Design a site like this with
Get started

More Misc. Items

Jacob Hornberger asks, Why do American Christians support coerced charity?

Laurence Vance says that Republican Medicaid wars miss the real issue.

Ron Paul says that Congress is writing the President a blank check for war.

Robert Wenzel on the nutjob anti-elephant poaching activists meeting in Kenya.

Cassandra Dixon comments on nonviolent resistance in the South Hebron Hills.

Jim Davies has a message for Muslims about religion.

Robert Johnson on Judaism: making a State out of a religion.

Matt McCaffrey discusses Ludwig von Mises on protectionism and immigration.

Andrew Napolitano on Hillary’s nightmare.

William Grigg has some comments on tyranny, defiance, and the death of LaVoy Finicum.

Gary Chartier says, Reject the Trump Tax.

Bill Sardi on the great cholesterol deception.

Doug Bandow says that America should stop reassuring Saudi Arabia.

Shane Smith says that Iran is guilty of “contempt of empire,” nothing more.

Paul Craig Roberts on Presidential crimes, then and now.

And Nick Ford discusses Ferguson and the government police.

In 2016 Election for President, No Candidates Promoting Freedom

Besides the Democrats, Hillary and the communist “democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders, we have very childish sniveling morons on the Republican side, such as Trump who can’t face a smart lady such as Megyn Kelly, and so he runs and hides like a baby. Oh, she’s not treating me fairly! he cries. What is he, a little college cupcake, feeling triggered?

I know, some people are saying that Trump is right to boycott the debate based on Roger Ailes’s snide comments in their Fox press release. But the office of President is not the Boy Scouts, Donald. As Joan Rivers would say, “Grow up!”

And Glenn Beck formally endorsed Ted Cruz now. In a fit of irrationality, Beck tweeted, “The Presidency is not just a man, it is principles.” And, Beck tweeted, “I have prayed for the next George Washington — I believe I have found him (in Ted Cruz).” So this is really the Twilight Zone now.

“Principles”?  Like, let’s “carpet bomb” whole areas as Cruz wants to do, and kill innocent human beings? Good principles there. “The next George Washington”? (As Mr. Creosote might say, “Get me a bucket!”)

And there’s Cruz, who, like Trump, is good at manipulating the emotions of collectivists and nationalists and the evangelicals. But it seems that just about everyone hates Ted Cruz, going back to his college days. He’s “creepy” is the common theme.

My own problem with Cruz and Trump (as with ALL the other candidates) is their emotion-packed collectivist way of thinking. Cruz refers to “criminal aliens,” in reference to non-criminals who are fleeing tyranny, fleeing violent drug lords and child sex-traffickers. He would send children back to tyranny and sex-trafficking, based on petty bureaucratic “laws” concocted by central planners. That isn’t what a “good Christian” would do, which is what Cruz claims to be.

And both Trump and Cruz want to build a government wall that will eventually be used to keep the people in, not out. (Perhaps they already know that?) But the gullible emotion-driven sheeple hear “build a wall” and they love it!

Trump and Cruz dare not utter the real solutions to the problems of those dregs of other societies migrating to good ol’ USSA: abolishing the government-controlled welfare state and restoring private charity under freedom as we used to have; and restoring the right of the people to keep and bear arms and their right to shoot and kill intruders.

Unfortunately with authoritarian statists the priority for them is a heavily armed and empowered government (that might very well eventually be used against them, as James Madison observed), NOT an armed and empowered civilian population. They really don’t understand the 2nd Amendment, when you get right down to it.

Also Cruz on gay marriage: the State should control who gets married and who doesn’t. This is the issue in which conservative Christians really LOVE the State. Government-dependent conservatives want the State to determine who may have contracts, and the terms of those contracts, not the people themselves.

I think a lot of conservatives like the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence. Many talk radio personalities constantly cite it and those “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, they don’t genuinely understand that all human beings have such rights inherently, rights which preexist the formation of government. Such principles are based on the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression, private property and voluntary association and contract rights.

There are “constitutionalists” and conservatives out there who say they believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all people have unalienable rights and that among them are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights which preexist the formation of any government. But do those inherent rights only apply to some people favored by the government? Or to ALL human beings? Apparently, the supporters of socialist government restrictions on labor, property, contracts, freedom of movement and so forth, seem to contradict themselves.

And it seems that Wm. F. Buckley’s Neocon Review crowd doesn’t like Donald Trump because he is not psychopathically warmongering enough for them. However, when I hear the delirious Trump-supporting talk radio crowd, yikes, and their sheeple callers. In Trump they are supporting a liberal Democrat who, besides his love for eminent domain, still defends nationalized health care and single payer because he thinks the government should take care of the people, who believes in “fair trade not free trade,” who supports ethanol mandates and subsidies, who supported bailing out Wall Street banks and nationalizing them, and who supported Obama’s shovel-ready stimulus package.

No, not Bernie Sanders, I’m talking about Trump!

So we can’t really say that Trump is a capitalist, because he doesn’t support free markets and the sanctity of private property. In a free market capitalist world, private property and voluntary contracts are important principles that can’t be compromised.

And by “fair trade not free trade” Trump means government-managed or government-controlled trade, the government’s coercive usurpation of authority over commerce and transactions away from the traders.

Authoritarians such as Trump hate the idea of free trade, that is, trade that is free of governmental intrusions or manipulation against the will of the traders, as they want to dictate who may trade with whom, what may be traded and what may not be traded, what entire countries ought to be excluded or included, and so on.

But we can go right to that Declaration of Independence as our reference to those “unalienable rights” to assert that people have a right to trade with others, their own fellow countrymen or foreigners, and it doesn’t matter who the traders are or where they are, as long as there is no coercion, theft or fraud involved. That’s the American way, no?

But statists and authoritarians don’t think that way.

“But none of that matters,” say the ignorant Trumpites, “Trump will shake things up! He knows how to run things and make deals!”

I’ve heard people suggest things like wanting Trump to “run the government like a business,” which is absurd. No you can’t run the government like a business because government isn’t a business, it’s government! It’s a monopoly with no bottom line, and which is funded involuntarily by the people over whom the bureaucrats rule. If an actual private business forced its customers to use its services and to fund it involuntarily, that would be called a criminal racket! So that’s an absurd suggestion.

No, sorry to burst your bubble, but Donald Trump will not “shake things up.” If he is so good at deal-making, he will make deals with Congress, he will agree to that dreaded “bipartisan consensus” that has already taken America down economically and morally. But most of all, as we have already seen from his statements and positions, like just about all politicians this crony socialist Trump will compromise the principles that made America great: freedom, private property, voluntary association and contract.

The one candidate for President who promoted the true moral principles of liberty that constitutionalists and conservatives had a chance to vote for was Ron Paul. Unfortunately Dr. Paul seemed to have been cheated out of the Republican nomination by the same Establishment people who will probably fight The Donald at the convention and hand the nomination over to Jeb!. (Hmm, the article which explains the 2012 cheating seems to have been pulled by TPTB — here it is on the Wayback Machine for those interested.)

In head-to-head match-ups, Dr. Paul would’ve beat Obama in 2012, unlike those neocon creeps who opposed him. But besides that, many of the voters were (and still are, alas) bamboozled by the post-9/11 propaganda to support wars of aggression and further provoking foreigners, and also bamboozled by this “American Exceptionalism” thing. Sadly, in 21st Century Amerika, narcissism is the way of the nationalists and collectivists, as much as the little flower college cupcakes of the Left.

So Donald Trump and others want to “make America great again.” I don’t.

“Greatness” is a subjective assessment. Some people think that a powerful government that bullies foreigners to submission is “greatness,” but it certainly isn’t moral greatness. I think that, given they are authoritarians, these people really want the government to be great. They love power. (Freedom and independence, not so much.)

So, I don’t want America to be “great.” I just want America to be free. Freedom is really what matters.

And there are people who want to “take our country back.” They want to “restore the Republic” and “take the Constitution back.”

I want our freedom back. Am I the only one?

And a lot of these candidates say they want to “get things done” when elected to high office. I don’t want them to do anything, I want them to undo things! Dismantle each and every bureaucracy, agency, law, ordinance, or otherwise criminal intrusion being imposed on the people by a bunch of parasite schmucks who presume themselves to be our betters. They are not our betters, they are schmucks, including those who want to assume such high offices.

The only candidates I could possibly vote for are those who promise (in writing, make it legally binding) to pardon and release to their freedom any and every victim of the State’s thousands and thousands of laws, restrictions and enslavements. Anyone who has been kidnapped and detained and unjustly prosecuted for disobeying unjust laws, in which the State’s victim had never violated anyone else’s person or property, initiated any aggression against anyone or committed any acts of theft or fraud. In these cases it is the government and its minions and enforcers who are the criminals!

People really have to decide what they really want in society. Power and authority, and enslavement?

Or freedom and independence.

Sadly, there is no one to vote for who promotes actual freedom. That’s just the way it is right now.

Orwellian Educrat Nutsos

In the People’s Republic of Newton, Massachusetts, they are considering starting school later in the morning, like as late as 9:00 am. “Based on science,” and so on, the young little shavers and shavettes are having a tough time getting going in the morning, and it’s affecting their concentration and grades. Aw.

So, let’s allow them to sleep later in the morning. Hmm, have they considered trying to be a little more disciplined? You know, like going to bed a little earlier? Like rather than 10 or 11 PM, how about 9 or 9:30?

And there are other factors that are interfering with the kids’ ability to get more sleep at night and concentrate during the day. Such as, in addition to the hours and hours of staring at a TV screen like we used to do when we were kids, they also spend hours and hours staring into their computer screens and their little gadgets, their iPhones and so on. In addition to all this they have been turned into zombies by all the chemicals being fed into them with prescription drugs and vaccines.

But instead of adjusting their behaviors and habits and being more disciplined, they will now be allowed to sleep later in the morning. Oh, that’ll help to condition them for a good 9-5 career, in which you have to be at the office before 9, and many cases it’s 8:30 or 8:00. Oh wait, let’s start the work day at 11:00 AM so we can get up later in the morning, so we can stay up later (and party). Yup.

And this Newton, Massachusetts is the one in which the new $200 million “Taj Mahal” high school was built.

And for what? Is it worth it, given the nonsense going on in government schools these days?

Well, things are different now in the USSA than they were when I was in school.

Today, victims of the government schools are indoctrinated with political correctness, and are being taught made-up definitions of words. Now the young think they are “bullied” or “triggered” by mere innocent words. The young are being indoctrinated to want to silence others who disagree with them. They want to repeal the First Amendment. They are being made to support jailing skeptics of global warming or climate change. They are also being misdiagnosed and mislabeled and poisoned with the aforementioned legal prescription drugs. They are being conditioned to stay dependent on mothers well past high school, even past college. They are being made to fear being on their own, making their own way in life. In other words, the young are being driven crazy by our schools and our crazy culture now. It’s nuts now.

When I was growing up, as a kid I could walk down the street and not be harassed, picked up and detained by a “concerned” policeman who doesn’t believe that a 6-year-old is safe walking down the street to his friend’s house. Nowadays, the sniveling sheeple have fabricated this myth that children are not safe going it alone, when in fact they are perfectly safe.

There are Nazi neighbors who now call the police if they see a child playing alone in his own front yard while his mother is inside. It is those dangerous neighbors who should be arrested and charged with endangerment, not the good parents who let their kids have some freedom.

And in the old days a child could have a lemonade stand and not be harassed by freedom-hating, America-hating “law” enforcers. Adults could own and operate a small business and not have to pay a tribute to the local commissar bureaucrats. And adults could withdraw any amount of their own money from their own bank account and not be arrested for it! But not in today’s socialist prison society of Amerika.

I think things went downhill when Jimmy Carter imposed the federal Department of Education on the people.

9/11 wasn’t helpful either, as I noted in this post.

Conclusion: Separation of education and State!

News and Commentary

The Village Voice reruns a major 1979 exposé on Donald Trump (and Part 2) by Wayne Barrett. (Quote from current article describing the 1979 article it reprints: “Far from an independent capitalist, Barrett showed, Trump was a businessman who relied heavily on government largesse. ‘This is a guy whose wealth has been created by political connections,’ Barrett says today. And at the time the story was published, even Trump’s political connections came secondhand, through his father.”)

Signs of the Times with an article on Woodie Guthrie’s view of the Trumps Empire’s racist foundations.

Justin Raimondo analyzes the meaning of Trump.

Charles Burris discusses the Constitutional Convention big con.

Sheldon Richman on the Constitution revisited.

Laurence Vance discusses the truth about taxes.

William Grigg on the importance of a fully informed jury.

Don Boudreaux says the real problem is power itself, not who controls it.

Dahr Jamail with an article on the U.S. Navy using Americans as pawns in domestic war games.

Ron Paul on when peace breaks out with Iran…

Dan Sanchez discusses humiliation and herd-think.

John Whitehead on the right to tell the government to go to Hell.

Doug Casey asks, Why do we need government?

Anthony Wile interviews Brandon Smith on the advantages of barter and localism.

Mac Slavo on how the recent winter storm shows how quickly society can break down.

Washington’s Blog details the U.S. government’s history of propaganda against the American people.

Nick Giambruno asks, Are capital controls on the horizon in the U.S.?

Ron Unz asks, Will Harvard become free and fair?

Walter Block answers some libertarian questions.

Ryan McMaken discusses the un-PC Lego making toys girls like.

Bionic Mosquito on what some people were brought up to believe.

Brad says, Be your own social media.

And Bill Sardi asks, What happened to this year’s flu season?

More on Eminent Domain

I wanted to add a little more to my post on eminent domain and Ted Cruz’s lack of understanding of it. In the clip of Jon Stewart pointing out Cruz’s hypocrisy, Cruz seems to be trying to say that as long as the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment is followed, such as the reasons why the government wants to steal someone’s rightfully owned property away from them, those reasons being for “public” use but not private use, then it’s okay.

As long as the Constitution is followed. No, unfortunately there are those who are statists and who just don’t understand the moral underpinnings of private property rights. It doesn’t matter what the government’s reasons are for stealing private property from someone, to give it to poor people, the needy, the general public, for use for roads or a pipeline, or to give it over to politically connected developers. If the owner of the property doesn’t want to sell it, or to give it to anyone, then it can’t be taken, morally. Taking something from others involuntarily is stealing. It is theft. It is robbery. And that’s what that is. And it’s immoral. Doesn’t matter what the Constitution says.

The idea of unalienable rights is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Statists on the left and right don’t seem to understand those rights. The Declaration should have mentioned property, but didn’t for some reason. If you buy property with your own money then you own it. 100%.

Some More Great Reasons to Vote for Marco Stupido

Marco Rubio wants to “prosecute” the Oregon Wildlife Refuge occupiers, the Bundys and their mishpocheh. But, he said, don’t murder them (like the gubmint did at Waco), “We’re not going to treat them like an invading army from a foreign country.” Actually the “invaders” are the U.S. government which itself occupies a large chunk of territory it does not legitimately own. But I don’t expect Rubio, who wants the U.S. government to occupy lands all over the world, to actually understand any of that.

Here is Marco Stupido giving a prepared speech, and discovering that he misplaced the last page. He has to ask someone to hand him the last page so he can finish the speech. Most professionals have a better grasp on what they are speaking about and already understand their basic summary and conclusion, and would just “wing it” when losing their place in a speech. But no, Marco shows that like Barack Obama he needs either a teleprompter or his handlers nearby to help him. And worse, in this case Marco Stupido tells the whole world, “I left the last page of my speech. Does anybody have the last page?”

Ted Cruz Confused About Private Property Rights

There is a new anti-Trump ad promoting Ted Cruz. The ad criticizes Trump for his use of eminent domain, using the government to steal private property from its rightful owners against their will.

But Ted Cruz is a main supporter of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will require the use of eminent domain for it to actually be constructed, and Cruz knows this.

Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist

Keystone XL Construction Draws Opposition From Texas Landowners

Keystone XL company files eminent domain papers against Nebraska landowners

TransCanada Fails To Bully Nebraska Landowners With Keystone Pipeline Eminent Domain Lawsuit

Here is Jon Stewart, via The Week, on Ted Cruz’s hypocrisy in his alleged support for “private property rights.” The Ted Cruz part starts at about 2:50.

Conservatives are not for private property rights, they are for Big Government power and centralization, and central planning. That is one reason why Ted Cruz (and Donald Trump, who isn’t a conservative) is confused about private property vs. the collectivism which he seems to be indoctrinated to believe in.

Energy production should be decentralized, and get the government out of it completely!

More News and Commentary

Laurence Vance discusses the morality of libertarianism.

Gary Galles says, End injustices now, not later.

Paul Sperry says, Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist.

William Grigg describes the latest examples of Stalinism in Idaho.

Ludwig von Mises explains how price controls lead to socialism.

Walter Williams criticizes minimum wage dishonesty.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Does El Chapo’s arrest mean the drug war is over?

Per Bylund asks, Will immigration force a change in Sweden’s labor laws?

Paul Gottfried has some second thoughts about the Germans.

Gary North discusses extremism in the pursuit of historical truth.

Spiked online on Charlie Hebdo and the right to offend.

Justin Raimondo analyzes the official stories of Iran’s holding of U.S. sailors.

Glenn Greenwald on the government sycophants of the mainstream U.S. media on the Iranian capture of U.S. sailors.

Ron Paul on the Oregon standoff: isolated event or sign of things to come?

Robert Murphy says that many climate economists reject climate models and turn to ethical judgments.

Philip Giraldi discusses the media hyping the terrorist panic.

Walter Block asks, Why the push toward Milton Friedman?

Richard Ebeling says that individualism is battling the politically managed mind in the 21st Century.

John Whitehead on the State of the Nation: a dictatorship without tears.

Andrew Napolitano discusses more evidence against Hillary Clinton.

Dan Sanchez on Saudi Arabia and Israel: an axis of convenience.

Uri Avnery discusses Israel’s fear of assimilation.

Joel Skousen discusses the Oregon standoff: federal land-grab vs. the Sagebrush Rebellion.

And Joachim Hagopian runs through the deep state’s draconian measures to criminalize citizens.

Another GOP Debate: Who Should Further Guide America Down the Drain?

The latest Republican “debate” occurred Thursday night. Now, that’s “debate” with the quotes because these aren’t real debates, with all the candidates’ childish emotion-manipulating slogans and pandering with applause-eliciting phrases, with their ignorance galore.

A real debate would include an actual advocate for freedom making actual points as to why each one of the statists’ policies is immoral and goes against our freedom and prosperity. Each statist candidate would have no historical events or facts to back up his statist positions, because actual history and empirical evidence show that foreign interventionism causes blowback and destroys the countries our government interferes with and invades, and we know that economic interventionism is destructive as well as immoral.

Sadly, America had lost its moral backbone especially when President Honest Abe Lincoln took U.S. government forces against the people of the seceding states, targeted civilians, and caused the murders of tens of thousands. Subsequent Presidents idolize Lincoln for such atrocities.

As today’s conservatives supposedly believe, people have a right to their freedom of association which includes their right to not associate. But when it comes to the people’s right to belong to a “union” or to separate and form their own associations or governing agencies, the conservatives flock back to Lincoln’s message of centralized empowerment over the people, i.e. no right to freedom of association or non-association. Go figure.

I don’t think the conservatives will ever really understand the ideas of liberty, as they are brainwashed to love a powerful government without question.

That American Civil War, many subsequent otherwise preventable wars, the imposition of the income tax that institutionalized government theft and enslavement of the workers and producers, and the creation of the Federal Reserve System, all contributed to the further empowerment of the centralized regime in Washington, and reduced liberty and prosperity for Americans.

The bottom line is: the formation of a centralized ruling agency over the people in many different states across a vast territory was unnecessary, counter-productive, and should not have happened. Alas, I think it will take some kind of disaster to force people to learn that the hard way.

And I think that Ron Paul made an impact during the 2012 campaign in getting the word out on the moral hazard of government interventionism and informing especially the younger people on the importance of property rights and the difference between government-coerced schemes and voluntary contracts and associations.

However, in these elections we no longer have someone such as a consistent and knowledgeable Ron Paul furthering the education of the masses on these issues. So there seems to be too much of a pulling back into the slavery of statism that so many of the people have been indoctrinated to accept (and love), through 12 years of government-controlled schooling and an adulthood of TV-staring and now iPhone-staring like zombies continuing their mainstream-media hypnosis and obedience to the emotion-dripping nationalism and collectivism of the Republicans.

And the envy-soaked freedom-hatred on the Left sadly gives Bernie Sanders very high numbers as well. Sanders seems to be fooling former Ron Paul supporters to go the wrong way, toward more, not less, wealth confiscation and redistributionism. Yuck.

But this latest GOP “debate” — Doh! I could only get through a part of the transcript, and it’s just discouraging that the American people can really support any of these morons to be their ruler for 4 or 8 years. In an honest world, if the debate were The Gong Show we would see Jaye P. Morgan getting up to bang the gong during Ted Cruz’s “New York values” tirade, I’m sure.

However, the real world is filled with dishonesty, propaganda, and immoral political shysters, and the rhetoric endorsing moral decay and the ignorant claptrap that gets repeated in these debates is disheartening now. For instance, Ted Cruz said, “President Obama’s preparing to send $100 billion or more to the Ayatollah Khamenei.” That’s like when people refer to tax breaks being “subsidies” or government hand-outs. No, tax breaks are when the government decides to take less of your money that originally belongs to you (before the government steals it from you)! In the case of the Obama Regime, the U.S. government is set to release back to Iran those assets which were due to Iran from its oil sales, etc. These are morally and contractually Iran’s assets which belong to them, and the withholding of such assets in U.S. or other banks is a form of stealing. So that’s yet another incorrect statement of the U.S. government-worshiping nationalists that gets nonchalantly tossed around by the media and these candidates.

And on the economy, John Kasich said, “Look, it takes three things basically to grow jobs…It’s a simple formula: common sense regulations, which is why I think we should freeze all federal regulations for one year, except for health and safety.”

But there are no “common sense regulations” imposed by a monopoly government, except to prohibit theft and fraud among the people. And why freeze all federal regulations for just one year? If you are doing that because arbitrary government regulations stifle economic growth, then just get rid of all arbitrary government regulations permanently, except for prohibiting theft and fraud.

And freeze all federal regulations “except for health and safety”? Exactly what health and safety regulations have made Americans healthier or safer? I’ll bet he can’t answer that. It’s really been the informed consumer and profit-seeking manufacturers that have made Americans safer and healthier. Government regulations, especially from the FDA, have prevented many people from obtaining life-saving drugs and procedures, or drugs at lower prices, and the EPA persecutes industries and land owners like it’s the Twilight Zone. (Thanks, Richard Nixon, you schmuck!)

And Kasich continued: “It requires tax cuts, because that sends a message to the job creators that things are headed the right way…” Well then why not cut taxes to zero? Imagine the economic growth and jobs that will be created then. Sadly, these conmen would never survive in a system without government theft of private wealth, i.e. taxes. They LOVE taxes!

I merely skimmed through the rest of the transcript. It’s the same old nonsense we’ve been hearing from these ignoramuses and criminals for decades now. They haven’t changed at all since Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ and Nixon, and the Bushes. Would you believe that most people have a positive view of those thugs?

The candidates spent a lot of time pushing for more U.S. military intervention throughout the world, which means continuing to keep U.S. government apparatus in other parts of the world that are not U.S. territories, i.e. trespassing. They believe they can misuse the U.S. military to “defeat ISIS” which has taken over Iraq and Libya and will probably take over Syria, but they do not seem to want to tell the U.S. government to stop funding and supplying weapons to these Islamic jihadists. God forbid they should acknowledge that it was U.S. government invasions and occupations overseas in the first place that contributed a great deal to the radicalization and growth of Islamic extremism.

And they never seem to bring up Saudi Arabia’s role in supporting terrorism and jihad. They don’t seem to want to bring up ending the U.S. government’s conniving with Saudi Arabia and U.S. dependence on Saudi oil. How about nullifying EPA and Dept. of Energy regulations and do more drilling for oil or obtain other natural resources right here in the U.S. that the FedGov won’t let the people get (in the name of protecting the “environment”)? I think the idea of nullification is totally lost on these people.

Another problem with them is their talking about how “we” should do this or that and about dealing with “our” allies and not “our” enemies, and so forth. This collectivist mindset is perhaps one of the biggest causes of America’s decline — a country whose founding was based on individualism, the ideas of self-ownership, private property and self-determination. These current statists, as a matter of fact, thoroughly reject those principles of America’s founding and the idea of individualism. The collectivist mindset is a destructive element that should be demolished.

But most of all, these elections will not change anything with the kind of statist and collectivist mentality that these politicians and all their sheeple followers have now. Unfortunately, it may take continuing crashes and disasters economically to force the government-worshipers to finally let go of their faith in the centralized State. The Soviet Union finally collapsed over a prolonged, decades-long tyranny and impoverishment, but the U.S. is in a rapid decline and it is just sad that so many people will discover the necessity of decentralization the hard way.

25th Year of the Bush Iraq War

This week is the 25th year of the Persian Gulf War, or “Iraq War I” the first time that the U.S. government under senior George H.W. Bush started a war of aggression against Iraq. Today’s date, in fact, was the deadline that Bush issued to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to pull out of Kuwait that he had the Iraqi military invade a few months prior. Here is an article that I wrote in 2013 noting that 2013 wasn’t just the 10th year of the younger George Bush’s war on Iraq, but the war really started in 1991 and hadn’t actually ended, considering the continuing sanctions, continuing bombing by Clinton, the death and destruction, all started by the senior Bush “41” President.

The 22-Year Bush War of Aggression on Iraq

Copyright © 2013 by (Link to article)

March 23, 2013

Several commentators have been observing the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, but really the U.S. government’s war on Iraq began over 22 years ago.

In January 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush started the war on Iraq, and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones, which were continued by President Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s. By 2001, hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqi deaths were wrought by the U.S. government and the UN, and there was widespread anti-American anger felt by many in the Middle East.

Here is a brief review of what led up to the elder President Bush’s 1991 war on Iraq:

In 1990, Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were engaged in disputes with Kuwait. Iraq believed that Kuwait was siphoning Iraq’s oil via horizontal drilling, and Iraq also believed that Kuwait’s own oil production was above OPEC quotas which allegedly effected in lower oil profits for Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had been the U.S. government’s favorite during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam had started with his invasion of Iran. The U.S. government’s arming and providing tactical battle planning to Iraq, despite U.S. officials knowing that Iraq was using chemical weapons during that conflict, were well documented.

When Saddam considered invading Kuwait, he met with then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, and asked her what kind of response the U.S. would have to such an invasion.

In their discussion, according to the New York Times, Glaspie stated, “…we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60′s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. (Sec. of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.” (More here.)

Apparently, Saddam Hussein took those words as a green light to invade Kuwait.

However, George Bush the elder then did a bait-and-switch, and began preparing for his war on Iraq. But the biggest task for Bush was to convince the American people that the war on behalf of Kuwait, an extremely anti-democratic, authoritarian monarchy, was not for oil but for “liberating” Kuwait from Saddam.

To sell this war to the American people, the government of Kuwait hired as many as 20 PR and lobbying firms. One PR firm in particular, Hill and Knowlton, was apparently the “mastermind” of the PR campaign, according to PR industry experts John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, whose book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You provides the details of the Bush-Kuwait PR campaign, as excerpted by PR Watch.

Both Bush presidents were skilled salesmen in their demonizing those who would be on the receiving end of their own wars of aggression. Philip Knightley, author of the book, The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq, in an October 2001 article described the repeated stratagem of warmongers’ use of propaganda to demonize the enemy to rationalize a new war for the warmongers’ own people to support it.

The most effective PR ploy was the congressional testimony of a teenage Kuwaiti girl who stated, emotionally, that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of hospital incubators and leaving them “on the cold floor to die.” The girl later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. And not only was that fact suppressed until after Bush’s war began, but the information she gave was false, and the girl had been coached by an executive of Hill and Knowlton. (Video)

Murray Rothbard gives quite a few further details regarding the whole 1990-91 Bush-Iraq-Kuwait wheeling-and-dealing here and here.

During the elder President Bush’s 1991 Gulf War, one of the most egregious acts that the U.S. military committed against the Iraqis was to intentionally destroy civilian water and sewage treatment centers and electrical facilities.

According to researcher James Bovard, U.S. Air Force Col. John Warden published an article in Airpower Journal, titled, “The Enemy as a System,” in which Warden told of the U.S. military’s intentional targeting of the civilian infrastructure as a means to undermine Iraqi “civilian morale.” Bovard also cites a June 23, 1991 Washington Post analysis, which quoted a Pentagon official as stating, “People say, ‘You didn’t recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.’ Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions — help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.”

By the mid-1990s, diseases such as cholera, measles, and typhoid had led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and a skyrocketing infant mortality rate, with many more deaths by the year 2000. This campaign of cruelty was advanced further by the U.S. government and the UN through sanctions and no-fly zones, which prevented medical treatments and the means of repairing damaged infrastructure from being imported into Iraq. Clearly, such a controversial campaign of bombing civilian water and sewage treatment centers must have been approved beforehand by then-President George H.W. Bush and his Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney.

Justifiably, there was widespread anger amongst the inhabitants of the Middle East by 2001. In fact, one of the main motivations of the 9/11 terrorists was the Gulf War’s subsequent sanctions against the Iraqi civilian population.

Besides the sanctions throughout the 1990s as continued by President Bill Clinton, Clinton himself inflicted more bombing of Iraq.

Some people have now been comparing George Bush Jr.’s 2003 revival of the long war on Iraq with the extended war in Vietnam of the 1960s and 1970s, especially combined with the younger Bush’s war of aggression in Afghanistan and Obama’s continuation of those wars and starting new ones.

The younger George Bush’s 2003 war on Iraq was really a continuation of what his father had started in 1991. Investigative journalist Russ Baker, author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, asserts that Bush Jr. was planning to invade Iraq as early as 1999 to take advantage of the “political capital” his father had built up earlier in Iraq.

(Can you imagine a President Jeb Bush in 2016? But I digress.)

In the elder President George Bush’s January 16, 1991 speech from the Oval Office, when he claimed that his 1991 war “will not be another Vietnam” (approx. 6:45), he also spoke of the “New World Order” (7:30).

The neoconservatives and progressive interventionists have been implementing their plans for global hegemony for decades, and using the force of the U.S. government to do it. But there is a frightening love of government that connects these interventionists, far outweighing any actual love for freedom and peace they could possibly have.

And now, after all these 22 years of Bush war quagmires and trillions of dollars in debt, and with warnings regarding the warmongers’ plans for Iran (which was part of the neocons’ plans all along), can the American people ever wake up to the truth about all this?

Now, the elder George Bush was elected President in 1988. But given how entrenched the Establishment’s interventionist policies were by that time, when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s it wouldn’t have mattered whether Bush or Democrat Michael Dukakis was elected in 1988. Given the myth of the “progressive peacenik,” a hypothetical Dukakis administration of 1989-1993 would most probably have been similar to the current one of Barack Obama. And with similar militarist reactions to Iraq as Bush in the name of furthering the obsession for hegemony that statists of both left and right have (and to keep the military-industrial-complex happy, too).

However, during the 1988 presidential campaign, had the media given Libertarian Party nominee Ron Paul the same free advertising they gave both Bush and Dukakis, the American people would have seen the clear alternative from the Bush-Dukakis statist quo.

And how would a President Ron Paul have handled the collapse of the Soviet Union? Given that any threats or perceived threats from overseas had vanished overnight, Ron Paul would have closed all the overseas U.S. military bases that existed then, including all the European and Asian bases and other foreign U.S. governmental apparatus. He would have brought all U.S. troops home, and many of them would have gone into the private sector to become productive workers, business owners and employers.

A President Paul would have shrunk the federal government by eliminating many useless departments, bureaus and programs, which Ronald Reagan promised to do but didn’t. And Paul would have abolished the fascist income tax. The economic boom of the 1990s would have been magnified by many times, for sure.

And a President Ron Paul would have educated the American people on the actual ideas of liberty. He would have informed the people of what a real free market is – something that the Heritage Foundation, Glenn Beck, and, ugh, Willard Romney wouldn’t know if they fell over it.

There also wouldn’t have been a U.S. government invasion of Iraq in 1991, bombing of civilian infrastructure, sanctions and no-fly zones, and provocations of foreigners becoming determined to retaliate. There may not (or probably not) have been a 9/11, and the police state in America that was already growing by the early 1990s would have been put to a stop. (And the younger George W. Bush probably wouldn’t have even been elected governor of Texas, let alone President of the U.S.) And there wouldn’t have been any U.S.-initiated wars in Afghanistan and other countries as well.

But, “woulda, coulda, shoulda” is just not realistic, and what happened, happened. The misery, destruction, collapse of the American economy in addition to all these wars – it happened, thanks to neocons and progressive interventionists.

The central planners in charge must have very serious clinically pathological delusions of grandeur and a hunger for power and control in their attempts to “remake the Middle East in America’s image” or “make the world safe for democracy” (but not freedom and peace), while coveting those foreign territories’ natural resources and slaughtering innocents.

So, call me old-fashioned, but it takes a really sick, criminal mind to intentionally destroy the water and sewage treatments of an entire civilian population, and forcibly withhold their medical treatments and repairs. And it takes a very demented person to view entire populations and cultures in other parts of the world as sub-human and whose lives are not worthy of any “inalienable rights” to life, liberty, and peace.

As I have stated in the past, America’s culture has declined over the past century. The greater power we have allowed governments to usurp, the further “third world” America has become.

The Bush wars of the past 22 years have not been helpful to human progress, that’s for sure.

Did Trump Make a Freudian Slip?

Toward the end of Sean Hannity’s radio interview of Donald Trump yesterday, during the 5-5:30 (ET) segment, Hannity asked Trump whether he wanted to go after Hillary or Bernie, Hannity saying, “You were kind of joking that you’d rather go up against Bernie,” and Trump responded, “Well I would like to go up against either, I want to beat the Republicans, I don’t mind Hillary …” and so on. So, obviously he’s not referring to Republicans in the primary. Could it have been just an honest mistake? Or did Trump make an apparently Freudian slip with his saying, “Republicans” rather than “Democrats,” because he probably does want (the Democrats) to beat the Republicans. Could this be further evidence that Trump is a straw and on behalf of the Democrats and maybe more specifically Hillary? So with the Bernie zombies cheering on Bernie, we have all those nationalistic and conservative useful idiots sheeple cheering on Donald Trump. With them it’s all emotional, all that nationalistic propaganda Trump is using to manipulate their collectivist anger. And they might very well be aiding and abetting the election of Hillary. This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s 2008 “Operation Chaos,” in which he ordered his dittohead followers to go into Democrat primaries to vote against Hillary, suggesting they vote for Obama, and look what happened.

A little after 11:00 in the video (which may be yanked, and if so, I’m sure you can get the Hannity radio podcast) Trump says he wants to beat the Republicans.

On the Irrationality of the Conservative Talk Radio Crowd

I’ve been a news and talk radio listener for years, from conservative talk to NPR and the BBC. NPR mainly reflects the views of the Left, with some of the talk shows refusing to include guests with a non-statist point of view. For instance, while they sometimes do have conservatives, they are statist conservatives such as the ones coming from the Heritage and other Washington “think tanks.” No libertarians or otherwise people challenging the establishment statist quo, such as a Ron Paul, Tom Woods or Lew Rockwell, so it seems.

But I’m writing this now to express my continuing disappointment in the so-called conservatives and their uninformed (but well-meaning) listeners and all the conservative-statist guests they sometimes have on. Once again these people have high hopes that some new political candidate will get in the Presidency and things will be better. That is because they are either terribly ignorant of the past or they do know the history but nevertheless maintain their denial and rationalization for a system that can never be “reformed” and they keep on trying anyway.

Their hero Ronald Reagan expanded the size and power of the federal government and raised taxes after the famous “Reagan tax cuts” and signed the first trillion-dollar budget with a lot of pork. Their faux conservative hero should have thrown that budget back at Congress and told them, “Cut out the damn pork!” at the very least. And yes, shut down the government!

FedGov continued to expand after the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” and more after the 2000 election and throughout the 2000s with a Republican President and Republican Congress. The 2010 sweeping in of Tea Party conservatives did nothing for liberty, and the 2014 elections of even more of them did nothing as well.

So their cognitive dissonance and denial is just amazing now. It’s like no matter how intelligent these people are, they never learn. However, I really enjoy hearing them disagree with each other, such as the current Presidential candidates tearing each other apart. And on talk radio, some of the talkers such as Dennis Prager and Steve Deace sound like they HATE Donald Trump, but some of the others such as Jeff Kuhner and Michael Savage sound like they LOVE The Donald. Yech.

Steve Deace endorsed the vicious collectivist warmonger Ted Cruz, yet nevertheless continues to speak of morality, and so on. So, when collectivist Ted Cruz wants to order the “carpet bombing” of whole territories which includes murdering innocent human beings including children, I guess that sure is someone to endorse when promoting “morality.” Yup. And Deace is also one of those who is obsessed with the marriage issue, as is Michael Savage. They want the State to continue to be empowered to “allow” heterosexual couples to marry under the State’s sanctified authority, and to disallow homosexuals to marry. That is one issue on which the conservatives truly worship secular government power, control and authority. The real solution is to get the State out of the picture entirely. Marriage and contracts are private matters.

Among the conservatives and nationalists’ many problems is their naive acceptance of an authoritarian collectivist system including a compulsory monopoly government (that is doomed to collapse at some point, because it violates important principles of liberty, such as the ideas of self-ownership and self-determination, non-aggression, and private property). Another major problem they have is their arrogant belief in “American Exceptionalism” which blinds them of the morality of the aforementioned principles. And they have a blind love of authority, especially uniformed, armed authority. What this means is they are not totally enthusiastic about the right of the people to defend themselves against aggression and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But they are enthusiastically supportive of the right of the government and its police and military to be armed and have artificial authority over the people whether all the people consent to that or not. That’s today’s conservatives, or most of them anyway: nationalists, collectivists, and authoritarians. And hypocrites where morality preaching, advocating “liberty” and “limited government” are concerned.

Some of the aforementioned conservative talk radio personalities like to refer to morality and “good vs. evil.” They often refer to murderers and abortion as typical conservatives do. However, they have cognitive dissonance, or they psychologically rationalize or just look the other way when it comes to the murders and murderers they tend to support, such as politicians who start wars of aggression. Because today’s conservatives are collectivists and nationalists — and “American Exceptionalists” — they tend to rationalize government murder as “collateral damage,” and so on. For example, President Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombings of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, killing over 100,000 innocent human beings, while with full knowledge that the Japanese were already surrendering. And this was after Truman and his predecessor FDR ordered the bombings of civilian centers in Tokyo killing another 100,000 innocents. “Well, we had to do what we had to do, to end the war,” and so on, they say. No, “we” didn’t have to murder innocent human beings.

It is evil to target innocent human beings, war or not. But the “Exceptionalists” continue to defend such evils of the past and present, including the Bush and Obama wars.

And currently Barack Obama’s CIA continues to murder innocents overseas in Pakistan, Yemen, and other areas with their remote-controlled drones, and all that does is provoke those foreigners to retaliate. And it isn’t “collateral damage,” as they are targeting the innocents, they target weddings and funerals, and they target the people who run out to help the ones who have been blown up by the CIA murder-bombs. The government-worshipers rationalize immoral atrocities committed by their rulers.

And history really is important, you know. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush ordered the war of aggression against Iraq. This included the bombing and destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment facilities, which caused the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, which led to high rates of disease and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people mostly children, by the year 2000. And it was intentional, by the way, as reported by even the mainstream media then, according to James Bovard. One Air Force strategist noted in a 1995 Airpower Journal article that “A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm…. [Destruction] of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.” According to Bovard, the strategist “concluded that the U.S. Air Force has a ‘vested interest in attacking dual-use targets’ that undermine ‘civilian morale’.”

Hmm, let’s target civilian water supplies to deliberately sicken and kill them and hope they will get rid of their leader that we don’t like. That’s not psychopathic and sadistic, but civilized, and moral.

So, elder Bush started a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, bombed civilian infrastructure and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, leading up to 9/11. His invasions and intrusions, deaths and destruction also included setting up U.S. military bases in areas that were considered sensitive to Muslims who didn’t like such occupations (in addition to the pre-9/11 destruction of Iraq).

And it isn’t just the Presidents, their Secretaries of Defense (sic) and State, and their military bureaucrats who have been committing all the atrocities by ordering them, but as Laurence Vance has pointed out, those more directly responsible for the murders and destruction have been the soldiers, the bombardiers, and so on, who actually carried out the physical acts of destruction and murder they committed. And that is a good explanation for all the military suicides: guilty consciences. Despite the military’s brainwashing soldiers to suppress their moral conscience, which apparently conservatives are good at, the soldiers who have murdered innocent human beings know that what they have done is very wrong and immoral and that they have acted criminally and out of evil and not out of good. It is difficult or impossible for the conservative American Exceptionalist warvangelicals to acknowledge all that, because to do so might lead them to acknowledge that the U.S. government’s wars of aggression and mass murders overseas have been immoral and have gone against what America was supposed to stand for.

But conservatives and perhaps most Americans, indoctrinated with heavy doses of propaganda day after day by the mainstream media, “support the troops.” Of course, had a foreign government and military invaded and bombed the hell out of New York City’s or Detroit’s water system and electrical supply, that’s different because we’re America, say the “Exceptionalists,” but those are Iraqis, after all (i.e. sub-human). God forbid the conservatives should actually believe in the Golden Rule. And their view of patriotism is: Support our government, right or wrong. Support immorality.

And then 9/11 happened in response to the U.S. military’s occupations, invasions and bombings. The propagandists said it was for other reasons. And because conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility, or acknowledging that actions have consequences, it was better that their Left-influenced impatient and short-sighted mentality not consider the ten years previous to 9/11 and the criminal actions of their own government. And after 9/11, rather than withdrawing criminally invasive and trespassing U.S. forces from those overseas areas that are not U.S. territories, George W. Bush the Junior Bush started new wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which had anything to do with 9/11, and increased the bombings, the murders and destruction, and provocations overseas. Many propagandized and gullible people actually believe that Iraq started the war, and that those foreigners began the aggressions. They really believe those things!

So, it would be better if conservatives weren’t so irrational, because if they could drop the syrupy emotionalism, the flag-waving “Exceptionalism” stuff and their nationalistic collectivism then maybe they can progress a little bit. Speaking of “progressing,” the “progressives” — at least most of them, anyway — are beyond help, in my view.

Another thing with most conservatives is their blind defense of government police. The local government police is definitely one big example of socialism that conservatives approve of, and love with all their hearts. Yes, a compulsorily government-monopolized function is an example of “socialism,” which is what government police is, as is the national security state that conservatives love. Until President Obama or President Hillary sics the police or military on those dissenting politically incorrect conservatives, that is. In that case, they will not like the government police or military so much.

And I agree with the talk radio crowd in their criticism of Black Lives Matter or any groups or individuals who call for or commit acts of violence against government police. If an officer is just there, sitting in his cruiser munching on the donuts and hasn’t harmed anyone, then you leave him alone. Just as any decent person should do with anyone else. However, when government police act criminally against innocents, then I don’t hear conservatives speaking out against such injustices, such immoral acts of criminality. And yes it is happening all the time, criminal cops bullying, brutalizing, assaulting, and murdering innocent human beings. As I mentioned in a recent post, just read articles by William Grigg, Radley Balko, Glenn Greenwald, and the CATO police misconduct blog, to get an idea of what’s going on.

As I stated, it’s wrong to shoot or otherwise harm innocent people, including government police who are just there minding their own business and not bothering anyone. I try not to think like a collectivist, as most conservatives (and most people really) tend to do. But what if government police officers are beating up on innocent people, or otherwise directly threatening their lives, do the people have a right to defend themselves? If police break into the wrong house or apartment, as they often do, or into your home and you know you’ve done nothing wrong, do you have a right to shoot the invaders to protect yourselves and your families? I would guess that most conservatives will defer to the government police, probably even if they were the unfortunate targets.

Obedience to authority is the conservatives’ thing, just as with the Left. Not absolute moral law, which includes the right to defend yourself against aggression.

And that authoritarianism is what connects the conservatives, nationalists and collectivists to Islam, believe it or not. The word “Islam” translates to “submit,” as in submit your independence, your self-rule, your spirit, your freedom, your will, to Islamic or Islamic government authority or to Muhammad, or Allah. And the conservatives also strongly believe in submission to authority, such as government bureaucrats, government police, and government military. They might object to such a characterization, and say that they believe in the family and that children must submit to parental authority, and that they believe in church or Christianity and that you must submit to Jesus’s authority, but not to the government. But their droolingly blind support for government police and military that we see on a daily basis proves otherwise.

One more thing is the conservatives approval of government taxation of the people. Well if you want to live in our society you have to pay taxes, after all. And that means involuntarily in the absence of a voluntary contract.

Sorry. Taxation is robbery. It is the government (that only a particular percentage of the people approve of and consent to, anyway) ordering you to fork over your earnings, your wealth, or they will throw you in a cage. No different from a robber, a gangster. So taxation is criminal, and is imposed by a criminal enterprise. But like the statists on the Left, the conservatives approve of this way of life, thus showing that they have no idea what true morality is all about.

And also, without involuntary taxation, none of the unconstitutional, immoral and criminal government programs, schemes, and wars would take place, because no one in his right mind would voluntarily participate in funding them.

So I’ll keep on masochistically listening to conservative talk radio along with NPR and BBC, and the conservative talkers will keep on living in their little fantasy worlds, pretending that the current democratic system of compulsory government monopoly can ever be “reformed,” if we can only get the “right people” in office. Maybe I have some hope that some of them will eventually realize that compulsory monopoly government is inherently flawed and inherently criminal. But I think that’s unrealistic on my part. It is probably also unrealistic to hope that they will ever drop their arrogant “Exceptionalism” and their love of uniformed armed authority.

Perhaps miracles can happen.