Design a site like this with
Get started

Is This the End of the Amerikan Empire?

In my previous post I linked to this article by Anatoly Karlin that referred to White Student Unions now being formed as a response to the Black Lives Matters and political correctness anti-white hysterics on college campuses. Yeah, electing a black person as President will really help to resolve racial tensions in America!

Sorry, racial tensions in America are worse now than when Barry and Imelda assumed the throne. (They obviously weren’t listening to Felix Unger when it comes to “assuming”!) But the racial tensions aren’t because Obama is black, which is only half true. It’s Obama’s attitude, his mentality of racial divide, racial obsession. It’s his privileged upbringing combined with his instilled resentment toward white people, which he obviously has no legitimate reason to have, given all the affirmative action from which he benefited (am I allowed to say that?).

Some people think that racial tensions are worse because there are so many shootings and murders by white police officers of black victims. But that perception is one which is intentionally amplified by hundreds of media outlets with a similar race-obsessed agenda. Additionally, the fact is that today’s police in general are out of control and tasering and shooting anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, beating them up and bullying them regardless of the victim’s race. “It’s us versus them” is really government and its enforcers versus the rest of us, not white versus black.

But Obama is a pol who manipulates the ignorance of the general public to “divide and conquer,” but more to reinforce his party’s political power by getting more votes from the official victim classes.

Another despicable way that the Obama-moonbats exploit the black population is their keeping many at the lower economic level in society via the activists’ restrictive regulatory bureaucracy and minimum wage mandates. By criminalizing employers who might pay market-based lower wages for existing jobs, those social activists and their minimum-wage demands cause such jobs to be eliminated, so the activists are criminally stealing entry-level jobs and opportunities away from teens and young adults especially. I think there are activists such as Obama and Bernie Sanders who really know what they’re doing but they don’t care. And they rely on all their zombie followers to promote their destruction. Sanders is both a zombie and a schlep. Is it possible to be both?

So the legally mandatory minimum wage is yet another example of how extremely selfish these politicians and their minions are, in my view. It is more important to them to maintain their power in government and to protect unions and other established labor groups, at the expense of those at the bottom, such as inexperienced, low- or no-skilled teens who need a job, even part-time. But if you get rid of the fascist minimum wage commands, millions of new jobs will be created and many young black youths will have something productive to do with their time, and they will more likely stay out of trouble and away from drugs as well. The workers and the young people of America have been sold a bill of goods.

Speaking of a bill of goods, Donald Trump has been around for 40 years and has been very popular in media and culture, and now running what I would call a faux campaign for President. A lot of people disagree with me on that, because they believe Trump’s sincerity. Talk about gullible. And I agree with his criticism of the media and political correctness, and I do believe he is sincere in that. I believe that he really is a sexist and that’s not a facade, and that he’s an ignoramus, given his early support for nationalized medical care and other fascist and socialist policies. And it may really be that he genuinely believes — albeit ignorantly and foolishly — that building a big Berlin Wall on the southern U.S. border will help prevent “illegals” from “invading.”

However, I can’t believe that if he were a serious candidate and genuinely wanted to get elected President that he would have mocked the disabled reporter, especially in the extremely infantile way he did recently. Now, do all you Trump supporters out there really want someone who acts like that in the White House? I just can’t believe that when he deliberately acts like an immature middle school kid in a public forum (and not some private room with fellow jerks), that he is thinking, “Hmm, I’ll mock a disabled guy to get more votes!” So, here he is providing more evidence that he may be in it as a straw candidate to take down the GOP (more than they are doing it to themselves already), and on behalf of Democrats.

And look at all the cheering naifs, rubes and stooges at the Trump rallies. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. But if the shoe fits, and so on. And I hear these talk radio people in my area, are they serious? Well, there’s a sucker born every minute, and all that. And really, I don’t mean to insult people, unless they are politicians, but these sheeple really are excited over the Donald, and they agree with his fascism and socialism. You see what happens when government usurps control over education in society? You see what happens to people after staring at their TVs and little “Smart” Phones for hours per day and for years? You see what happens to people whose brains are loaded with all those food additives and dyes, vaccines and prescription drugs? All those chemicals affect people’s thinking and so does TV-staring for years, turning people into zombies.

And so Trump says that he’ll do this and that, and he’ll make the Chinese do this or that, he’ll tell Ford Motor Company they may NOT have a plant in Mexico (hence the wall), and so on. But he sure has let people know that he hasn’t heard of the Declaration of Independence and all its important principles promoting individual liberty. And, as William Grigg referenced recently, Trump doesn’t seem to have heard of the U.S. Constitution, and that there are rules for the President and his powers as well as enumerated powers for Congress spelled out in the Constitution. I think he just wants to appeal to the simpletons among the masses, at least with Republican primary voters, so they’ll make him the GOP nominee and then he’ll lose big time to Hillary or Bernie. There’s little reason not to conclude that now. But I think that Donald Trump is appealing to the masses in the same way that Sarah Palin appealed to them in 2008. (How’d that work out for ya?)

So today’s society has its share of charlatans, the race-exploiters like Obama whose “Matters” minions are being brainwashed to hate others based on race, and the narcissistic grandstanders whose minions and proles cheer on their beloved dictator-wannabe. (I am crossing myself now and I’m not even Catholic!)

Some Recent Items

William Grigg analyzes the Donald Trump phenomenon.

Robert Wenzel asks, Are the recent campus protests the start of a new Maoist “Cultural Revolution,” violence against hated classes?

Jonathan Turley on the double standards on college campuses.

Anatoly Karlin clarifies the “White Student Unions” as non-white supremacist but merely justifiably concerned.

James Bovard on the Trump card for another Census Bureau roundup.

Jacob Hornberger explains why the CIA has confessed to a cover-up in the JFK assassination.

Seumas Milne discusses how the U.S. government fueled the rise of ISIS.

James Bamford says, Don’t blame Edward Snowden for the Paris attacks.

Patrick Cockburn says that David Cameron’s strategy can only repeat the U.S. government’s mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Zero Hedge on the U.S. government-backed “rebels” executing Russian pilots while parachuting.

Harrison Koehli analyzes terror state Turkey’s blatant hypocrisy and treachery.

Eric Margolis says that Turks throw gas on Syria’s fires.

Justin Raimondo discusses Turkey’s stab in the back.

Ron Paul asks, Who should pay for the refugees?

Bruce Fein on religious bigotry, stupidity, and fear.

Ryan McMaken discusses the possible redrawing of European borders.

Charles Scaliger asks, What’s behind Bernie Sanders’s socialism?

Andrew Syrios on the good ol’ days: when tax rates were 90 percent.

Paul Gottfried vs. Jonah Goldberg.

John Whitehead says, For this Thanksgiving let’s say “No thanks” to the tyranny of the Amerikan police state.

Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor discuss the mystery of JFK disinformation.

Bill Sardi describes his recent heart troubles.

Dr. Mercola on Statin Nation: What really causes heart disease?

Jonathan Marshall delinks terrorism and Islam.

Jenna McLaughlin says NSA surveillance has no record of thwarting large attacks.

Sheldon Richman says, Let the refugees in.

And Thomas DiLorenzo suggests that Black Lives Matter’s next target should be Abraham Lincoln.

Thanksgiving Turkeys

This Boston Globe article about former Massachusetts governor (and Presidential candidate) Michael Dukakis gave me a good chortle. It discusses Dukakis’s obsession with not throwing out unused foodstuffs, especially Thanksgiving turkey carcasses. “Throwing out a turkey carcass is sinful. Absolutely sinful … It’s a terrible thing to do. There’s so much richness and goodness in a turkey carcass,” he declared. Hmmm, perhaps we can call him “Michael Ducarcass.” He actually wants more Thanksgiving turkey carcasses than his family will actually consume today, and asks that people send him their used turkey carcasses. And the article gives his home address in the People’s Republic of Brookline for that purpose.

I am not. Making. This. Up.

And it’s the same address that Howie Carr would constantly write in his Boston Herald columns throughout the 1980s while Dukakis was governor.

But this line in the Globe article really cracked me up: “It’s all part of Dukakis’s aversion to waste — be it fat in the state budget, litter on the street, or turkey bones in the trash after Thanksgiving.”

Aversion to waste? In the state budget? You gotta be kidding me! Yeah, when he saw there was waste in the state budget, he gave the schleps of Massachusetts a “temporary” income tax hike in 1989 (that’s still in effect!) to handle all the “waste.” No, I don’t think cutting the fat was his thing, not really.

This Is the Best: Politicians and Candidates Beating Each Other Up!

In my previous post I went on a rant about Willard Romney, even though he has said he is not interested in running for President again. That post may have not been the best one I’ve ever written, but I felt it was important to provide links to articles and post videos of Romney himself to remind people of what he really stands for.

And why would I spend all that time doing that if Romney isn’t running for President again? Well, I explained that I was responding to the polls in New Hampshire in which voters there preferred Romney over Donald Trump.

But when we hear all these Republican Presidential candidates insulting each other and tearing each other apart, and there is now a war going on between the Establishment Republican Party and the emotion-driven ditto-heads who love Donald Trump, this all tells me that there may very well be a brokered convention in 2016. And who will be the final nominee in such a brokered convention: Willard. That is who (or what) the sheeple of the GOP will want as their “standard bearer,” despite Romney’s lack of standards, and despite what a socialist and an unprincipled, weathervane pol he really is. Trump is the same, by the way. He just happens to be good at eliciting the worst in people, the nationalists and the fascists, etc.

But I really enjoy seeing these politicians and bureaucrats at each other’s throats. It really means a lot to me, personally.

And now it appears that New Hampshire GOP activists are challenging Trump’s eligibility in getting his name on the Republican ballot in that state’s primary. Heh. He needs to provide evidence that he really is a registered Republican.

Some Trump supporters who oppose the challenge see this as a “freedom of speech” issue. No, the people with the freedom of speech rights in this case are the state’s Republican Party who can make their own rules and ban whomever they want. This is a private organization, not a public or government-run organization. The issue here is one of freedom of association. I know, a lot of social activists don’t like that idea. But tough noogies to them on that one. Donald Trump doesn’t have a “right” to have his name on a private political party’s primary ballot.

But he does have a right to have his name on the general election ballot — in my view, with no restrictions. Democracy should mean that anyone and everyone who wants one’s name on the government elections ballot should have it there. No petitions, no IQ tests. (Wait a minute, they already don’t require IQ tests. If they did, most of the candidates would fail!) And the people have a right to vote for whomever they want, of course.

But I’m glad the NH GOP will make things difficult for The Donald. He’s been a registered Democrat much of the time, or so it seems. So, the requirement that he prove with evidence that he is a Republican, “under penalties of perjury,” is entirely legitimate.

I love all this conflict within political parties. The Republicrats and the Demopublicans are all one party: the Statist Party, and it should have as much internal conflict and eye-gouging battles as possible. They are evil lowlifes, and they deserve it.

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe would say, democracy is the god that failed, and that is why bad men rule. People climbing all over each other to grab the powers of the State, the power to order others around and steal their money away from them, and that’s what that is, that’s what they’re all about. (Except for Ron Paul, of course.)

But regarding Trump, I agree with Robert Wenzel at Target Liberty that Trump’s popularity is a concern for those who want to restore liberty. Wenzel pointed out that a “charismatic personality is not going to attract thinkers. He is going to attract the wrong kind of people, on the left side of the IQ bell curve.” And that is what we are seeing with all these crowds at Trump rallies. And comparing Trump to Mussolini, Wenzel wrote,

And as far as Trump goes, not only does Trump have Mussolini-like views on various ethnic groups and Mussolini-like economic views but his personal style and attitude seems to be very Mussolini-like. What Trump seems to believe about the US and what he believes he can do for the country, was said before by Mussolini about Italy. In his autobiography, Mussolini wrote, “I want to make Italy, great, respected and feared.”

Trump is attracting the anti-Muslim crowd based on fear being reinforced by the recent Paris attacks, the Middle Eastern refugees going to European countries, and of course the problems along the southern U.S. border. “Muslims” are the problem. Let’s keep them under surveillance, even if they are not suspects. Let’s infiltrate the mosques with spies. Let’s close down the mosques so that peaceful Muslims have no place to worship, which will just drive the “jihadists” to some other meeting place. Let’s round them up and put them in concentration camps. So in other words, just as we have seen since 9/11, the propaganda has some Americans acting with an irrational religious fervor and Donald Trump is exploiting that. The religion of nationalism is just like the religion of statism, which is a religion of superstition, as Larken Rose suggests, and a religion of State worship and dependence, in my view. It makes people stupid. It makes people believe in witchcraft and the tooth fairy, and it blinds people to the lies and propaganda of the power-seekers and power-grabbers who want to enslave and rob them.

But this is one of those times in which the bloodbath of politics involves them eating their own — they are beating each other and themselves up, and it’s more than just entertaining. It gives me hope.

In Orwellian Amerika, Men Are Women, Girls Are Boys, And Socialists Are “Capitalists”

I can’t believe I have to write about Willard again. No, not again! Willard Mitt Romney, that is.

Well, it appears that New Hampshire voters would prefer Romney over Donald Trump if Romney were in the race for the Republican nomination. Otherwise, The Donald is on top. Why? I think a lot of people now respond to emotional, feel-good rhetoric and nonsense. There is no thinking involved when it comes to supporting these politicians who are part fascist and part socialist. And I don’t mean to insult the people of New Hampshire. Many of them supported Ron Paul in 2012, because they support someone who promotes freedom and who opposes the socialist enslavement in which we all suffer. In that area, Ron Paul is the real deal. Donald Trump? Romney? Yech! No such luck.

But apparently the people of NH don’t care that Trump is someone who is anti-free trade, and who loves socialist eminent domain. And many registered Republicans and conservatives love the idea of a socialist government wall that Trump wants to build on the border, as though that will protect them from “illegal aliens.” But that sort of mentality is how anti-private property socialists and anti-self-defense slaves think. If you are worried about “criminals” coming through the border, what about all the American criminals already inside the border, raping, assaulting, killing, breaking in and burglarizing, robbing and so on. There are many more of them who are American citizens than there are those kinds of criminals who are “illegals.” So, mainly these politicians such as Trump are just pandering to anti-foreigner sentiments, which are now being even more reinforced by the situations in France and with “ISIS.”

But a lot of people in the “Live Free or Die” state would prefer Romney over Trump, even though Romney is just another socialist. I know, I know, people are just too influenced now with Newspeak, in which a socialist is called “capitalist” and so on. But the truth is the truth, and facts are facts, whether you like it or not. So with Romney being favored by New Hampshire voters now, here is another reminder of what “free market capitalists,” “conservatives” and Republicans are supporting when they support The Willard:

To begin, Romney the “capitalist” supported the taxpayer-funded Wall Street Bailout. And this “businessman” raised tax-thefts on businesses as governor of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, prior to being governor, Romney, the “capitalist” “businessman” himself benefited from government programs and taxpayer-funded wheeling-and-dealing.

And would Romney have reappointed Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed, regardless of Bernanke’s destruction along with Bush, Paulson, et al.? You bet!

When it comes to medical freedom, Romney instead loves medical mandates. (No freedom with mandates.) You see, the socialist part of Massachusetts RomneyCare and ObamaCare is the IRS involvement of the involuntary collection and redistribution of tax dollars to fund these criminal schemes. But, besides the corporatist collusions between private businesses and government bureaucrats, a major fascist aspect of such schemes is the mandates. You vill do ziss, you vill do zat! Orders must be obeyed! So here is Romney with his syrupy, gross slobbering praise of fascist mandates:

And here is Romney at the signing of his 2006 Massachusetts health car mandate law, praising his buddy, Ted Kennedy (get me a bucket, as Mr. Creosote would say):

When it comes to supporting socialism, Romney is the guy. Gun control, of course, is a main part of socialist utopia, in which only government enforcers are armed, but the civilian population is unarmed and defenseless. Romney strongly supports a permanent assault weapons ban on the civilian population. The population’s disarmament has to have a beginning, after all.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

• Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

• Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

• Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

As I have noted before, there is not much difference between socialism and fascism, and between socialists and fascists. The notorious 20th Century dictators were both socialist and fascist. (And so are the 21st Century ones, including the ones in Amerika.)

And boy, is Romney a fascist (as well as a socialist), supporting the government’s drug war. Despite the possibility that marijuana usage among the young people could be a contributor to why they are growing up to being such unthinking, incompetent sheeple, there is still the principled, moral case for drug freedom, as Laurence Vance pointed out. Nevertheless here is Willard being questioned by a medical patient who says he needs marijuana for treatment. He asks Romney if he would have him arrested for using marijuana (probably, just like Obama), and Romney becomes a snubber and walks away. Romney here is the typical sneering pol, quite frankly. Disgusting.

Regarding his “personal integrity,” I still haven’t heard any good explanation for why, on his departure in January 2007 as Massachusetts governor, his staff removed computer hard drives or otherwise removed whole State House office computers. What were they getting rid of and what were they hiding?

And does “capitalist” Romney support carbon caps and carbon taxes? Just look at all these warmist Romney advisors. Here he is keeping the door wide open on those ghastly schemes:

In response to the carbon caps or taxes question, a real truth-teller would say that this warming-climate change stuff is all phony and made-up and not backed by actual scientific empirical data, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. A true free-market capitalist would point to voluntary, free-market and private property solutions to air pollution, and that there shouldn’t be more taxes, certainly not higher taxes, for anyone. The main intention of the warmists and climate change activists is empowering the government to take even more private wealth and property from the workers and producers of society. And that’s it. Taking wealth, property, and freedom away from others is the main motivation of social activists, and it’s time someone told the truth about them.

More News and Commentary

John Whitehead with a message to France from a post-9/11 America: lessons we learned too late.

Jacob Hornberger says that gun control didn’t prevent the Paris massacre.

Laurence Vance discusses Ben Carson’s comments on health care.

Don Boudreaux has zero reason to trust our rulers to be adequately knowledgeable and level-headed in foreign affairs and military matters.

Marc Morano discusses prominent scientists declaring climate claims ahead of UN summit “irrational.”

On Democracy Now! a discussion with Air Force whistleblowers on drones killing civilians and provoking foreigners.

Murtaza Hussain says that former drone operators were “horrified” by the cruelty of the drone assassination program.

Fort Russ on Syria: U.S. government supplies “selected rebels” with weapons capable of shooting down airliners.

Reuters with an article on Kiev militants having bombed a Crimean power supply, leaving over a million sans power.

Michael Rozeff on how to deal with terrorists.

Eric Margolis on Paris: the past was prelude.

Chuck Baldwin on the Paris attacks.

Justin Raimondo asks, Who’s behind the Islamic State?

Wendy McElroy on discredited rape data.

Marc Victor asks, Are you a thug?

And James Ostrowski says that Woodrow Wilson was our worst President.

25th Year of the Death of Aaron Copland

Besides last month being the 25th year of the death of conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein, next month is the 25th year of the death of the American composer and conductor Aaron Copland (1900-1990). Among other compositions, he was best known for his ballet Rodeo, the Lincoln Portrait and his Fanfare for the Common Man, which then became the source of material for the fourth movement of his 1946 Third Symphony, a symphony which Boston Symphony Orchestra conductor Serge Koussevitzky called the “greatest American symphony ever written” according to Copland biographer Howard Pollack. I much prefer the expanded version of the Fanfare in the Third Symphony than the short, original version. Among the several recordings of that Symphony, I have heard the Yoel Levi-Atlanta Symphony recording, which is superb.

Here is the fourth movement of Copland’s Third Symphony, performed by Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. The uploader uses very striking imagery throughout the video. Also, it is not noted whether this recording is Bernstein’s 1966 or 1986 recording of this piece.

Brainwashed Fanatics and Terrorists

As I have mentioned in some recent posts, 21st Century civilization (if I may call it that, regardless of how uncivilized it is) now has to deal with a rise in actual aggression in the name of fighting “microaggression.” And there is the “Islamist threat,” such as it is. I think that both phenomena are related.

And it isn’t just because so many among the world’s population are poisoning their brains with Big Pharma drugs, Big Agra’s corn-poison and other chemicals as well. People world-wide, in developed countries and those not-so-developed, are so heavily intoxicated on propaganda, religious and political, they are really brainwashed and acting in a very threatening manner toward others, and I don’t like it.

For starters, the new Orwellian culture we are enduring and suffering in Amerika now seems to consist of young people who feel “traumatized” and “triggered” by the slightest word or phrase uttered, or the most innocent picture, video, or symbol that causes them so much anguish they call the police or 911. Or worse, they shout and disrupt, or physically assault, other young people who are minding their own business, as a way to get attention. Even college administrators and faculty members are kowtowing and defending the aggressions and disturbances of other people’s peace. University staff who don’t play along will be shown the door by the kooks in control.

But not all the young people are in college, thank God. There are those roughly 35% of the young people who either decided to delay college or opt out entirely, or those who were in college but dropped out, who actually work to provide for themselves. And some of those are married and have families already at a young age. But I digress.

But what is it now that’s causing all these young people to need a “safe place” or a safe room, as though everywhere else is unsafe? Why are they so terrified of just about everything (or say they are)? And why are those who are activists behaving so angrily and behaving so uncivilly and belligerently toward others?

And I ask myself, what was it that my generation (I’m in my 50s) did to these young people? But then, I look at my generation and I see many among them acting irrationally as well.

One thing I have observed is that 9/11 really did change things. The college-aged young people at age 18-24 (or in their later 20s) were born from 1991-1997. That means that they were between age 4 and 10 when the September 11th attacks of 2001 occurred. So, all the post-9/11 government and media propaganda and fear-mongering not only had a lasting effect on many adults, but must have really affected those who were little kids at that time. No wonder some of them have an irrational need for a “safe room.” The little ones must have had nightmares, not really as much because of the actual events of 9/11 but more because of the 2001-2003 repeated reminders of the 9/11 events and the constant scare tactics of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all their mainstream media minions in propagandizing Americans to support another new war against Iraq in 2003. Many of the younger supporters of war at that time probably didn’t even know there was a previous U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991, the “Persian Gulf War.”

Add to that bit of terrorism inflicted by the Washington bureaucrats the “global warming” propaganda and fear-mongering of the Al Gore activists (who are still at it!). I clearly remember during the 2000s how the schools were implementing the global warming fanaticism into their everyday school curricula and imposing all that on impressionable little kids who were already terrorized by their society’s constant Islam this and Saddam that bunch of stuff. And I recall news articles on how school kids were waking up at night having nightmares because of the in-school global warming terror that was being foisted on them.

So I can understand what particular factors might be influencing the young people of college age now, in their irrational feelings of paranoia, their feeling traumatized by every little thing and their need for a “safe place.” They have been not only conditioned to react to every little thing and fear this or that, but they have also been brainwashed by years of the government and media’s fear mongering following 9/11 and associated with global warming. Their brainwashing causes them to act in an unthinking and irrational way, combined with the ideologies being instilled in them by their school teachers and college professors (such as “black lives matter but white lives don’t,” and “microaggressions,” etc., etc.), as well as their pop culture icons and idols, many of whom are on the Left.

But since 9/11 many of the “adults” were also in some ways brainwashed, by hours and hours of post-9/11 government propaganda TV-watching, day after day, and for years. No wonder the South Carolina debate-goers were booing Ron Paul when he mentioned the Golden Rule. “Christian” America no longer believes in the Golden Rule, that if you don’t want people breaking into or bombing your home then you shouldn’t do it to them. And when Dr. Paul or others brought up the history of pre-9/11 U.S. government interventionism, invasions and occupations of foreign countries, that makes people very uncomfortable. It’s difficult for people who love their country to acknowledge their own government’s criminal acts against foreigners which had done nothing but provoke the foreigners. But denial of the truth is much more unhealthy.

Besides the teen and 20-something young people in America who had grown up being bombarded with fear-mongering and propaganda by the government and media after 9/11, there are the young people in the Middle East who have been terrorized by actual bombs and bullets, as well as being propagandized by years of supposedly “Islamic” ideology. Many of them also were little kids during and after 9/11.

Many of those young Middle Easterners had suffered during their own growing up years, not as much at the hands of their “Islamic” authoritarian elders raising them, but being terrorized by all the bombs, invasions, occupations, murders and assassinations, renditions, torture at the hands of U.S. government forces and other Western government war criminals. So those Middle Eastern young people, now in their teens and 20s, grew up in fear and terror of when the next drone will pass over them, when the next bomb will be dropped in their neighborhood, when the invaders would break into their home, rape their mothers and shoot their fathers, and if they will actually survive all that criminality. I don’t think that many Americans can understand or empathize with them, being such narcissistic “Exceptionalists,” and also being so propagandized by the U.S. government and media. (But I could be wrong.)

And no, I am NOT defending “Islamic terrorists,” but one reason many Americans don’t have an understanding of what it’s like from the perspective of those whose lives are terrorized and tortured by invading armies is that most Americans have never experienced such violence against them. (Except those victims of American police violence, of course.) Another reason why most Americans actually don’t care to understand the perspective of their government’s foreign victims is that most Americans are ignorant and go by the propaganda fed to them by their government’s well-trained media sycophants. Most Americans are also ignorant of what their own government had done to those Middle Eastern foreigners prior to 9/11.

So traveling from Middle Eastern countries to Europe now there are thousands of young people, many of them Muslim and male, who grew up being either the victims of or in fear and terror of the U.S. government’s massive campaigns of violence. And now they supposedly fear ISIS.

Now, I know that a lot of commentators and talk radio crusaders are expressing concern that many of those migrants or refugees might be Islamic jihadists who want to do more of what was done to Paris, and might come here to the U.S. and commit jihadist violence. But supposedly, many of them are not unmarried but actually do have wives and kids they left behind assuming that the rest of their families will be welcomed when these new arrivals settle somewhere in Europe. Apparently  such a travel is very difficult, grueling and dangerous, and a good reason why females and children might not be able to endure such a trip.

To me the refugees’ expecting to settle somewhere in Europe isn’t very realistic. European countries are welfare states, with massive redistribution of wealth schemes just like in America, which negatively effect productivity, housing and employment. Eventually, they will probably have to go back to Syria, Iraq, and so on (and I have heard that many of them are from other countries as well, not currently being victimized by so-called ISIS).

But just what will be left in Syria and Iraq after the so-called ISIS takeover? How will the ruling forces of Islamic State rebuild what they and others destroyed? And also, the “fanatics” are destroying many historic buildings as well. And I’ve been hearing that some insiders and disgruntled “former ISIS” participants are saying that with the higher-ups of ISIS it really isn’t a fanatical imposition of Islam into society and culture there, but “it’s all about money.” In other words, they are really just criminals, stealing wealth and property from others not any different from the typical gang, or the mafia, or, more like a typical government racket in most countries. But given the history of U.S. government bureaucrats in those three-letter agencies, I think we can guess the answers to the questions as to who is breeding the jihadists, who is training them, and so on (besides the Saudis, that is).

But I think that there really are Middle Eastern Muslims who really are brainwashed to follow Islam in the same kind of zombie-like way as the American youngins seem to be brainwashed, propagandized and terrorized to believe in global warming, to believe ideologies such as “hate white people” and “hate males,” “rape culture,” “black lives matter,” and act like destructive, uncivilized creeps. Those college campuses are now breeding grounds for future culture jihadists who will see their violence against others as justified, in the name of this or that ideology.

So who are the world’s worst terrorists? In my view, government bureaucrats, government worshipers, government fanatics and jihadists. And if there are any identifiable culprits in breeding all the aforementioned creatures, I would say it’s mainly the bureaucrats of the U.S. government, their enforcers and soldiers, and all the little minions who obediently follow them.

What Freedom of Speech Means to Me

Here is my latest article on, What Freedom of Speech Means to Me

For me, freedom of speech isn’t just about spoken words but is a general category also including freedom of thought and conscience, and different forms of expression, such as in writing and various artistic means of expression.

A society that protects and champions freedom of speech and thought is especially important for those with a moral conscience who encounter wrongdoing to expose such wrongdoing.

And if someone disagrees with a social trend, then of course she should have the freedom to express such a disagreement.

For example, an encouragement by a Yale professor for Halloween tolerance was recently attacked by a mob of hyper-sensitive students who apparently felt that such an encouragement threatens their “safe space.” (Bubble Boy, anyone?)

In 2015 America, the most harmless words and phrases are now perceived as a threat to today’s authoritarian snowflakes, the offspring of the flower children of yesteryear.

Many of these young people are being brainwashed to worship nonsense. They are being trained to think and act like irrational dictatorial robots, crying over nothing that actually exists.

Intolerant and authoritarian, these young punks are the future leaders of America, in which it may become illegal to criticize them, or report on them, as well as criticize members of the ruling class.

And regarding the right to exercise one’s moral conscience, many of the authoritarians on the opposite side of the college punks, the “right-wingers,” are the ones who really believe that Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are “traitors” for revealing government “secrets” which exposed various elements of the U.S. government and military as the real traitors in their corruption and criminality.

You see, freedom of speech means that the whistleblower who exposes corruption and criminality is not punished for such revelations with solitary confinement for years before his kangaroo trial on bogus “espionage” charges when his actions were clearly not on behalf of some foreign regime but on behalf of the American people.

Manning truly understood that the American people have a right to know the truth, pointing out that “information should be in the public domain,” and that “without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” And that includes so-called “classified” information, because, as was the case from his initial hearing, as one military officer testified at Manning’s kangaroo trial, not one item of information Manning released was of any threat to any American here in the U.S. or overseas. If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you’ve been too influenced by propaganda distributed by the government and its obedient mainstream media lapdogs.

So freedom of speech includes freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of inquiry and investigation (“The Press”), the right to express your views and criticisms of those in power, and the right of those with a moral conscience to reveal evidence of the power-wielders’ criminality and corruption. Sadly, many authoritarians and nationalists disagree with me on those points. For them the First Amendment has limits. Unfortunately their limits are the very rights which are protected by the First Amendment, especially the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Here in America our right to criticize, investigate, report on, and discipline or shame our stupid and incompetent rulers was meant to be protected, supposedly, by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the truth is, bureaucrats just don’t like to be criticized, so they have their S.W.A.T. raids criminally breaking into reporters’ or government whistleblowers’ homes and stealing or hacking their computers, and so on, and jail or murder critics to shut them up.

And there are sheeple in America — millions of them — who defend the government’s crackdowns, gullibly believing that it’s right, usually in the name of “national security.”

The authoritarian besieging of freedom of speech and thought seems to be turning a once-free America into just another totalitarian nightmare.

For example, in some Islamic countries, the ruling class arrests, detains, lashes, or executes those who have merely criticized those rulers, the country’s governmental administrators. The rulers say the punishment is for “insulting Islam” or “insulting Muhammad.”

Saudi Arabia is one of those extremely repressive countries. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I would probably not have the freedom to ask those officials, “How do you know that Muhammad feels insulted by criticism of the Saudi government or of the clerics? Did you talk to Muhammad? Did you have a seance? How do you actually know he’s insulted?”

Based on what I’ve read about the “Prophet Muhammad,” there is no indication that he would have felt “insulted” by Saudi citizens criticizing their ruling government. So it’s really the royal Saudi King, who is also the head of the government there, and his fellow bureaucrats who don’t like their rule being criticized by those who actually live there.

And I’m sure this might “offend” some people, but in my view there are plenty of authoritarians and nationalists in America who also have that same kind of mindset.

Just bring up the flag-burning issue, and many people will react very emotionally.

There are people who see the American flag as some kind of sacred symbol, and they refer to flag “desecration” which reminds me of the aforementioned “crimes” in Saudi Arabia of “insulting Islam” or “insulting Muhammad.” I know, I know, “How offensive!” to compare some authoritarian Americans to the barbarians in the Middle East who torture or murder innocent people merely for their disobedience and defiance. But when the American flag is burned at a protest, just look in the comments section of news articles and you’ll see just how some Americans value freedom of speech.

You see, there is this emotional attachment that some people have to a flag (or to the Bible or the Koran, etc.). They would rather see a flag-burner be killed than see a flag set on fire.

So there are “triggers” that elicit strong feelings in many people, the American flag wavers, the Saudi rulers and clerics, the Iranian Ayatollahs, the college snowflakes who need a “safe room,” the race-obsessed community organizers, and the Israel Firsters.

Oops. I’m not supposed to refer to “Israel Firsters.” And I’m also not supposed to make any critical comments about Christianity or the Bible, as Obama had done during his first Presidential campaign, referring to people “clinging” to their Bible, and so on.

But when it comes to Israel, many Bible believing Christians refer to critics of the Israeli government or military as “anti-Semitic” or anti-Jewish, or a “self-hating Jew.” Even beyond our criticizing Israeli militarism, the name-calling toward critics is even worse if one criticizes of Zionism itself. The Zionists, or really the Christian Zionists, would claim that Israel is God’s “Promised Land” for the Jews, for all Jews, who are apparently the “Chosen People.” But that’s a very collectivistic notion. The true believers do not seem to understand that we are all individuals, some good, some not so good.

And such assertions are also somewhat condescending toward Jews, frankly.

However, I would say that it was a mistake to gather Jews into one small area completely surrounded by Muslims and Arabs and call that a “safe haven for Jews.” The reason why the Zionists would not accept any other place but Israel was not based on practicality but based on the Bible.

But I’m not allowed to make those observations, even in modern America, as doing so would be “politically incorrect.”

I would ask the Bible believing Christians the same kinds of questions I would like to ask the clerics in Saudi Arabia regarding the Koran, such as, “How do you know that God ‘chose’ Jews as special beneficiaries of a particular territory in the Middle East?” And they might say, “Because the Bible says so. The Bible is the word of God.” Many people believe that, but there is no real proof that the Bible is the word of God, or that morally the Bible’s assertions have any validity. So the faithful believe it all based on … faith.

And Glenn Beck is constantly saying how we need to turn back to God and all that. But why is it that people need to have some sort of authority figure to worship, such as God or Jesus, or Allah or Muhammad? Or the government, police or military for that matter. Many people worship those guys as well.

So now that I’ve probably offended many Muslims, Christians, Jews and flag-wavers, as well as brainwashed college zombies, now on to the atheists. I really don’t worship any “God,” but I do believe that we were created, and not by creators with particularly kind motivations. But to the atheists, I would point out just how complex our own bodies are, the brain, the heart, and the concepts of vision and reproduction, and the extremely tiny odds of all that occurring from random and spontaneous matter or particles forming life. You would have to believe that it all just happened randomly as a matter of faith. I look forward to the day when atheists admit that their beliefs are as much out of faith as the Bible believers’ beliefs.

But even in 21st Century America there is still so much intolerance of other points of view that violence against them is the preferred choice rather than tolerance. I am talking about tolerance of ideas as well as tolerance of challenging authority.

How long ago was it that the flower children had “Question Authority” bumper stickers? But now the “climate change” (formerly “global warming”) fanatics want to jail “deniers.” And the college campus fascists want to expel the Press from covering their protests. Huh?

And can you imagine how a lot of true believers might react if there were a Charlie Hebdo-like “Jesus-drawing contest” in the same way that Pamela Geller had her “Muhammad-drawing” contest? “Freedom of speech for me but not for thee,” and all that.

So freedom of thought and association includes the right to have and express ignorant attitudes that others might find to be repugnant, and the right to “hate.” Yes, that’s right, “hate.” Hate is just an emotion.

That is why “hate crimes” legislation also goes against freedom of speech. If someone physically assaults another, it is irrelevant if the motivation for the assault was “hate.” So with those kinds of laws we have the criminalization of certain kinds of thought. But thinking and emotions are not crimes. “Hate” can’t hurt anyone, except hurt someone’s feelings.

Remember, you don’t have a right to not have your feelings hurt, or a right to not feel offended.

The LGBT activists who take Christian conscientious objectors to court for not providing labor involuntarily, and the “transgender” police are exposing the destructive nature of “civil rights” laws. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. government went beyond merely repealing fascist Jim Crow laws. It erased the line between public and private property. So rather than just applying “civil rights” to public property and government-run functions such as the buses, the schools, parks, City Hall, etc., the social intruders succeeded in empowering themselves to force their way into privately owned businesses. The pretext was “public accommodations,” but nevertheless applying to private property. The activists and bureaucrats made private property less privately owned and more publicly owned from that point onward.

But of course people have a right to associate with whomever they want and a right to not associate with whomever they don’t want to associate. And for any damn reason. That might bother a lot of guilt-ridden people who are afraid to say the truth about freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom of association, but so what? The important distinction here, as Lew Rockwell referred to recently, is private property.

People do not have a “right” to forcibly enter someone else’s property or to force others to associate with them, or to silence those perceived as “hateful” or hurtful or those with whom they disagree. The totalitarian idea of thought crimes needs to find its way into the dustbin of history, really.

Some More Misc. Items

Jane Orient discusses locker room transgenders and your child’s health.

Jeff Deist with four ways to build a free society.

Seth Schoen and Jamie Williams say that Crypto is for everyone — and history proves it.

Tho Bishop says that “white privilege” has nothing on State privilege.

James Bovard says, End federal agents’ license to kill.

Walter Williams analyzes the education disaster in Amerika.

Glenn Reynolds shows how gun laws put the innocent on trial.

Gary North votes no on ObamaTrade.

Greg Corombos on the mass exodus of U.S. doctors fleeing medicine.

Sheldon Richman comments on Donald Trump’s Operation Police State.

Andrew Syrios says that when you’re popular, you don’t need freedom of speech.

Jonathan Turley comments on Canada’s anti-free speech policies.

Ray Cordato says that Pope Francis contradicts himself on religious liberty and capitalism.

Joe Wolverton says that judicial attacks on Christianity violate the letter and spirit of the Establishment Clause.

Ryan McMaken concludes that guns are safer than prescription drugs.

Dan Sanchez on missile test terrorism over Los Angeles.

Laurence Vance discusses conservatism laid bare.

Sandy Ikeda on Social justice versus the Left.

Richard Ebeling discusses war, big government, and lost freedom.

Walter Block responds to the PC brats of University of Missouri.

And WND with an article on America’s real drug problem.

Recent Commentary on Paris, ISIS, and Foreign Entanglements

Daniel McAdams on who’s making a killing from the Paris terror attacks.

Justin Raimondo discusses how to beat ISIS: Quarantine them.

KrisAnne Hall says that in Paris massacre’s aftermath, here’s one important truth we must apply from history.

Eric Margolis on the Paris attacks: A history lesson.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Why the shock over Paris?

Andrew Bacevich says this next war is a war the West cannot win.

Bruce Fein suggests to end Mideast arms sales and non-humanitarian aid.

And Jack Douglas says the Islamic caliphate “holy warriors” are increasing rapidly.

No, Richard Nixon Wasn’t an Anti-Semite. Where on Earth Did You Ever Hear That?

I’ve heard Pat Buchanan and Hugh Hewitt among others say such nice things about the evil war criminal Richard M. Nixon. Nixon had an enemies list, just as I’m sure Obama does and all fascists as well. But he was definitely an anti-Jewish ignoramus. This video is supposedly from a documentary on Nixon  in his own words.

For example, at about 12:00 into the video, here is Nixon on the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg:

Nixon: “He’s not Jewish, is he?”

Haldemen: “I’m sure he is.”

Ziegler: “Ellsberg?”

Nixon: “The Jews are born spies. You notice how many of them are? They’re just in it up to their necks.”

Haldeman: “Well, they got a basic deviousness that …

Nixon: “Well also an arrogance, an arrogance that says … that’s what makes a spy. He puts himself above the law.”

Nixon: “I want to look at any sensitive areas around where Jews are involved, Bob. See, the Jews are all throughout the government. And we have got to get in those areas. We’ve got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish … do you understand?”

Haldeman: “I sure do.”

Nixon: “The government is full of Jews. Second, most Jews are disloyal. Generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you.”

They didn’t call him “Tricky Dick” for nothing. (I wonder what Obama says while meeting with his fellow government apparatchiks.)

(ht Target Liberty)

21st Century Bureaucrats Have Lost the Idea of Due Process

It appears that a drone strike ordered by Barack Obama and his British counter-part David Cameron has killed someone known as “Jihadi John,” who allegedly played a large role in the (staged) ISIS hostage killing videos. This is yet another instance in which Obama has murdered people while depriving them of their right to due process. All human beings have a right to presumption of innocence and due process.

“What, are you defending Jihadi John? Why, he was a terrorist!” Well, no, he was an accused terrorist. And I know a lot of people don’t understand this, and they believe that someone is a criminal or a terrorist merely based on the say-so of government bureaucrats. But morally, all people who are accused of something have a right to require their accuser to present evidence against them. Not only that, but the accused have a right to respond to accusations and possibly refute the alleged evidence against them. And this fundamental human right applies to ALL human beings.

“But the crimes of beheading people and murder and terrorism are just too serious to make the government follow procedures, etc., etc., etc.” But we are still talking about someone who was accused of those crimes. The reason why this is important is because anyone can accuse someone of anything. And it doesn’t matter how heinous the crimes are. That aspect is totally irrelevant to the difference between someone who is accused of a crime and someone who has actually been convicted based on evidence and after having had his right to present his own case against the accusations. So it doesn’t matter how serious the crimes are that someone is accused of.

What the people who are saying regarding just killing a “terrorist,” even though he has not been given the opportunity to defend himself, is that we should just trust the judgment of the bureaucrats making the accusations. We should just trust the rulers, like Obama or Bush, or military generals or soldiers or CIA agents. That’s nuts! Really, who in his right mind would trust Obama, and trust his judgment? The early Americans who had to endure the tyranny of the British were actually trying to do away with that kind of mentality. And it isn’t just the early Americans who suffered at the hands of corrupt liars using the phony concept of “war” or “security” to murder others they either didn’t like or just wanted out of the way. Just talk to survivors of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And the Fidel Castro regime. And Chile’s Pinochet. And now all the people who have suffered in this made-up “war on terror” under Bush and Obama.

We can look at IRS commissars like Lois Lerner targeting conservatives, and Obama targeting journalists. As I wrote in this post, those groups considered by the Obama regime to be “threats” and “terrorists” include “constitutionalists,” religious Christians, those who believe in individual liberty, preppers and survivalists, and those who are critical of the government’s phony operations.

And to you “law and order” “moral values” conservatives out there, when I hear them talk about the Declaration of Independence referring to our natural, “God-given rights,” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those are inherent rights that all human beings have as human beings. And they include the right to due process and presumption of innocence, and that ALL human beings who are accused of something have a right to require their accusers to present evidence and the right of the accused to have the opportunity to respond and refute such evidence and defend oneself.

Pinocchio Obama and the U.S. Government Sponsoring Terrorism and Violence

In response to the Paris attacks, Obama said (with a straight face), “This is an attack not just on Paris; it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”

I thought I was going to toss my cookies. Does he ever look in the mirror? Even recently there have been indications that the U.S. military strike on an Afghan hospital that killed many civilians was intentional. Add this one to all the drone strikes on areas of Pakistan, Yemen, etc., killing thousands of civilians since Obama took office. Many of the strikes against civilian targets are intentional. They target rescuers of those bombed by CIA drones, they target wedding parties and funerals. Obama can order the CIA to stop doing this any time he wants, but he won’t do that. Hearing Obama condemn the murders of innocent people makes me wonder just how he can live with himself, this “progressive.”

And all these bombings and murders of innocents do nothing but provoke foreigners. Starting wars of aggression against countries that hadn’t attacked us, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, has extremely unintended consequences, such as causing Iraq to become a Sharia Law theocracy and then causing the growth of ISIS and the refugee crisis in Europe. I don’t know what it is with the obsessive interventionists except that they don’t learn from history.

I know it goes against what most statists and interventionists stand for, but the way to weaken ISIS or al-Qaeda is for the U.S. government to stop funding and training them and stop supplying them with weapons. In fact, ending ALL U.S. government foreign aid might be an effective way to disable ISIS and other terrorist organizations overseas, such as aid to Saudi Arabia which is not supposed to get U.S. aid, and other terrorist-sponsoring states.

The Paris Attacks: More Blowback from Western Government Criminality and Covetousness

Some people are considering the terrorist attacks in Paris as an “act of war.” No, the attacks were not an act of war, they were all criminal acts. There really is no such thing as war as far as I’m concerned. There are those ruling bureaucrats whose soldiers invade another territory, that is, initiating the aggressions and violence. Those acts, such as the U.S. military invasion into Iraq, were criminal acts. We can refer to all that as starting a “war,” sure. But even the Nuremberg Tribunal determined that to start a war is itself a war of aggression, thus a “war crime.” But really it is as much a criminal act as if a group of people in one house went across the property and invaded the other house on the next property and destroyed the home and everything inside and killed the people there. I might elaborate on all this over the next few days, and I might not. But those jihadists with their criminal violence against innocents are just as much criminals as the U.S. “democracy” jihadists who killed the hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc., over the past 14 years now, really 24 years now. It’s not a war, these are all criminal acts being committed by zealously violent people.