Robert Wenzel on Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to declare war on “ISIS”
Paul Craig Roberts reexamines the Ferguson controversy and the unaccountability of psychopathic police all across Amerika.
Joseph Farah doesn’t get why so much uproar over Michael Brown in Ferguson but not so much over Miriam Carey in DC.
Kevin Carson discusses the Michael Brown-police fail, and says that the people’s justice is just getting started.
Jacob Hornberger says that Chuck Hagel’s departure will make no difference.
Michael Rozeff on the fascist Amerikan state.
Glenn Greenwald on the campaign to demonize social media companies as terrorist allies.
On a more serious note, Richard Ebeling on Thanksgiving: celebrating the birth of free enterprise in America.
The Massachusetts State Police will be conducting a “tactical response drill” at the State House in Boston during the day on Saturday. Hmm, they just had a similar drill in May. Are they expecting something to occur soon? So it sounds like they need to practice their martial law skills, and brush up on their hysteria and panic whenever a guy with an umbrella appears, or when they hear about a little boy with a plastic toy gun. The State Police’s notice of the drill also states that “the drill is not open to the media or public.” But it also states that there will be a “large volume of troopers and police vehicles around the State House and on Beacon Street.” So how “not open to the public” is that? And what do they mean by “not open to the media”? Does that mean that WBZ and the Boston Globe are not permitted to cover a police state hysteria event that will take place in the outdoors for all to see? And also, do they really need to rehearse a police state and martial law? Anyway, as Jack Perry noted today, a better “tactical response” to any threat or crisis would be a fully armed citizenry (who probably wouldn’t act nearly as hysterically as the typical local police neanderthals do).
Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy participated in a debate (video here) at Brown University with feminist Jessica Valenti. McElroy of course, being the more sensible of the two, asserts that there really isn’t a “rape culture.” She had this article in Reason regarding this debate and the statistics which just don’t back up the alleged existence of the so-called “rape culture.” I think that mainly they are talking about such a culture being on college campuses. But given the attitude against diverse points of view on college campuses these days, we can guess how this sort of debate will go, especially when some activists organized a response event to occur at the same time as this debate in a different room at the university. In fact, after McElroy gave her talk for about 23 minutes, her debate opponent Valenti came up to the podium and stated, “I think like a lot of people I’m exhausted of having to talk about rape culture in a framework that assumes its existence is up for debate.” Well, from what I’ve heard and read in recent years, there is more of a “hate men” culture than a “rape culture.”
In my view, if the activists are so insecure in their beliefs regarding the existence of “rape culture,” then why do they seem so intolerant of its being challenged? Why do they have to schedule another discussion in a different room at the same time as this debate, just because such a debate might “trigger” hurtful emotions? And another issue is the problem that some people have with the English language. To some people, “rape” includes several other behaviors, or even words spoken by men, that don’t even involve actual physical acts of force and violence against a woman.
Another problem now is that the younger people are brainwashed to be hypersensitive about everything. Certain forms of speech cause them to perceive and interpret such speech as “acts of aggression,” or as “threats.” Many people in Amerika are easily threatened now by opposing points of view in many different topics of discussion, as Brendan O’Neill pointed out here. And it isn’t just on college campuses, it’s everywhere. (Such as talk radio. If a caller challenges the neocon or American Exceptionalism view, that call will not last very long. Unlike in the old days with David Brudnoy and Gene Burns. But I digress.)
But sadly, college campuses really are places of intellectual intolerance and censorship, and thank God I went to college in the early 1980s and not the 2000s or 2010s. There was none of this **** back then. Back then, there was actual freedom of speech. But, I think that this attitude and culture of intolerance on campuses is merely a reflection of society as a whole, and how it has declined in maturity and intellect.
Lew Rockwell is interviewed by Brian Wilson on the State and whether we really need a predatory overlord.
William Grigg says that Darren Wilson isn’t benefiting from “white privilege” but “blue privilege.”
Spencer Ackerman analyzes how Obama’s CIA drones are murdering far more innocent civilians than “militants.”
Ron Paul says that the defeat of the “USA Freedom Act” was a victory for freedom.
Brendan O’Neill says that free speech is so last century, and that today’s students want the “right to be comfortable.”
Glenn Greenwald interviews New York Times reporter James Risen and the Obama Regime’s war on the Press.
Gary North on looting for justice: same old story.
Get ready for a whole month of this stuff:
A student is suing the Loomis Union School District in Loomis, California, because of the harassment and abuse she received from the school director who scolded her and demanded a written “confession” for the student’s giving two other students a flyer for a creationism-based seminar, which the kids attended outside of school. According to WND, the school director allegedly reprimanded the student for bringing a religion-based flyer to school without the school district’s “approval.” This reminds me of the story about another student who is suing her school because her teacher humiliated her in front of the class when she brought her Bible to read certain passages for Christmas show-and-tell. The teacher interrupted the presentation immediately and told the 6-year-old to sit down. And, shockingly, that was also in California.
I don’t know what it is with these government school fascists who openly worship their god the State, but they themselves want to silence their students’ discussion of traditional religious matters. They have no idea what freedom of religion and “separation of church and State” really mean. It means that while the students have the freedom to discuss their religious views, pray, etc., at school (as long as they don’t disrupt the class, of course), on school property, during school hours, the teachers and administrators — the government employees — may not proselytize or attempt to intimidate or coerce students to believe or express certain religious beliefs or viewpoints promoted by school officials, or even by the majority of others. The First Amendment protects the people’s right to freedom of religious expression or non-expression, and it restricts the power of government bureaucrats to interfere with that. That is my view on that.
Anyway, there really is one genuinely workable solution to these conflicts, these intolerances and totalitarian-minded “teachers”: Get the government out of education!
As Laurence Vance wrote just recently,
In a free society, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, nonprofit companies, for-profit companies, religious organizations, secular organizations, and even atheist organizations would be perfectly free to operate their own schools and teach whatever they wanted to about the merits of a particular religion and the demerits of any other religion.
In a free society, nontraditional education adapted to the specific needs, interests, and religion of each individual child would flourish.
In a free society, home-schooling would be free from the meddling of government education bureaucrats. Parents would be free to provide however much or however little religious instruction they chose.
In a free society, there would not only be schools that catered to particular religions, but also schools that catered to specific political views, ethnic groups, nationalities, and socio-economic statuses.
The solution to the problem of religion and public education is the same as the solution to every other problem with public education: abolish public education
Charles Burris analyzes the phony “conservative” legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.
John Whitehead on Ferguson: Are we the enemy now?
Jacob Hornberger says that Rand Paul is wrong, leave Iraq alone!
Radley Balko discusses the neanderthals in New Mexico.
And Walter Williams on the plague of “Grubers,” the elite who support State coercion and control.
Jacob Hornberger asks, What good would it do to reform the NSA and CIA?
Ron Paul says, “Help!”
Chris Floyd writes, “Red mist rising: Inside the world’s most powerful terrorist organization.”
Gary Galles writes about Jonathan Grubber and the superhero oath.
Gideon Levy asserts that in Israel, only Jewish blood shocks anyone.
Daniel McAdams discusses a former Bush national security advisor who wants to start World War III with Russia.
And Jon Hall says, ObamaCare: ‘If the wine is sour, throw it out.’
Justina Pelletier is the teenager whose life was torn apart by zealous psychiatrists at Children’s Hospital who suddenly discontinued her treatment for Mitochondrial Disease and made her physical condition severely deteriorate — all in the name of “behavior modification” fanaticism. And she is the one whose life was torn apart by Massachusetts Department of Children and Families who abducted her away from her family and kept her imprisoned in mental health facilities even though she had no apparent “mental health” issues. She has since returned home to her family in Connecticut, last June. I have written about her case several times now. Here is the Miracle for Justina Facebook page, and the Free Justina Pelletier Now Facebook page.
Apparently in late September Justina was taken to the hospital because of experiencing “serious pain,” and then rushed to Yale/New Haven Hospital on October 5th, according to the #freejustina Twitter account and the Twitter account of a major Pelletier family advocate, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney. And yesterday, Rev. Mahoney asked to pray that Justina could be transferred to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and it seems his prayers were answered just today. Whatever is going on with Justina Pelletier now, I sure hope she gets better.
Besides Justina, I have also mentioned the case in Arizona of Kayla and Hannah Diegel who were kidnapped from their mother Melissa by CPS on behalf of Phoenix Children’s Hospital. See the Miracle for Two Sisters Facebook page. It is criminal what these government agencies and federally-funded hospitals are doing to kids and to families! And there are many hundreds of victims now.
As far as I’m concerned, if Justina does not survive this ordeal, then those Boston Children’s Hospital doctors must be criminally charged. They already should have been charged, in my view.
Given the cultural, moral and ethical decline of our society, and the pervasiveness of narcissistic tendencies, there really do seem to be practitioners who are obsessed with getting government funding as well as with using human beings in experiments to “prove” their theories. So I think the hunger for research funding has become as much a religious fanaticism as this “behavior modification” ideology seems to be. Sadly, the inclination of an increasing number of doctors as “Hmm, what can I do to make this patient better?” now seems to have become “Hmm, what can I do with this specimen to further my career in receiving government grants?”
Becky Akers on immigration insanity.
Sheldon Richman says that unjust immigration law is not law.
Stephen Halbrook on defending freedom against gun confiscation.
Wendy McElroy writes about the new gun suspect: every school child.
Glenn Greenwald discusses media outlets that continue to describe unknown drone victims as “militants.”
Infowars with historic videos on what Ferguson could look like during martial law and rioting.
Conor Friedersdorf says the GOP must now choose between surveillance and privacy.
Justin Raimondo recommends Sharyl Attkisson’s book on Obama’s police state war on journalists.
Robert Wenzel makes the case that Blue Cross Blue Shield warned in 2009 that the White House was using bogus Gruber information.
James Bovard discusses Gruber and Leviathan’s shenanigans.
Michael Rozeff says that freedom and democracy are no excuse for U.S. interventions overseas.
Jörg Guido Hülsmann writes about the cultural and political consequences of fiat money.
Jacob Hornberger says thank the troops for their service to Islam.
Lawrence Vance on religion and public education.
William Blum analyzes Russia’s invasions of Ukraine using Saddam’s WMD.
The Military-Industrial Candidate, by Kelley Vlahos.
My latest LewRockwell.com article is posted today:
Well, the CPS vultures are out there, once again. This time in Seminole County, Florida. In June the county’s Child Protection Services bureaucrats took a 12-day-old baby away from his vegan Seventh Day Adventist mother who insisted on breastfeeding the baby, and, when the baby was losing weight the mother refused to take him to the hospital and instead she provided the baby with a supplemental vegan formula. That diet and method of healing was consistent with her religious beliefs, but her “doctor” believed otherwise, reported her to the “authorities” who arrested her, and had CPS seize her child.
The mother was actually charged with neglect. But this week a judge has decided to give custody back to the mother, Sarah Markham, as the judge agreed that Ms. Markham was not an “unfit mother.” Her attorney has stated that they hope police will drop the criminal charges against her as well.
Actually, in my view it is her doctor who reported her to CPS who is the real criminal here. By causing the baby to be taken out of his home and placed with strangers that doctor is the one who has compromised the baby’s health and security, and siccing government police on the mother is what I would consider a real case of endangerment of Sarah Markham as well.
Now, some people including some libertarians may have the view that society must nevertheless intervene to “save the child” from starvation because the child was losing weight as his mother’s breastfeeding wasn’t providing enough nutrition. But who is ultimately to decide what is best for the baby, the mother? The doctor or hospital? The government? Her neighbors?
This story reminds me of a more serious but somewhat similar situation from the 1980s, the Twitchell case. Remember that one? That was the case of the Christian Scientist couple, David and Ginger Twitchell, whose 2-year-old boy had an obstruction of the colon. The Twitchells chose to use prayer to heal their son as they rejected medical treatments, and when he died the couple were charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned the conviction, however.
I originally had the attitude of, “Well, those religious radicals allowed their baby to die in the name of their own religious beliefs, of course they’re guilty!” However, I changed my views on that the more I thought about it. And it was the late Gene Burns (1940-2013), former LP presidential candidate, whose discussion on his radio show convinced me to take the side of the parents, which is the side that Gene took. It really was a freedom issue.
Regarding the current case of Sarah Markham rejecting the doctors’ nutritional advice despite the baby’s losing weight, who is to say at that time that the doctors’ nutritional advice will actually be better for the baby? Who can tell the future as far as what will work? Should we base a forced treatment (and taking the baby away from his mother!) on the probability that the hospital’s nutritional treatments will be better for the baby? Modern medicine and doctors advice may be the better alternative most of the time, but not always. The problem here is that lack of a 100% guarantee that “doctor knows better,” as many of us know from our own experiences that there is plenty room for doubt there.
And in the case of the Twitchells, suppose these parents did take their child to the hospital which then had doctors surgically clear the child’s colon obstruction, but he nevertheless died? Yes, it does happen, and often, by the way.
This terrific Freeman article by A.M. Rogers explains several of these kinds of cases, with quite a few good examples which show that it is not always a good idea to rely on modern medicine, and which show that ultimately and morally, whatever the situation is medically, the parents really do have the ultimate moral authority to decide what’s best for their children.
However, as soon as the child is older and if the child himself is able to decide that he wants to try another alternative, then that is his right as well, even going against the parents wishes, such as if there are neighbors who have offered the child better food or if he wants to go to a doctor. I believe that Murray Rothbard promoted that same kind of right of self-direction in his Ethics of Liberty.
To conclude, if society is insistent on arresting and jailing parents for unconventional or alternative treatments of their children, then as the earlier Freeman article suggested, it would be equally and morally just to criminally charge doctors and hospitals whose modern medicine interventions also fail.
And in the case of Seventh Day Adventist and vegan Sarah Markham, it would also be just for her to insist on the arrest and prosecution of her “doctor” with charges of endangerment. He had her baby taken away by the vultures of CPS, and he also caused great risk to Sarah’s own life by having her arrested by government police who are notorious in their general lack of respect for the rights of innocent people.
Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation discuss freedom and uncompromising libertarian principles.