.K. Samuels

(1) Günter Reimann’s The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism, Auburn: Alabama, Mises Institute, pp. 6-7, 2014, first printed 1939.
(2) Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini, New York: NY, Vintage Books, 1983, p. 23

We Don’t Need Public Fascism Now!

Submitted Monday, 2018-10-08 13:40

Advertisement published in the Carmel Pine Cone, Oct. 5, 2018.

The United States and our Western Allies fought German National Socialism and Italian Fascism during World War II to defend liberal capitalism. That point was made crystal clear by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, who defined World War II in stark economic terms, declaring that “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.”(1)

To seize (steal) private property and companies was the essence of Marxist-inspired Fascists and their efforts to plunder other nations, races, private property, and private businesses. The National Socialists were serial kleptomaniacs who believed they could take whatever they wanted for what they deemed was the public good. Their motto, “the common good before the individual good”, allowed the National Socialists to engage in what Hitler called “social justice,”(2) social engineering, and nationalistic policies. Under the yoke of authoritarian socialism, they established a centralized welfare-warfare state determined to militarily conquer the world. After all, the “origins of fascist ideology” was “Marxism.”(3)

The United States was able to stop Germany’s and Italy’s socialization and fascistization of Europe. It is time to do the same here and stop this social-fascistization of the economy from plaguing America.

Vote Yes for freedom by voting NO on Measure J


Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE), Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association (STA). Material comes from the forthcoming book– Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the ‘Free Left’ and ‘Statist Left’ — by L.K. Samuels

[1] Joseph Goebbels, “Englands Schuld” (“England’s Guilt”), Illustrierter Beobachter, Sondernummer, p.14. Late fall of 1939. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb47.htm

[2] Adolf Hitler, “Why We Are Anti-Semites,” an August 15, 1920 speech in Munich, Hitler declared: “we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice…”

[3] Zeev Sternhell, with Mario Sznajder, Maia Asheri. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution, Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 5.

Stop the Fascist Takeover of Cal Am

Submitted on Mon, 2018-10-01 08:45

This material was placed in an advertisement in the Carmel Valley Pine Cone, Sept. 28, 2018.

A group of social activists are attempting to use eminent domain tactics to engineer a government takeover of a privately-owned water company. So what does that have to do with historical Fascism? Plenty! For instance:

• The 13-point plank of the 1920 National Socialist Program demanded the “nationalization of all trusts” (corporations).
• In 1934, Mussolini boasted that “Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”(1) And in 1939 “This level of state intervention greatly surpassed that in Nazi Germany, giving Italy a public sector second only to that of Stalin’s Russia.”(2)
• In 1937 Göring decided to nationalize private deposits of iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.”(3)
• By 1943, state ownership in the Third Reich had expanded rapidly where “the number of state-owned firms topped 500.” (4)
• In 1944, Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, worried about a complete government takeover of the private sector in Germany, warning that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground, furthered by many of the [Nazi] party functionaries.”(5)
• Albert Speer also mentioned that Hitler would go into tirades over companies that were bringing in “high earnings without work.” Shouting to Speer, Hitler declared: “One of these days I’ll sweep away this outrage and nationalize all corporations.” (6)
• Fascism was a “very specific revision of Marxism.” (7)

Vote yes for freedom by voting NO on Measure J
Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE), Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association (STA)
Footnotes available at:
Material comes from the forthcoming book– Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the ‘Free Left’ and ‘Statist Left’ — by L.K. Samuels

(1) Gianni Toniolo, editor, The Oxford Handbook of the Italian Economy Since Unification, Oxford: UK, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 59; Mussolini’s speech to the Chamber of Deputies was on May 26, 1934.
(2) Martin Blinkhorn, Mussolini and Fascist Italy, New York: NY, Routledge, 1991, p. 26.
(3) Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power, New York: NY, Penguin Press, 2005, p. 372.
(4) R. J. Overy, War and Economy in the Third Reich, Oxford University Press, 1994, p.16.
(5) Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, New York: NY, Simon and Schuster, 1970, p. 359.
(6) Albert Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries, New York, NY, Pocket Books, 1977, p. 84.
(7) Zeev Sternhell, with Mario Sznajder, Maia Asheri. The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution, Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 5. Sternhell is one of the world’s leading experts on fascism.

The State of New York Devolves into Fascist Extremism

Submitted on Tue, 2018-08-28 09:18

By Lawrence Samuels

It is now official. The state of New York and Governor Andrew Cuomo have decided to embrace the ugly specter of fascist extremism. A statist Leftist, Andrew Cuomo has spearheaded an anti-human rights and anti-Founders campaign to extinguish an advocacy group through government intimidation, regulations, and threats, a tactic often employed by the National Socialists of Germany to affirm the supremacy of society over individual rights.

Fortunately, the ACLU has found these government-funded strong-arm tactics to be problematic and unconstitutional, declaring: “Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business.”

In this case, that advocacy group is the National Rifle Association (NRA), but it could be any educational or advocacy group that actively espouses change. In early August, Cuomo bragged about taking down the NRA via government regulations on his Facebook post, declaring: “The regulations NY put in place are working. We’re forcing the NRA into financial jeopardy. We won’t stop until we shut them down.” This has a chilling effect on free speech for every group and institution, left or right, since this precedent will encourage all politicos to silence or abolish an opponent’s ability to express their opinions.

This case is obviously beyond the pale. How can a government agency compel banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies to dismiss an advocacy group as a customer? This is a blatant violation of constitutional laws and protections, especially the First Amendment. The state of New York is using its vast legal and taxing power to punish political enemies. Only a Fascist-Marxist ideologue would employ the power of the state to silence private organizations they deem adversaries. They are simply outlawing their political opponents without actually legislating laws that explicitly make them illegal.

The New York State attack against free exchange went into high gear when Maria Vullo, head of the state’s Department of Financial Services, sent out threatening letters to businesses in New York. Vullo demanded that companies sever connections with pro-Second Amendment groups. In many cases the government threats worked to scare off business vendors. A number of banks withdrew banking services while insurance companies decided not to renew liability insurance.

Of course, two can play this anti-free speech game. Tit for tat reprisals are notoriously ugly and damaging. Conservative governors and agencies might unleash their enormous bureaucracies and attorneys to go after the banks and insurance companies that associate with opposing advocacy groups. If this were to happen, all hell would break loose across the political spectrum as society grows more polarized, if that is even possible.

When it comes to keeping the political environment free of censorship, the golden rule of ACLU’s legal director David Cole is indispensable: “The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”

A slippery slope always arises when government decides to weaponize its political arsenal to attack political enemies. And such a chain of related events has the potential to destroy the core values of the First Amendment that could lead to the fascistization of America. But then again, like the censorship transgressions on college campuses, maybe the stifling of free speech is precisely the purpose of Cuomo’s agenda.

Repeal The Gas Tax–Yes on 6

Submitted on Sun, 2018-08-19 09:44

One thing that all libertarians and classical liberals can agree upon is that taxes must be lower, especially in a state that has some of the highest taxes on the planet. Passed last year, the politico in Sacramento made it a automatic tax. That is the tax will automatically go up every year without a vote of taxpayers or the legislators in Sacramento. The tax will continue to go up until the end of time, or unless we repeal it. Their is a Repeal the Gas Tax Rally this Saturday, Aug. 25 in Seaside at the Embassy Suites– see data below.

YES on 6 – Repeal Gas Tax Rally
Sat, Aug 25, 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
Embassy Suites by Hilton Monterey Bay, Seaside
1441 Canyon del Rey Blvd, Seaside, CA 93955

You are invited to attend an “organizing meeting” in your area for the YES ON 6 – Gas Tax Repeal Campaign!
By attending this briefing, you will learn why we need to repeal the car and gas tax hikes and how you can help spread the word to other voters so we can win in November. We will discuss campaign strategy, plan upcoming events in your area, identify local elected officials supportive of the YES ON 6 – Gas Tax Repeal, and devise additional projects in your area to get our message out.
The YES ON 6 – Gas Tax Repeal Campaign needs your help, starting with attending this informational and organizing meeting.
Register today at this link – and share with your friends so they register too!

PO Box 27227 San Diego, CA 92198
619-786-8019 – info@reformcalifornia.org

Self-Defense and the Lesson from the Battles of Lexington and Concord

Submitted by lsamuels on Fri, 2018-03-16 08:37

By Lawrence Samuels

We all want to see the killing of innocent people by gun violence stopped. The fatal shooting of 17 high school students in Parkland, Florida was a real tragedy. But although there are many possible solutions to prevent such horrific acts, we must bear in mind the historical significance of gun ownership in America. The reason for the Founders’ emphasis on the right of citizens to possess guns heralds back to the battles at Lexington and Concord. A large contingent of British troops marched into the Massachusetts countryside to confiscate guns, ammunition and even some cannons from the people. The colonists refused to back down, believing that the confiscation of their weapons meant tyranny. This incident provoked the colonists to take up arms against Britain, their own country of origin, motivating them to establish a free nation.

Such liberal concepts are embedded into the American DNA. Many American states still have long-standing laws calling for every able-bodied man to own a gun to defend the country from domestic or foreign threats. This attitude epitomized the view that the people are the army. This anti-militarist concept was a popular American tradition, which prevented our government from establishing a standing army during most of its history. Americans vehemently opposed a standing army under the classical liberal concept that a big state and military was anathema to liberty.

Our nation was conceived in liberty, but unfortunately only 20-30 percent of the world’s population are now considered free. Most nations are plagued with dictators, kings, madmen or pseudo-democracies with rigged elections. Freedom of choice has become a rare commodity under authoritarian and abusive regimes that oppress and slay their own citizenry. Political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel estimated that up to 272 million citizens were killed by their own government (“democide”) during the twentieth century, mostly through state-sponsored famines, genocides, concentration camps, gulags, and extrajudicial executions.

There can be no excuse for killing innocent civilians, but the really horrific numbers for such atrocities are found exclusively in authoritarian nations that disallow people the democratic right to defend themselves with weapons. One of the best examples occurred in Switzerland during World War II.

In 1940 a large German army camped at Switzerland’s doorstep, preparing to invade. The Swiss had no standing army, only a people’s army of reservists. But under their “porcupine approach” to self-defense, millions of citizens in reserve units stiffened to deter foreign invaders. When the National Socialists realized that almost every man in Switzerland was armed and a marksman, they backed off and invaded France, which had a much larger army than the Third Reich. Switzerland is about the only nation in Europe which allows their citizens the right of self-defense.

A determined and self-armed citizenry of 4 million halted the invasion of a Nazi army of more than 4 million soldiers. This is why the second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. The right to self-defense, even against your own government, should it become despotic, is why America still retains much of her freedom and prosperity.

Libertarian Party Annual Meeting in Seaside—Wed, Feb. 28, 2018

Submitted on Sun, 2018-02-11 12:27

The Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) will hold its annual meeting on Wed., Feb. 28 at Round Table Pizza conference room at 1717 Fremont, Seaside, starting at 5:30 PM. We will discuss current and future projects, elect new officers, and choose delegates to attend the California State LP convention in Long Beach (April 27-29) at the Long Beach Marriott (info at: https://ca.lp.org/convention/ ) Open to the public. The LPMC will provide the pizza and drinks at our annual meeting in Seaside.

–Lawrence Samuels, LPMC Chair lawsam1951@hotmail.com

Oppose and Repeal the Gas Tax

Submitted on Thu, 2018-02-01 11:38

The Libertarian Party of California (LPC) has strongly endorsed the various ballot measures to repeal Governor’s Brown higher gas taxes and registration fees. It appears that much of the money will not be spent on repairing roads, as advertised, but on the wildly expensive and uneconomical Bullet Train boondoggle. After all, the Bullet Train is a transportation project and government funding is fungible.

Dawn Jones is leading the charge in Monterey County to repeal that Gas Tax. She and others are having an Anti-Gas Tax Rally this Saturday, Feb. 3 at the Valero gas station in Prunedale at 2347 San Miguel Canyon Road, off of Hwy 101 from 9 AM to 12 Noon. Mark Carbonaro has been advertising this event all week on radio KION 1460-AM. Come and protest this high gas tax and registration fee legislation from Sacramento. –Lawrence Samuels Contact: Dawn Jones at djonesygirl222@gmail.com

NOTE: There will be a meeting to oppose this tax Saturday, February 17th at the Pizza Factory (926 S. Main Street in Salinas) at 11:00 am. This will be a planning meeting to fight this tax now and hopefully when it gets on the ballot.

There is another event on Sunday, Feb. 11 from 1 PM to 3:00 PM at the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento. This is a “Take back California Rally”. If enough folks are interested in going, local organizers will charter a greyhound bus to take protesters from the Prunedale “Park n Ride” right to the Capitol steps. No parking fee, no paying for gas, no driving. Cost will be determined by how many folks are going. Bare minimum is $52.00 but I’m sure that will go down as people sign up.

Topsy-turvy politics on display with tax bill

Submitted by Lawrence Samuels Thu, 2018-01-11 09:51

NOTE: In my letter to the editor I should also have pointed out that since Democrats now oppose higher taxes for people with expensive real estate, they are in essence opposing income equality. They have apparently stopped their campaign to increase taxes on the rich. But I thought progressives were all about taxing the wealthy until everyone reaches wealth parity! So why aren’t they shouting from rooftops to make the “rich pay their fair share?” Why are they opposing higher taxes on those who can afford it? Hypocrisy? Maybe they only oppose higher taxes for the progressive rich; the rest be dammed.

Letter to editor: published in the Monterey Herald, Jan. 10, 2018

The response to the GOP 2017 tax bill was bizarre. Nancy Pelosi complained that under the tax bill, 80 percent of the public would have higher tax bills. But for decades Democrats have championed higher taxes!

Democratic governors expressed anger over citizens’ paying higher taxes on expensive properties if the deductions on property tax and mortgage interest were abolished. But wait, shouldn’t they have cheered the prospect of higher taxes? Doesn’t government need more revenues? What’s up?

One of the craziest statements made during the House floor vote when Pelosi said that the supposedly higher taxation in the bill was “brazen theft from the American middle class.” Was Pelosi suggesting that “taxation is theft?” Maybe the Founders thought that, but a tax and spendaholic from San Francisco?

As for the Republicans, they said they wanted tax cuts. That’s fine, but to keep deficits down, one of their pet issues, they would have to also cut spending. But they made no attempt to cut spending!

Ever since Trump’s election, the normal world of politics has gone simply topsy-turvy. Lawrence Samuels

The Dangers of Stealing Private Property

Submitted on Sat, 2017-11-18 10:14

By Lawrence Samuels

There have been calls in the Monterey Peninsula community for a detailed financial study of the Cal Am public buyout. Such a study will unequivocally prove that a forced buyout would be extremely expensive to consumers. That is a given. It will take a billion or so to buy Cal Am and maybe another 2 to 3 billion dollars to service the 30-year loan, culminating in sky-high water rates and property taxes. But while such a study would be fruitful, it should be a secondary concern to the public. The primary danger of eminent domain is the bad consequences for a liberal society built on choice and liberty.

The seizure of private property not only gives eminent domain the illusion of being moral and legal, but that government takeovers can be extended to any private asset for any reason. Such unfettered authority conveys a carte blanche for potentially anything private; even to deny the self-ownership of people as if we still lived under feudalism. The stealing of property from an individual or group gives the impression that such criminal activity is somehow constitutional. But historically, this was never the case.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provided a clause to prohibit expropriating property without compensation. At the time, the “Public Use” clause dealt only with roadways, since there were no government-owned and operated schools, hospitals or other facilities in 1700s America. Most roadways were private easements that allowed public travel, but were poorly maintained and rarely upgraded. Most Americans willingly donated or sold road easements to government agencies in order to have them assume financial responsibility for maintaining and repairing thoroughfares. Nonetheless, eminent domain powers were rarely carried out since the public considered such actions a violation of property rights.

But then came the 20th century which ushered in a radical change in attitudes towards the power of the state. The Founders’ anti-state sentiment was replaced with the concept that any politician or government could be trusted to do good works. Many Americans no longer saw government as an evil force just waiting to pounce upon unsuspecting people with despotic ambitions. No, it was now believed that the tyrannical traits of government could be reformed and domesticated, even made benign. It became fashionable to believe that the state could be easily defanged and neutralized by intellectual persuasion. In this environment, the political elite would be trained not to harm a fly. Of course, history proved them terribly wrong.

Europe was first to experience the fully protruding claw of totalitarian regimes, exposing the folly of misjudging the true horrific nature of political institutions. With the rise of ideological armies and dictatorships during and after World War I, collectivism, socialism and violence took classical liberal and monarchic governments by storm. Europeans experienced firsthand the savage and genocidal temperament of unfettered governments as they barreled over property rights, pillaged the public trust, and confiscated assets from individuals and companies without any thought of compensation. The greatest admirers of state-sanctioned kleptomania were revolutionary socialists, fascist syndicalists and national socialists who favored a hodgepodge of ideologies that espoused racism, nationalism, classism, tribalism, anti-Semitism, and statism, all in opposition to the John Lockean concept of individual rights.

These European collectivists were extremely hostile to private property, liberal capitalism, and individualism, and wanted to concentrate political power for social justice ends. Mussolini, a former Marxist, declared that Fascist Italy would “impose social order” on society. Not to be outdone, Hitler, in a speech to factory workers, promised to create a “socially just state.” And to achieve their particular ideological determinism, they were willing to confiscate the property of racial minorities, outcasts, opponents, and almost anybody else, eager to redistribute the plundered spoils. For instance, by 1943 the Third Reich had taken ownership of 500 companies in key industries, along with more property seizures in conquered nations. These ideologues were so determined to seize private companies and create new government ones that Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, worried that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground” in National Socialist Germany. In the case of Fascist Italy, Mussolini he went hog-wild with nationalizing the greater part of his economy, boasting in 1934 that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”

A number of German Industrialists were extorted, threatened or imprisoned, such as Fritz Thyssen, who, after criticizing the invasion of Poland in 1939, was stripped of his political privileges. His company, the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG) with over 200,000 employees, was nationalized. He had to flee to France, but was captured by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau Concentration Camp.

The Founders were wise to oppose government ownership, wishing to avoid the type of harsh authority that monarchies mercilessly wielded on their subjects. In England, for example, the King claimed ownership of all land and people, far and wide, and if a starving peasant killed a deer in the forest, he would be hung if caught. The Founders hated such practices so much that they put into place policies to give Americans and immigrants free land across the entire continent.

Eminent domain is a horrendous injustice. Dubbed “Negro Removal” during 1950-60s by the black community, eminent domain seizures can only lead to greater losses of liberty. Why not just let Cal Am decide if they want to sell their water company? What’s wrong with choice? Why put a threatening sword over a company’s head? Why expropriate private property like the German National Socialists, Italian Fascists and Russian Soviets? Such confiscatory policies are not American, but actually an authoritarian type of “ism” that should be foreign to every American.

Also Take Down the Founders of the Racist Confederacy

Submitted on Tue, 2017-08-29 19:15

By Lawrence Samuels

I sent the letter-to-the-editor below some time ago to the local newspaper, but so far it has not been published.

I agree with the removal of Confederate statues that Southern authorities have now regarded as offensive. However, we are missing a vital part of this story. We are forgetting about the offensive extremists who established the Confederacy, initiated a bloody war to preserve slavery, and then erected monuments to commemorate their crime:—the Democratic Party.

The first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson and his vice presidential sidekick John C. Calhoun, praised slavery as a “positive” institution that had supposedly graced the halls of great civilizations, instead of regarding slavery, like the Founders, as an “evil” that must one day be abolished.

The Democratic Party was culpable in institutionalizing slavery, racism, white supremacy, Ku Klux Klan, segregation and Jim Crow laws. But this is not ancient history. In 2010, Hillary Clinton lavished praise on her old comrade Senator Robert C. Byrd, a recruiter for the KKK who led a filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She referred to Byrd as “my friend and mentor.”

Isn’t it time to expose and take down the political party responsible for establishing the Confederacy and its racist legacy, instead of just a few bronze statues?

Assessing blame for water price

Submitted on Fri, 2017-08-04 18:35

Published in the Monterey Herald – July 31, 2017

By Lawrence Samuels

Special to the Herald

      A report from the Food and Water Watch has Cal Am water rates as the most expensive in the nation. Maybe. But who is really responsible for the high rates?

      The story began with a 1995 proposed dam in upper Carmel Valley. The dam would have been the lowest-cost alternative since the fresh water is already free, naturally. Moreover, the dam would let the river flow during the dry summer months to accommodate the steelhead salmon, red-legged frog and other important species. Easy peezy. But no, the radical environmentalists said that a desalt plant would be better, although far more expensive. The dam was voted down. The cost of water seemed to be unimportant.

     When the dam was no longer politically viable, the radical environmentalists changed their tune. No, the desalt plant would not do. As for the temporary government agency—the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), explicitly organized to resolve our water problems—they seemed impotent to do much of anything. After spending around $100 to $150 million dollars to find a new water source, there was little to show. In fact, the taxpayers’ money spent by MPWMD would have provided the lion’s share of the funds to build a dam. Ironic.

     Other alternatives to provide water got the attention of Clint Eastwood, who offered to donate a large parcel of land for a reservoir near Carmel River in early 1990, a project called the Cañada Reservoir Project, which most people wholeheartedly supported. That is, almost everyone except the MPWMD that had elected a number of radical environmentalists who opposed the lower-costing water gift. The project died. Apparently, cost was again no object.

     It took the local city mayors’ Monterey Regional Water Authority to get a desalt plant off the ground after almost 25 years of do-nothing. But here again, the radical environmentalists sued, obstructed, and delayed in every possible way to stop the desalt plant. This pattern only increased water rates. And even if Cal Am had been a public entity, the water rates would be still be high, since the State’s court order forced the water provider to get customers to use less water, thereby making the production of water more expensive per gallon.

     So, what is the game plan of the radical environmentalists? We know they don’t like water because it might inspire some growth, despite the harsh restrictions against building anything in Monterey County. Maybe they simply want to show their political muscles by actually stealing the water company before they eminent-domain whole neighborhoods into wildlands, returning Monterey to its pre-Columbian days. But that would bring up another problem; water would be fairly cheap then, and the make-water-expensive crowd could never allow that.

     Lawrence Samuels is author of the 2013 book, “In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action.” He lives in Carmel Valley.

Using eminent domain against Cal Am is like stealing

Submitted on Fri, 2017-06-30 09:18

Published in the Monterey Herald, June 29, 2017 – Guest Commentary

By Lawrence Samuels

In an effort to expand the government sector, Public Water Now not only advocates a buyout of California American Water, but if the water company refuses to sell, an expropriation of their business. This ideology of stealing has an ugly history that few people today would publicly support.

The story begins with Willian Lloyd Garrison, leader of the American Abolitionist movement that eventually led to the demise of slavery. Garrison was famous for labeling slavery “manstealing,” a word that connected enslaved labor with a type of stealing. At the time, most Americans saw stealing as morally wrong, so Garrison’s association of slavery with stealing was a powerful argument against the theft of a man’s time, life and assets. So, in this sense, the ballot measure proposed by the pro-eminent domain ideologues to forcibly seize Cal Am, is reminiscent of antebellum slavery.

Garrison was also a proponent of “self-ownership,” meaning that people owned themselves and therefore cannot be stolen and enslaved. He worried that if government itself attained the authority to legally steal, it could take anything by force. Government law had already given private citizens that power, but if government itself engaged in such authority, to legally steal people and their belongings, another kind of enslavement would rise. John Locke had earlier addressed this issue, warning that without private property rights the individual had no rights whatsoever.

There were numerous ideologies in the 20th century that opposed classical liberalism by promoting stealing in the name of community good; plundering nations and minorities. In fact, these collectivists from the 1920s-1940s believed that the state could take anything from anybody, even their labor. One such social justice militant in 1920 Germany demanded the “nationalization of trusts” (corporations) and “the common good before the individual good.”

Of course, the pro-stealing cohorts don’t like being victims of stealing themselves. They would rather be the stealer, not the stealee. So, to avert this dilemma, they seek political dominance with the muscle to impose their brand of utopia upon society.

Nonetheless, one could argue that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? If stealing becomes acceptable, should we eminent domain Public Water Now supporters, confiscate their homes and bank accounts for the common good, bulldoze their buildings for public parks? Wouldn’t this be the appropriate karma?

But alas, this scenario would lead to a kleptomaniac society where nobody owned anything and the bigger the brute the greater his violent plunder. Fortunately, America was founded on the idea of equal treatment for everyone, which would include the owners of Cal Am. That should be the focus of Public Water Now, not its political demand to steal from others.

Lawrence Samuels is author of the 2013 book, “In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action.” He lives in Carmel Valley.

Not a Good Example of a Public Takeover

Submitted on Wed, 2017-06-21 16:49

The anti-freedom, pro-eminent domain (stealing) crowd is trying to use the city of Missoula’s government takeover of their water system in Montana as a shining example of success. But it turns out that this is not the case. Letter below from the Herald exposes their fairy tale claim. – Lawrence Samuels

Monterey Herald – June 8, 2017

Montana not a good Example, public takeover a bad option

 By Michael Deane, Executive Director, National Association of Water Companies

This week, a group held a press conference to talk about a government takeover of Monterey’s well-run, sustainable regulated water utility. Numerous faulty claims were made despite the many lessons learned from other communities where promises of an easy condemnation takeover have resulted in a long, complicated, and expensive legal process, and, unfortunately, higher costs for residents. Activists try to use Missoula, Montana as a poster child for a government takeover, yet anyone who looks at the facts from Missoula wouldn’t tout it as a success story. In Missoula, take over proponents estimated that legal costs for the acquisition would total just $400,000, yet the final legal bill has skyrocketed to more than $6 million. The total cost of the acquisition to Missoula taxpayers will exceed $100 million, more than twice the amount the city previously offered for the water system. The Monterey community should look at the facts of what has happened in Missoula and other communities and not be taken in by the fairy tale version told by takeover proponents. California American Water has served Monterey for more than 50 years and is committed to working with the community to solve urgent water issues through innovation and investment.

Unions in Italy and Germany during the Age of Fascism

Submitted on Thu, 2017-04-27 10:10

Much of the material below comes from my forthcoming book on the political spectrum. It was published by the California Policy Center (CPC), which is a public policy think tank located in California that is active in pension reform and education reform efforts. Published on April 12, 2017.

By Lawrence Samuels

It might be surprising to some, but both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were closely related to and supportive of trade unionism. Historically, both French and Italian fascism emerged out of a major trade union movement known as “revolutionary syndicalism” (syndicat means trade union in French), which first came into prominence in France in the early 20th century. It was spearheaded by Georges Sorel, a French Marxist, who advocated street violence and thuggery during general strikes to overthrow capitalism. In his own words, Sorel wrote that violence is acceptable if “enlightened by the idea of the general strike.”

But Sorel was no ordinary Marxist. As one of the intellectual heavyweights behind revolutionary syndicalism, Sorel was an inspiration to both Marxists and Fascist alike, including Benito Mussolini, who referred to him as his mentor. Mussolini idolized Sorel, claiming: “What I am, I owe to Sorel.” And Sorel returned the favor, calling Mussolini “a man no less extraordinary than Lenin.”

Mussolini’s affinity with trade unionism is obvious; he was not only a leader of the Italian Socialist Party, but according to historian Denis Mack Smith, a hard-core Marxist, who “once belonged to the Bolshevik wing of the Italian Socialist party.” Interestingly, Mussolini was for about six years both a Marxist and a Fascist leader. He founded the Fascist Revolutionary Party in 1915, supported Lenin’s October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and called himself the “Lenin of Italy” in the 1919 election. In other words, Mussolini was what I call a “Fascist-Marxist.” Not until around 1921 did he begin to pull away from Marxism, mostly due to Lenin’s unpopularity over the economic collapse of Soviet Russia’s economy that had caused massive unemployment.

The revolutionary syndicalist movement was well steeped in the ideology of Italian fascism. According to Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, a leading authority on Fascism, “most syndicalist leaders were among the founders of the Fascist movement,” where “many even held key posts” in Mussolini’s regime. In fact, Marxist-inspired “Italian revolutionary syndicalism became the backbone of fascist ideology,” which means that a large sector of the trade unionism birthed fascism—to be later known as Fascist Syndicalism.

As a union organizer and agitator who instigated strikes and violent riots against Italy’s invasion of Ottoman Libya in 1911–1912, Mussolini sought an economic policy that was “productivist” instead of “distributionist” to fulfill Karl Marx’s prophecy that a nation needed “full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization.” Marx argued that only an advanced industrial system could provide the productive capacity for the proletariat to bring about their historical worker-state destiny. In other words, to progress to a fully socialized worker state, Italy required a high level of industrialization, which, during Mussolini’s time, was stuck in a mostly rural, poor and underdeveloped condition. To increase industrial capacity, Mussolini permitted Edmondo Rossoni, a well-known revolutionary syndicalist leader, to head Italy’s General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations in an effort to equalize worker and employer power under a corporate syndicate structure. Rossoni and his Fascist syndicalists believe in “fusing Nationalism with class struggle” and that workers should eventually take control of all industrial factories, once they had “mastered the requisite competence to take command.” Mussolini’s opinions towards fascist unionism had a similar ring, saying: “I declare that henceforth capital and labor shall have equal rights and duties as brothers in the fascist family.”

National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis)

What about the National Socialist movement in Germany? The Nazis not only courted workers and unionism, but they even put “Workers” into their official party name—National Socialist German Workers’ Party. They appeared so pro-worker that the foreign press during the 1920s simply referred to Hitler and his socialist party as the “National Socialist Labor Party.” The National Socialists went out of their way to get workers support. In some cases, the Nazis even allied with the Communist Party of Germany, demanding better wages for workers. Hitler’s “brownshirts” and red-flagged Communists marched side by side through the streets of Berlin in 1932, and violently destroyed any busses whose drivers had failed in participate in the worker’s strike. In fact, the biggest voter contingency for National Socialist candidates came from German factory workers.

Soon after Hitler became chancellor he declared May Day of 1933 a paid national holiday and threw elaborate celebrations with songs, speeches, marches and fireworks. The Nazi’s slogan for this people’s community celebration was “Germany honors labor.” The prospect of national unity with the Nationalism socialist seemed so high that even the German Free Trade Unions encouraged their members to participate in the activities. After Hitler rose to power, the National Socialists became the quintessential worker state, eager to identify Germany as a “proletarian nation” that would struggle against “plutocratic nations.” After all, Hitler repeatedly lauded the virtues of labor, pronouncing in the Völkischer Beobachter that “I only acknowledge one nobility—that of labour.”

Despite slews of pro-worker platitudes by the socialist dictatorship, the reality was that the state was now calling all the shots. In the case of trade unions, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini did not just outlaw labor unions under their regime; they nationalized them as would any good socialist. Of course, such nationalization would be in accordance with orthodox Marxist doctrine which demanded state ownership and control over all independent organizations. But they were even more draconian. They made membership in the union mandatory. As noted by Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini “In [Fascist] Italy and [Nazi] Germany the official unions have been made compulsory by law, while in the United States, the workers are not legally obligated to join the company unions but may even, if they so wish, oppose them.”

Hitler and Mussolini were simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler and Mussolini followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, their treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.

Of all the fascists, Hitler was vigilant in keeping many of his promises to labor. Under the newly created German Labor Front (DAF), the Nazis set high wages, overtime pay was generous, and dismissal of workers by employers was difficult to execute, but inflation and stricter labor laws eroded much of that advantage. Headed by Robert Ley, the German Labor Front preferred nationalized enterprises over privately owned companies since it held a bias against liberal capitalism. But its main mission was also to satisfy workers enough to prevent rebellion against both industrialists and the national socialist state.

In any event, following the Nazis’ “Socialism of Deed” ideology, all sorts of revolutionary new social and entertainment programs were provided to German workers via the “Strength through Joy” (Kraft durch Freude, or KdF), considered the world’s biggest tour operators. The KdF program, which was designed to provide affordable leisure activities, included such amenities as subsidized domestic or foreign vacations, parks, ocean cruises, construction of worker canteens that provided subsidized hot meals, factory libraries and gardens, sport facilities and swimming pools, adult education courses, periodic breaks, orchestras during lunch break, tickets to concerts and operas, no-cost physical education, gymnastic and sports training. The DAF-subsidized holiday vacations were so popular that by 1938 over 10.3 million Germans signed up.

But the debt was piling up. After years of Keynesian-style deficit spending for expensive labor and welfare perks, along with military spending, National Socialist Germany was at the brink of bankruptcy. Many historians, such as Götz Aly, argue that as Germany’s economy faltered, Hitler was forced to resort to military adventuring just to prop up his dying, bankrupt economy. The failing economics of socialism and coercion resulted in a horrific war that compelled the Nazis not only to plunder conquered nations, but to rob and liquidate minorities in order to pay for Nazi Germany’s exploding deficits.

Despite all of the special programs lavished on German employees and citizens, the DAF was still considered the most corrupt of all institutions under Hitler’s administration. Obviously, to mandate union membership and compel workers to pay union dues without recourse is a recipe for abuse and corruption. This is exactly what happened to the Nazis. Soon after Robert Ley took command of the German Labor Front in 1933, he freely embezzled union funds for personal use, despite an exorbitant salary. He lived high on the hog with a luxurious estate, a handful of villas and a fleet of cars. Ley was arrogant, often drunk, and prone to womanizing. He ran his department like a personal fiefdom, ordering around his subordinates and workers. He even secured bribes from party officials, politicians and industrialists to meet his high standard of living. Sounds familiar?


Many American unions, especially those of government employees, mirror the exact policies and tactics of Fascist syndicalism, giving employees little representation, especially as to where and how their dues are spent. Whether in Nazi Germany or America, when the state forces workers to pay a union bribe just to work in an industry, tremendous power has been transferred from the individual employee to a coercive collectivity—nothing short of how the fascist-socialists emasculated their workers. And this is where the distinctly American idea of freedom of choice has been abandoned to the violent thuggery and corruption that has shadowed many labor movements.

Sadly, today’s unionism is actually no different from yesterday’s Fascist syndicalism, where union bosses were officially granted a monopoly of power sanctioned and backed by governmental laws. Someday the American public will wake up and recognize these dreadful similarities, but will it be too late?

L.K. Samuels is author of In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action, and a forthcoming book on the political spectrum. Much of this matter comes from his new book, which has over 1,000 footnotes by many of the leading experts on fascism.

Nationalizing energy without public consent

Submitted on Tue, 2017-02-28 09:45

Below is my letter-to-the-editor in the Monterey Herald (Feb. 22, 2017) going further into the Trojan House scheme to nationalize an electric utility company.

By Lawrence Samuels

I have been attending City Council meetings concerning Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and it is worse than I thought. If the city or county joins this Joint Power Authority (JPA) agency, all clients of PG&E will be automatically enrolled in the MBCP program. People will be billed through PG&E, but the money will go directly to MBCP. If MBCP prices become uncompetitive, and you want out, you will have to pay a likely monthly opt-out fee. This is not a fair choice.

With PG&E hamstrung, the MBCP will become a government monopoly operated by 11 politicians without any outside regulatory oversight. Moreover, it will be virtually impossible for a city or county to back out. This ploy is exactly the type of nationalization that Mussolini would have imposed—no public election, no democracy, only deception.

Next comes the shocking kicker—prices will skyrocket because the MBCP wants to use mostly alternative energy which costs more. Under the guise of environmentalism, the MBCP will have nationalized electrical energy without the public’s consent. You need to call your elected officials and expose this scam, or this project will become an expensive Trojan Horse of historical proportions.

Trojan Horse: Monterey Bay Community Power

Submitted by Lawrence Samuels on Mon, 2017-02-13 14:24

There are political forces that are trying to nationalize PG&E through the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) program. The Monterey County Supervisors will meet this Tuesday FEB. 14 at 1:15 PM in Salinas (168 West Alisal Street) to let people have their say. The other side has already set up a phone bank to get their loonies to speak. We need people to oppose this proposed state-owned monopoly. I will be there to speak and hand out flyers. We need more speakers—each speaker gets 3 minutes. The MBCP program is an opaque ploy to slowly emasculate a private sector power company, making citizens beholden to bureaucrats, officialdom, politicization, and higher prices without a vote from the public. In fact, all customers of PG&E will be automatically handed over to MBCP lock, stock and barrel, without authorization or client choice. Yes, you can eventually opt-out of MBCP, but it will be difficult. The MBCP will eventually strangle PG&E through state subsidizes and legislation, becoming a full-fledged government monopoly with no outside oversight, no supervision by the California Public Utility Commission (PUC). They can easily jack up rates. They will have to since they plan to use only high-priced alternative energy. Plus, they will likely not allow new competition. What a scam! Guess who have been some of the biggest proponents of nationalization in the past? Benito Mussolini. His fascist government nationalized three-fourths of Italy’s economy. And look what happened. (“Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.” – Mussolini boasted in a speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1934) There will also be a similar meeting in the city of Seaside on Thursday, Feb. 16 at 7:00 PM at their City Hall (440 Harcourt Ave.) They want all cities and the county to vote for energy nationalization.

Another scheme to destroy the working middle class — letter to editor

Submitted on Mon, 2016-12-12 10:41

Published in the Monterey Herald, Dec. 10, 2016

By Lawrence Samuels

Another scheme to destroy the working middle class. There is an active plan through Monterey Bay Community Power to have the government take control of the energy industry. The leaders of this scheme say it will cost nothing to have a local government agency provide an “energy choice.” They say there will be no taxes, no bonds, no cost to operate a costly system.


Of course, we know there will be hidden taxes, no-voter-approved bonds and funds generated by taxes levied through national, state and local coffers, probably including Monterey County and the various cities. And what will this tax money be used for? Most likely it will pay for extremely high salaries, generous pensions and health care plans for the management and workers.

Since much of the money will come from taxes and fees, Monterey Bay Community Power can indeed claim lower electricity prices to consumers. Anybody can reduce prices when costs are secretly being paid by someone else: a slew of government agencies.

This is just another scheme to destroy the middle and working class, and socialize America.

It’s Party Time or Go Crazy! –Tuesday, Nov. 8

Submitted by Lawrence Samuels on Wed, 2016-11-02 16:52

Since 2016 has been such a CRAZY election year, we’ve got to have an Election Eve Party or go Berserk! Sponsored by those dudes at the local Libertarian Party, Seaside Taxpayers Association and various workers on the No on Measure E, X, and Y campaigns. It is near the mouth of Carmel Valley, starts around 6 PM and Prof. David Henderson (NPGS) will provide lots of pizza. Others will bring cases of beer and other munches. Let me know if you are interested. Come and watch election results on a big TV screen while downing beer, wine and pizza.