Design a site like this with
Get started

A Dissenting View: I’m Not a Libertarian for Trump

It appears the Clintons have cleverly “divided and conquered” the conservatives and libertarians toward Hillary’s long-planned and plotted climb to power. And I believe they have been using Donald Trump (and maybe even Bernie Sanders) to help them in their scheming.

This whole campaign has been thoroughly Orwellian, for sure.

The “Libertarians for Trump” people are supporting a liberal-left progressive who doesn’t mind biologically-male “transgenders” going into the ladies room, and a freedom of speech for me but not for thee, private property rights for me but not for thee candidate for President. Someone who favors affirmative action programs, an anti-free trade, welfare-state socialist who won’t cut anyone’s entitlements, won’t touch Social Security, and wants to expand Medicaid.


But the anti-welfare, pro-market libertarians who believe in rational arguments and reason still love Trump, the one who wants to impose policies based on “compassion” and “heart.”

Is this not Orwellian? Am I wrong about all this?

So I am perplexed by the “Libertarians for Trump” movement, which has consisted of some very prominent libertarians. However, I do feel a lot of reassurance from Ron Paul who has been critical of Trump, as have Robert Wenzel and Free State Project founder Jason Sorens.

Speaking of the Free State Project, can you imagine a President Trump approving of a state withdrawing from the union? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

Now, Walter Block does make some compelling arguments for supporting Trump over Hillary, and even possibly for supporting the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Dr. Block is promoting the same kind of political strategy as Murray Rothbard had done.

Dr. Block is concerned that Hillary is more likely to start World War III than The Donald. But I disagree, given Trump’s impulsiveness, his ultra-collectivistic and authoritarian mentality, his narcissistic ego, and his banding together with Jeff Sessions and Tom Cotton and other bloodthirsty warmongers.

But Dr. Block might be right, especially given who-knows-what prescription drugs the unhealthy Hillary might be on and the influence they could have.

Trump has stated that he would change libel laws to sue members of the Press who do not obediently submit to him as they currently do for Obama. So Trump seems to have the kind of personality, narcissism and disrespect for the First Amendment that as President he might pull an Erdogan (or an Obama for that matter) and have disloyal journalists not sued but arrested and jailed.

So that’s my take on all that. Now, I do have some conspiracy theories to add to all this.

I don’t know if Donald Trump is running intentionally on behalf of Hillary, but it might very well be the case. Many Independents and Democrats went into open primaries, or Democrats re-registered as Republicans, just to vote for the weakest GOP candidate to go against any Democrat in November, 2016.

Between now and November — over 3 months — we’ll be bombarded with videos of Trump’s many statements, his mocking a disabled reporter, and the media will cover up the Hillary email-server scandal, the Clinton Foundation alleged money-laundering ring, 30 years of suspicious deaths, and so on.

Unlike other possible GOP nominees, Donald Trump is very likely to take a whole bunch of other Republican candidates down with him, giving Hillary a rubber-stamp Congress. With another Republican, however, we would have at least had a Republican Congress to give Hillary gridlock and shut-downs.

Libertarians should love gridlock and shut-downs. They’re awesome!

Could any Republican (except for Ron Paul of course) have survived the Clinton machine that’s been built up for the past 25 years?

And Bernie Sanders. What about his possible involvement in acting as a stalking horse on behalf of Hillary? He was certainly promoting her and defending her in those debates.

Could Bernie have been a useful idiot to run against Hillary in these primaries? How convenient for the ultra-socialist Hillary to not have to utter her true views, and have someone else do that for her throughout the primaries. At least, that is my theory on that.

To make sure Bernie could not get the nomination, the Clintons’ Democrat National Committee had rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders. And then the corrupt sell-out Bernie endorses Hillary at the extremely upsetting disappointment of many of his supporters.

Hillary still has a lot of sheeple support in the polls. How convenient for her and how Orwellian that the FBI director declined to recommend criminal charges against her regarding her email-server issues after he thoroughly set up the case against her.

And I am suspicious of the GOP side as well, such as Ted Cruz helping the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. I’m not even totally believing in his sincerity as a Bible-believing Christian. Would a true Bible-believing Christian spend his whole adult life in politics feeding at the public trough? Cruz has also been a Goldman Sachs crony and a Bush insider. Given that the Bushes and the Clintons are so close, I am suspicious that Ted Cruz (as well as Donald Trump) has also been used by the Clintons. Donald Trump invited Cruz to speak at the Republican National Convention without any demand for an endorsement, Cruz speaks without endorsing Trump and is booed off the stage, after which Trump gives Cruz the thumbs up. Why would Trump give Cruz the thumbs up right after Cruz’s career-ending unendorsement speech unless Trump was pleased that Cruz didn’t endorse, like that was part of some plan? Like a longer-term plan to get Cruz out of the Democrats’ way in 2020?

And was it a Freudian slip when, in this interview (a little after 11:00) Donald Trump said he wanted to “beat the Republicans”?

And why would Trump say in his convention speech, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”?

Just kidding around? In fact, Hillary made use of that quote at her acceptance speech, like maybe it was a collusion of sorts?

Or am I just being overly suspicious and paranoid here?

Also, on the day of Donald Trump’s convention speech, Roger Ailes was run out of his own Fox News Channel. My, what timing.

If Hillary wins, get ready for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine.” It will probably include political websites and blogs, like this one. (But, given Obama’s going after news journalists, I’m sure President Hillary will have no problem jailing her critics as well.)

UPDATE (8/4/16): Only two weeks after Trump’s Republican convention, and to help support Hillary’s rise in polls just after her convention, now there is a controversial battle between Trump and a Democrat convention speaker, the father of a killed Muslim American Iraq War soldier. The soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, criticized Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. and stated that Trump had “sacrificed nothing.” Trump responded by belittling the killed soldier’s mother who was standing silently next to the father during his convention speech. This was followed by back and forth insults between Khan and Trump in interviews and speeches.

And also this week Trump refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan in his primary reelection battle, as well as Sen. John McCain and Sen. Kelly Ayotte in their primary battles, causing a stir in these areas as well.

It’s as though Hillary and Donald are coordinating things, like Hillary getting the Khans, who apparently have had deep connections to the Clintons, to appear at her convention to criticize Trump and Trump responding predictably to help him to lose more support, which is exactly what is happening.

The Pharmaceutical Industry Is Causing a Lot of Problems, In My Opinion [Updated]

There was another mass shooting, this time in Munich at a McDonald’s, in which a troubled and bullied 18-year-old Iranian-German shot and killed 9 people and injured several others and then killed himself. Some accounts are saying that witnesses heard the shooter yell, “Allahu akbar,” which would indicate an alliance with Islamic fanaticism. However, based on what I’ve read now, it seems to me that he didn’t have any religious sentiment. He was a very troubled teenager.

According to this article, “Investigators also found evidence that the Munich-born suspect had suffered from psychological problems and received treatment, but details were still being confirmed…” [UPDATED BELOW]

Hmmm. “Received treatment.” To me, that means he had probably been given one of those damn psychiatric drugs. As I have noted previously, many of the mass killers in recent years had been taking some form of antidepressant, anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic, strong pain killer, or combinations of them. Those prescription psychiatric drugs can have very powerful side effects, including aggressive, violent behavior, suicidal thoughts or attempts, etc. The SSRI antidepressants are known in many instances to actually exacerbate a user’s depression and cause suicidal thoughts. Some people are actually given those SSRI antidepressants when they do not even suffer from major clinical depression, but might be going through just some difficult period, and those drugs will actually cause them to have severe depression.

And also as I have written previously, for those who are taking any of those drugs and want to get off them, to prevent a possible dangerous reaction to withdrawal, see Dr. Peter Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.

But it’s not just the psychiatric drugs that are causing people problems. I have written before about the HPV vaccine, one brand of which is Gardasil produced by Merck, but which has been responsible for many injuries and deaths. And in fact its distribution has been shown to be totally unnecessary. But just as the media do not report on the common occurrences of mass shooters having been taking those psychiatric drugs, the media do not report on the dangers of some of these other kinds of drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are very big sponsors for news media outlets, and that includes PBS and NPR, for whom the drug companies are “underwriters.” I guess “underwriter” means they get their companies advertised but without commercials.

And see Sharyl Attkisson on the vaccine-autism controversy. (Yup. That’s been … “debunked.”) You see, the vaccine makers are making a lot of money on those vaccines, and that’s what matters.

And then there are the statin drugs which supposedly help people to lower their cholesterol. Dr. Donald Miller recently wrote about that whole issue, and noted that cholesterol is actually a good thing, and that cholesterol has been the scapegoat for health problems actually caused by other sources. Bill Sardi has also recently written about the dreadful statin drugs.

The original version of this post included a personal account in my family of someone who was given statin drug, and I removed those paragraphs. Maybe I’ll write about that, as well as about my own personal experiences with prescription drugs and “doctors,” at some point.

Anyway, the pharmaceutical industry is far worse than the tobacco industry, because Big Pharma is being sheepishly accepted by Establishment medicine and doctors who get lots of free stuff from those companies, and the mainstream media who profit greatly from advertising, and by the masses many of whom are taking all these damn drugs and don’t realize that many of the medical problems they are having is probably because of those drugs.


Regarding the Munich shootings, according to the New York Times:

Medical records showed that the gunman had received inpatient psychiatric treatment for two months in 2015 and continued to be seen as an outpatient, Mr. Steinkraus-Koch said. Prescription medication for treatment of depression was found in Mr. Sonboly’s home, Mr. Steinkraus-Koch said, but it was not clear if he had been taking the medication regularly.

And, according to the U.K. Telegraph:

Police found medical documentation in his room that suggested he suffered from anxiety attacks and “social phobias”, particularly when it came to contact with others, Mr Steinkraus-Koch said.

He was admitted to hospital for two months in 2015 to receive treatment for his psychological problems. He then continued treatment as an outpatient.

Investigators found medication in Sonboly’s room but have so far been unable to ascertain whether he had been taking it on a regular basis.

So, what was it specifically? Xanax? Zoloft? Luvox?

James Holmes, Dylann Roof, Elliot Rodger, Andreas Lubitz, Eric Harris, they were all taking those psychiatric drugs leading up to their murderous rampages. What those drugs can do is numb an individual’s inhibitions, so if someone may have wanted to shoot people chances are his inhibitions would stop him from doing it. But these kinds of drugs change that, in my view.

What Western Government Bureaucrats Have Wrought

Jacob Hornberger addresses the blowback hitting France in an important article today. The Nice attack was in part blowback for Hollande’s military bombings and killings in Syria and Iraq. (As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out in the past, note how there are no terrorists attacks in Switzerland, because the Swiss military doesn’t invade and bomb other countries.) In fact, regarding France, Daniel McAdams has a post on the French military yesterday bombing Syria and killing more than 120 civilians. Perhaps the Western governments might reconsider their aggressions in the Middle East?

And Justin Raimondo has another important article, on what it means to be a Muslim today.

Mass Irrationality, “Libertarians for Trump,” Johnson and Stein, and the Death of the GOP

This year’s election is perhaps the most Orwellian I’ve ever seen. I’m really trying hard to figure all this out.

Many people are flocking to Donald Trump because his rhetoric of immigration and border control hits a nerve with them. They say they like his anti-political correctness, which is “refreshing” and so on. Trump is good with emotionally-manipulative rhetoric, and he’s good at fooling people.

It doesn’t matter that the Republicans this week will be nominating a Reality TV star who when he speaks on policy issues is at best incoherent and a flip-flopper and at worst downright dangerous. Everything with Trump is emotion, certainly not informed, rational thought. It doesn’t matter that, especially based on all the nasty things he’s said over the past year, including making fun of and mocking a disabled reporter, the Democrats will make good use of all that in their campaign ads.

People respond to all that stuff. But that doesn’t matter. “Let the GOP go down in flames,” they say. “We like The Donald.”

The problem with many of the talk show conservatives and their callers I am hearing, and all the major Trump supporters out there in the media, is that they just don’t have an accurate take on the general thinking and attitudes of the country as a whole. Look at all these polls. While Hillary and Donald are neck-and-neck with Hillary slightly ahead, Hillary smooshes Cruz and all the others except Kasich. But Sanders beats ALL the Republicans in those polls! That means there is a very left-leaning population out there.

So Hillary is ahead of Trump now, and will be especially after their debates. Remember, those debates will be general election debates, not Republican primary debates. We have a population now, many of whom get their news mainly from Comedy Central and Facebook.  Many people are now pro-transgender bathroom switching and many people are now more pro-gun control than pro-gun rights.

So we have a very left-leaning country, with pockets of “conservatism,” whatever that means anymore. But many of the conservatives themselves are uninformed and their views mainly emotion-driven, like in national security and immigration. They are emotional with their collectivist ideology of nationalism and authoritarian statism which puts them into a blind state of denial. For example, even when provided with information on the destruction that the Bush and Obama wars have wrought along with causing the rise of ISIS and further terrorism since 9/11, they still respond emotionally and irrationally to Donald Trump and other  politicians’ rhetoric about “fighting ISIS” or “getting ISIS” and supporting increasing the U.S. government’s military bombings and invasions, when the real answer is to end all of it and close down all those U.S. bases and bring all the troops back to the U.S.

The Trump phenomenon doesn’t make sense anyway, given that he is a left-liberal progressive who supports a lot of the social agenda on the left. The reason he is so nationalistic is because his views are based solely on emotion, no rational thought. It is clear he has never thought things through, such as on health care or trade. And I think a case can be made that maybe he actually is in this campaign to take down the entire GOP and on behalf of Democrats and with the purpose of helping the extremely unhealthy Hillary to get elected, as many of his past associations and donations point to that.

In fact, this plagiarism crap with Melania’s speech last night shows that her speech writers, if they did copy from Michelle Obama’s speech in 2008, would have to know that such obvious copying would be exposed, and this would further the theory that Trump really is a straw for Hillary. (Oh c’mon, WHY would he DO that?!! Hmmm, maybe she’s blackmailing him? Who knows?)

Given the polling trends and the ignorance of many people after 12 years of government-controlled schooling, it is obvious to me that Hillary will wipe the floor with Donald in November. And to those people who are saying, Well, it’s Donald vs. Hillary, he is the “lesser of two evils,” and “we must not let Hillary win,” and so on: in that case you should hope that the convention this week will find a way to replace him. But no, they will not do that. The GOP is committing suicide this week.

There are people who can’t wait to see the collapse of the GOP. So I wonder if some of them, maybe including members of “Libertarians for Trump,” are really supporting Trump for that reason. But when the GOP collapses, do you really want a one-party government, ruled by commies? Just askin’.

Robert Wenzel linked to articles in Slate and the New Yorker on Trump’s ghostwriter for his book The Art of the Deal, Tony Schwartz, in which “the prospect of President Trump terrified him. It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology—Schwartz doubted that he had one. The problem was Trump’s personality, which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.” Schwartz referred to Trump as a “sociopath.” I have been writing very similar things about Trump.

Well, he sure has the indications of a sociopath, a totalitarian wannabe, given what a control freak he is. The problem is that, while he is good at expanding his business, he wants to do that same kind of thing with government. He wants to expand the size and power of the federal government by trillions. Trump’s lack of understanding of why you can’t run the government like a business, combined with his economic incoherence combined with his wanting to be the boss of the whole country, is just dangerous.

Now, there’s no reason why we can’t consider Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President. Neither one seems to be totalitarian-minded (like Trump and Clinton), although Stein seems to be an advocate of socialism perhaps a little more than Donald Trump, however, which is an economic system that leads to totalitarianism. Many people don’t understand that, because they don’t know their history.

Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were successful in the private sector, Johnson a businessman and Stein a medical doctor.

Unlike Donald Trump, who inherited his father’s wealth, business, and political connections that helped Trump to expand his business at the expense of other businesspeople and taxpayers, Gary Johnson started a business from scratch, and was not wealthy at the very beginning. Johnson’s construction business grew and became the most successful in his state, and his customers were not state government contracts (as many construction companies have) until after he sold it, but mainly private sector businesses including Intel.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson actually had a record of budget-cutting, tax-cutting, and vetoing 200 bills with only 5 overrides.

Now, I know Johnson is a pothead, I know, and he probably has lowered his IQ a bit because of it, but at least he has some IQ left, unlike Donald Trump who is part of the well-below-100 crowd, unfortunately.

Anyway, I’m willing to put the pothead stuff aside, as well as the SJW stuff, and Johnson’s ignorant statements, and so on. At least he’s saying something about cutting the federal budget. Both Trump and Hillary want to expand it. Not good.

And while Jill Stein probably also wants to expand the federal budget, at least she’s willing to make substantial cuts to the “defense” department which has actually been an offense department. Stein’s remarks on foreign policy have indicated a very principled, Ron Paulian pro-peace foreign policy, which is what is needed to “make America safe again” (by ending the U.S. government’s provocations of foreigners and occupations and destruction of their lands and their people).

On her campaign website, Jill Stein may be very irrational on economic and social issues (and just about everything else, alas). But on foreign policy, Stein’s statement is: “Cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases.” Do Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson promote such clear policies?

So Jill Stein needs to learn more about economics and economic history, but I’m willing to put all that aside based on her foreign policy positions. After all, isn’t that why “Libertarians for Trump” support Donald Trump? They support him because some of his foreign policy statements have been critical on interventionism, even though all his foreign policy advisors are warmongers and neocons, and his recent statements are viciously anti-peace. And he’s almost just as much a socialist as Jill Stein. For these reasons “Libertarians for Trump” should consider Jill Stein to support.

Now, my advice to Jill Stein (as well as Gary Johnson) is to read Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and other liberty-oriented economic thinkers, theorists, historians and philosophers. If she really believes in peace, she should know that a regulatory state is a police state. And when government bureaucrats intervene and interfere in the people’s private matters, as enforced by the government’s hired guns, the police, the FBI S.W.A.T. teams, the IRS S.W.A.T. teams, then that is not a peaceful way of advancing society or helping people.

Hypocrisy, Kill Lists in Amerika and Elsewhere

According to Reuters:

Monday, 18 July 2016 10:01 GMT

Kerry: Turkey must send evidence not allegations in extradition request

WASHINGTON, July 18 (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday he had made clear to Turkey that it must provide genuine evidence that withstands scrutiny when requesting the extradition of U.S.- based cleric Fethullah Gulen.

“The U.S. has a formal process for dealing with extradition requests, Turkey must send evidence not allegations,” Kerry told a news conference in Brussels.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom)

Meanwhile, back in 2001, according to the U.K. Guardian:

Sunday 14 October 2001

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president [Bush] said … “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir – the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime – told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US…

(Bush would not provide evidence because there was no such evidence. The FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. But USGov continued bombing anyway. But there is evidence connecting the Saudis to 9/11, that’s for sure, writes Justin Raimondo.)

On a related note, supposedly ISIS has a “kill list,” a list of many Americans the notorious terrorist organization wants killed, some of the targets being government workers in Massachusetts.

That reminds me of Obama’s “kill list” for alleged accused terrorists, some of whom he has already had killed, due process-free, sans evidence provided against the accused, without charges, without trial.

Here is the Washington Post article on the Obama “kill list” and here is the New York Times article on the Obama “kill list.”

And I wrote about the Obama “kill list” in this article.

Life is full of ironies (or perhaps hypocrisies is a better word).

On Faith in the State

In my analyses there have been occasions in which I annoy some people by claiming that many people are “brainwashed” or indoctrinated to believe the ideas, ideologies and myths that they believe. It’s very difficult to reach people in general to inform them of history and so on, and attempt to deprogram them. Yes, a lot of people need to be deprogrammed. Otherwise we’re going to continue to get totalitarian minded fools like Donald Trump and criminal psychopaths like Hillary Clinton, and goofy ignoramuses like Gary Johnson.

In his recent article, attorney and CEO James Ostrowski has his particular explanations for why some people think the way they do. He says that about 99% of the people are “archists,” people who really believe that we need the State to rule over us. Most of those people don’t see that the real problem is … the State. That’s the problem. Most people believe that we should use the powers of the State to try to resolve the problems of society (that the State itself has been causing).

And then he writes this about leftism:

Obviously, leftism involves a maniacal desire for the state to make everyone “equal” in the sense of material condition or result but I suspect the roots of leftism are far more insidious that even that totalitarian nightmare.  My working hypothesis is that at the core of leftism is a subliminal desire by unhappy people to use the state to mitigate their unhappiness by making lots of other people miserable as well and by exercising power over them, the ultimate revenge of the miserable.

Now, there are a lot of people on the conservative and libertarian side who understand that about the people on the Left. Yet, many conservatives have been supporting policies and certain government actions of violence, invasiveness and moral relativism that my explanation of them is that they, too, are believers in the State without question, like a cult. Because many people are collectivists (although the conservative ones might find it difficult to admit that), to me that puts them on the Left as well. They aren’t really “right-wing,” because their collectivism causes them to abandon actual principles associated with being on the “right,” such as private property, individualism, and moral absolutes such as “killing innocents is morally wrong and unacceptable.”

For example — and I have brought this up recently — the belief of many people that the U.S. military’s atomic bombing of Japan was justified. Murdering innocent human beings is justified because they are on “the other side,” even though many of the victims are children. Collectivists think in terms of “our side” and “the other side.” Some people want to rationalize it by saying it’s “self-defense” because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But how can it possibly be “self-defense” by killing an innocent person over there who had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor bombing?

And also they believe the government’s propaganda involving war. War justifies killing innocents. The collectivist conservatives and nationalists who say they are “pro-life” and that it’s morally wrong to kill an innocent unborn baby then do their contortions by rationalizing the killing of innocent foreign babies and children because “there’s a war” (according to their government rulers). The conservatives and nationalists believe their government rulers’ rationalizations for bombing and destroying other areas and killing innocent human beings. Many people will not question the State on these matters.

Someone who has been taught early on to accept the rationalization of murdering innocents probably feels very uncomfortable with questioning the long-held rationalization.

And many people who are true believers in the State believe that Abraham Lincoln was a great President, even though his Union army targeted and murdered thousands of innocent civilians, and he was a centralist and central planner on steroids, enforced Fugitive Slave Laws, and opposed the right of people to self-determination, self-governance and independence.

“The Civil War settled the question of secession.”

No, the Civil War ended with Lincoln’s regime making it clear that you must remain in an association or a union involuntarily, whether you like it or not. “The federal government is supreme which rules over the people of the states,” is the centralists’ mantra. Even though that is not what most of the Founders believed or what the U.S. Constitution actually provides.

Speaking of Lincoln supporters being against freedom of association and freedom of contract, there are also many people who don’t want to question the Civil Rights Act. They are afraid to appear racist, and so on. This includes most conservatives. Unlike most libertarians, the conservatives are afraid to say that “Civil Rights” laws have eradicated the separation between private and public property, and the people’s right to freedom of association and contract.

The Civil Rights Act should have applied only to so-called public property, or government-run functions, such as the government schools, the transit buses, the city parks, and so on. The Civil Rights Act should not have applied to anything privately owned, including “public accommodations” areas such as hotels and restaurants, or any other privately owned business. The owner of the business or property has the ultimate authority to decide with whom to do business or not, and for any reason. Neither the government nor the public shares in ownership of such businesses.

When it comes to “rights,” the right that’s being violated is the property owner’s right to control one’s property. And yes, the property owner or business owner does have the right — the freedom of association right — to exclude whomever he wants from his property or business, and for whatever reason. So really the Civil Rights Act gives some people the “right” to access private property against the will of the owners.

Many people are uncomfortable with “allowing” business owners to exclude visitors based on race, skin color, sex, etc., but they actually do have that right to do so. If people are concerned that a white-owned business is discriminating against black people then the community will ostracize those business owners and boycott them. The consumers will have the final say, when the racist business owner finds that he is losing customers to the more tolerant competition across the street. And there are many black-owned businesses all across America, by the way. If a black business owner wants to exclude white people from the premises, that should be her right, obviously.

That is part of freedom of association and freedom of non-association. The “freedom” part is that the individual has the sole right and authority to decide with whom to associate or not associate, especially on one’s own property or in one’s own business. And the consumers have the right to take their business elsewhere. The government or the community does not have the authority to force acceptance on property owners.

Well, they do now, thanks to the Civil Rights Act. But yes, people do have the right to discriminate, and for any reason. The one that doesn’t have that right to discriminate is the government! As I mentioned, the Civil Rights Act should only have applied to public property, government functions, etc. That is because everybody owns the government (at least theoretically), and so everybody should have access. Government is publicly owned. And no, not just by taxpayers. Some libertarians think that only taxpayers should have ownership rights to the government. Nope, if you are a part of the public then you have that right of access to public schools, parks, drinking fountains, the buses, and so on, taxpayer or not. Check out Hans-Hermann Hoppe important book, Democracy the God That Failed which explores the idea of publicly-owned government.

But because the conservatives have abandoned the principles of private property rights, freedom of association and contract, and have abandoned the importance of separation of private and public property, they now have to deal with new expansions of “Civil Rights Act” protected classes, beyond people of color or different races or sex.

Now we have conservatives and Christians having to deal with the lifestyle-related additions to the protected classes, in which discrimination based on sexual orientation or now “gender identity,” is illegal. The social activists are pushing the envelope to the point of absurdity now.

Now it is not only getting personal and involving privacy-invasions, as I mentioned in this article, but the activists are pushing their way into the churches and violating other people’s rights to freedom of religious practice. According to this WND article, the state of Iowa’s Civil Rights Commission is now intruding itself into the churches to force them to allow those who identify as “transgender,” who think they are the opposite sex, to get into the opposite sex’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc. In the churches!

But because generations of people are indoctrinated to not question the validity of the Civil Rights Act, we now have these expansions. And it’s only going to get worse with the Left when even in business it’s not enough to force acceptance and association onto people. They will probably intrude into people’s homes and say that you must allow anyone into your home of any characteristic or identity or whatever, whether you like it or not. You see, the Left has for a century had an aversion to private property, but the conservatives have attached themselves onto that same aversion. That is why they are confused and see the transgender anti-discrimination issue only as a “religious liberty” issue, which it is not, rather than a private property rights and freedom of association issue which is what it is.

One final point is the problem with many people in questioning the validity of Social Security and Medicare, systems based on institutionalized theft and involuntary redistribution, as Dr. Jane Orient points out in this new important article.

Insurance is a way to voluntarily share unpredictable but catastrophic risks. It is not a way to get other people to unwillingly pay your bills. Neither Obamacare nor Medicare is really insurance. In fact, they outlaw true insurance for medical care and force most people into a beggar-thy-neighbor prepayment scheme.

Of course, we cannot suddenly cut off payments to older people who relied on politicians’ promises. But they will be hurt more than anyone else if we allow the American system to collapse.

Obamacare loots Medicare to help fund the scheme. Some Republican proposals would impose Medicare risk-adjustment methods on the whole economy – without admitting that the system is insolvent.

We need an Operation: Restoring Honesty. Major surgery, not a tummy tuck. It should start with Medicare.

As James Ostrowski referred to in the article I linked to at the top, most people will not want to address Social Security and Medicare, as well as the income tax and other involuntary, confiscatory taxes to pay for these government-run programs. And the conservatives are just as much irrationally faithful in the State and its rackets as the Left. I think that, besides Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s aforementioned book, many people will be enlightened by Larken Rose’s book, The Most Dangerous Suspicion.

Don’t Expect a Trump Administration to Promote Freedom of Speech, Thought, or Religion

Newt Gingrich, who may very well take a position in a Trump Administration, blurted on the Sean Hannity show that the government should “test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported.”

Oh, really? And how will you test “every person here who is of a Muslim background”? How do you know exactly who might be of a Muslim background? Ask people if they believe in Allah, or in Muhammad, and that they will go to “Paradise” when they die? Definitely deport them, says “Mr. Speaker.”

“If they believe in Sharia”? Hmmm, I thought that, here in America all people have the right to think and believe whatever the hell they want to think and believe, including what even a majority of people might think are dangerous ideas. But then, a majority of the people approved of Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the first Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 1991. A majority of the people approve of U.S. military’s atomic bombing of Japan and mass-murdering innocent civilians, including children, babies, unborn babies and adults.

This is why America really is “exceptional” in its including an Amendment in its Constitution to protect freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion, protest, and dissent.

And what if an administration that reflects your point of view, Mr. Speaker, puts your proposed policy in place? Then the administration after that, a far-left one, might want to test everyone who is of a Christian background to see if they believe in Heaven and Hell. What then?

Another reason why America’s Constitution protects freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion, protest, and dissent.

And Gingrich also announced that “Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.”

Really? But what about reporters who need information on the people they are covering? When you are covering the Islamic State, don’t you think it would be easier to go onto their own websites to read their own statements? And what about people who are Googling for more information on subjects such as jihad and some search results show links to terrorist-related websites, and those people click on those links? Does Gingrich even use the Internet? Who is this clown?

I was listening to Dr. Grace on the radio, and she was agreeing with every word Gingrich was saying about these things. I couldn’t believe it. I’m sure her ignorant husband Kuhner on the other station agrees with it too. Like Gingrich and the other neocons and chickenhawks, they too want to ignore the real motivations for terrorist attacks against the West.

And now that we are seeing warmongers such as Mike Pence, and maybe Gingrich, Giuliani and Sessions, possibly becoming a part of a Trump Administration, what the hell are “Libertarians for Trump” people saying now? Their support for Trump is mainly based on his anti-war or non-interventionist or anti-nation-building statements, regardless of his liberal-left progressive socialist policy positions and statements.

Robert Wenzel of Target Liberty says that “the pain is only beginning for libertarian Trump fan boys,” describing possible VP Mike Pence as a war hawk, and a hard money phony.

All these totalitarian-minded hacks, these totalitards like Gingrich, to be a part of totalitarian-minded Trump’s administration?

Sure looks good for libertarianism and for freedom, especially free speech, no?

Terrorism Is Part of the Blowback of Western Governments’ Aggressions and Atrocities

The blogosphere and twitterverse are exploding with reactions to the latest terror attack in France, the truck that drove through a big crowd of people attending Bastille Day festivities and killed 84 people and injured many more.

Will Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed now be filing legislation to ban trucks?

No, but we can bet that the police statists out there who love the DHS and TSA will be increasing their police state, martial law uselessness by stopping trucks for “inspection” and illegal searches without suspicion.

Justin Raimondo and Veronique de Rugy note that France has been in a “state of emergency” since the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo attacks, with such conditions “enabling arrest without evidence,” according to Justin. It looks like such a “state of emergency” not only didn’t stop the November 2015 Paris stadium and concert hall attacks that killed 130 and injured many others, but it didn’t stop this new truck-driving attack.

In fact, according to the Daily Mail, the truck driver had been parked in that area for 9 hours before being questioned by police, stating that he was there to “deliver ice cream.”

Nine hours? And they left him alone, while the crowds enjoyed their festivities.

So obviously a “State of Emergency” with martial law and suspension of unalienable rights doesn’t prevent these kinds of attacks.

A lot of people in the blogosphere and twitterverse are saying, “When will we learn?” and so on. What they really mean, because they already know what the real cause of all this is: No, not radicalized Islamist ideology, which does exist, but blowback. For instance, the November Paris attacks were in retaliation against France’s military bombings in Syria and Iraq. The terrorist attacks in these specific areas are blowback against Western governments for their invasions, occupations, bombings and murders of innocents and destruction of their countries.

But the neocons and the talk radio chickenhawks like Hugh Hewitt don’t see that. I really like Steve Deace’s talk of unalienable rights and having policies which keep with moral scruples. But then this morning I hear him interview the neocon crackpot Robert Spencer. It’s like the neocons and chickenhawks, like the Bushes who started wars of aggression, sanctions, and caused blowback in Iraq and Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, are living in a totally different universe of non-reality, of ignorance.

I could say that all this wouldn’t be happening if George H.W. Bush hadn’t started his war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 and imposed sanctions, with more bombings and sanctions continued by Bill Clinton throughout the 199os, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents by the year 2000 leading up to 9/11. Just as all the conflicts real or imagined with Iran wouldn’t be going on, and the Iranian Revolution and American hostages taken by Iranians all wouldn’t have happened, had our CIA not instigated a coup in Iran and propped up the new Shah regime from the 1950s through 1979. We would have also been better off if the U.S. government hadn’t aided and supported the Saddam Hussein regime in its war against Iran throughout the 1980s. It would also help if our government would stop supporting al-Qaeda, ISIS, MeK, and other terrorist organizations.

So the blowback of terrorism against the West has been caused by the idiot psychopathic bureaucrats of the U.S. government and other Western governments. But authoritarians who love their government rulers continue to live in their little authoritarian statist world of government-worship, and they refuse to question those kinds of aggressive government policies. That’s my observation of all that.

And the answer is to stop doing all those things. End the bombings, the occupations, the murders of innocents, and close down each and every U.S. military base in those areas. If you stop acting belligerently and invasively against your neighbors, then they will have no reasons to retaliate.

More #NeverNewt: More Reasons to Oppose Newt Gingrich

Besides his thorough lack of understanding of the truly American values of due process, presumption of innocence and freedom of speech, there are other reasons to say: #NeverNewt to be VP and certainly not President.

For starters, according to the New American, Gingrich co-sponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 with Nancy Pelosi.

(1) that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere be reduced from 1987 levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2005 through a mix of Federal and State energy policies; and (2) the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992. Requires the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to report to the Congress within two years regarding whether a higher level of carbon dioxide emissions reduction is desirable after 2005, together with any necessary policy actions and their costs and benefits.

New American writer Brian Koenig also noted,

The Global Warming Prevention Act should also draw pro-lifers into the controversy, as it used language about access to “family planning services,” and advocated a form of population control, affirming that “curbing world population growth will be critical to achieving the goals.”

Title XI of the bill, “World Population Growth,” stated, “It is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them.” Further, through the United Nations, it sought to authorize “appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance.”

In later years, Gingrich appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi:

Michael Snyder of the End of the American Dream Blog has 27 reasons why Newt Gingrich would be a really, really bad President, including Gingrich’s support for a carbon tax, support for ObamaCare-type mandates, support for the TARP bailout, voted for NAFTA and loves the World Trade Organization. And more.

And then there was Gingrich’s Contract on with America.

Do you remember when he was House Speaker, Gingrich was reprimanded by the House and fined $300,000 for ethics violations? Does that matter?

And finally, with all of Newt’s affairs and divorces, like cheating on his wife while she was recovering from cancer and leaving his next wife because she also had an illness, he sure has shown the American people his ability to be loyal and faithful.

“Never Newt”: Gingrich Opposes American Values of Due Process and Freedom of Speech

There is a #NeverNewt on Twitter. I agree with the #NeverNewters, although Gov. Mike Pence and Gov. Chris Christie are just as bad as far as I’m concerned. The #NeverNewters are saying no to Newt Gingrich for VP under a Donald Trump Presidency.

Why #NeverNewt? Most recently, Newt Gingrich suggested bringing back the House Un-American Activities Committee, to deal with “radical Islam.” Which it wouldn’t do, of course, as it would merely punish and persecute dissenters.

The House Un-American Activities Committee investigated alleged “subversive” and “disloyal” speech and political activism during the mid-20th Century. They “outed” people who had maintained or expressed communist-sympathizing views, and caused the blacklisting of many actors and musicians because of their views, which were seen as disloyal to the United States.

We are seeing a lot of this kind of intolerance toward dissent, in which people who criticize the U.S. government’s terrible policies are seen as “un-American,” even though it’s the other way around: the “un-American” ones are those who are intolerant and who want to censor and banish dissenters, whether the dissent pertains to war, civil rights, climate change, or LGBT perversity.

One of the most American of values is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the individual’s right to dissent and to express his dissent publicly without fear of being thrown in jail, getting beat up or killed. Obviously Newt Gingrich does not understand this most American of values. He in fact opposes it.

At a November, 2011 Presidential debate with Gingrich and his fellow Republicans, he was asked about Obama’s drone-assassination of alleged terrorist supporter Anwar al-Awlaki. Questioner Scott Pelley asked Gingrich how Obama could have the authority to kill al-Awlaki without due process, given that he was only a suspect and not an actual convicted terrorist. Gingrich stated that al-Awlaki actually was found guilty, by “a panel that looked at it and reported to the President,” even though it was a White House secret panel that “looked at it” and everything was kept secret with no evidence brought to the public to prove guilt. The U.S. government mainly had drone bombers murder someone based on his criticism of the government, which violates one’s right to freedom of speech and dissent as well as one’s right to due process.

To show his lack of understanding of one of the most of American values as presumption of innocence, Gingrich said at that debate, “If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.  You have none of the civil liberties of the United States…You cannot go to court.”

But it was never proven that he “engaged in war against the United States.” Government bureaucrats accused him of engaging in war but they never showed evidence and his was never actually convicted of it. This is the very reason why people have “civil liberties” first, and then if you have evidence against them, then you act, within a system of due process. That’s the American way. It might not be the Soviet communist way, but it is the American way. I am sorry that, like most statists, Republican and Democrat, Gingrich doesn’t understand that, or just outright rejects it.

And this right to civil liberties and due process, and presumption of innocence, by the way, is a human right. Morally and ethically it doesn’t even matter if al-Awlaki was an American citizen. The right to life and liberty are unalienable rights. They are inherent in all of us as human beings.

Every human being has an inherent, unalienable right to liberty, and thus a right to require any accuser to provide evidence against him and a right to respond to the accusations and present evidence in his own defense. It doesn’t matter if the accuser is a government bureaucrat. It doesn’t matter if the accuser is the President of the United States. And it doesn’t matter if the accused is an American citizen, or a foreigner. And it doesn’t matter what the crime is that the accused person is being accused of, whether it’s supporting terrorism, murder, mass murder, and so on.

A lot of statists and authoritarians do not agree with that. Like Gingrich, the statists want the U.S. government to have the power and authority to arrest, detain, jail, torture, or assassinate whomever the agents of the Regime accuse of some criminal act. Until President Hillary wants to target them for their dissent, for their criticism of the government, like the IRS targeted conservatives, and like other federal agencies have been targeting dissenters. So, if you are opposed to commies, Mr. Speaker, stop acting like one of them.

Unfortunately, authoritarians like Donald Trump agree with Gingrich in his un-American, anti-due process views, and this collectivist way of thinking.

Gingrich seems to believe that being critical of the idiot bureaucrats of the U.S. government and military is “disloyal” or “subversive,” even though in many ways it is they in the  government and military who have been subversive, as they have been subverting the very Constitution they were sworn to uphold, protect and obey, with wars of aggression and occupations and murders of innocents, the NSA, the NDAA, ObamaCare, and on and on.

The recent Chilcot Report noted that former British PM Tony Blair was made aware of and forewarned that going into war against Iraq in 2003 would result in blowback including terrorist attacks against the U.K.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, that is exactly what happened when London subways were attacked in 2005 by bombs.

Nobody should need official reports or statements from attackers to confirm what common sense makes clear: If you go around the world for years proclaiming yourself “at war,” bombing and occupying and otherwise interfering in numerous countries for your own ends — as the U.S. and U.K. have been doing for decades, long before 9/11 — some of those who identify with your victims will decide — choose — to retaliate with violence of their own. Even Tony Blair’s own Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott acknowledged this self-evident truth in 2015: “When I hear people talking about how people are radicalized, young Muslims — I’ll tell you how they are radicalized. Every time they watch the television where their families are worried, their kids are being killed or murdered and rockets, you know, firing on all these people, that’s what radicalizes them.”

So of course dissidents and non-interventionists should point out and criticize very strongly the government when it is the government which acts aggressively and belligerently against foreigners, and provokes those foreigners to act against the people those bureaucrats are in charge of “protecting.”

But Gingrich wants to criminalize dissent and criticism of the Regime and its criminals and murderers, as well as those who kill people without charges or due process. How extremely un-American. Perhaps if there is to be a House un-American Activities Committee, New Gingrich could be brought before it.

#NeverNewt? You bet.

Ways to Reduce Violence in the Cities

Regarding the Dallas cop-killer, it appears that he was a U.S. Army-trained killer, with weapons knowledge and experience thanks to the U.S. military.

One reason for so much violence in our society is that our government and military have been acting belligerently and violently against people in other territories, such as with President George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 1991, and Bush’s son, George W. Bush starting two more wars of aggression and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Obama’s drones have been murdering mostly if not only innocent civilians during his entire 8 years as President.

Because of the past 25 years of militarism and warmongering, and the mindset of indifference to innocent human life that has been fostered, the American people are now suffering the blowback of their own government’s violence against foreigners. As Jacob Hornberger has advised, “Americans need to eradicate, not reform, the Cold War-era totalitarian apparatus known as the national-security state that has attached itself to our governmental structure like a cancerous tumor.” And I agree with that.

No, gun control is not the answer. There are people who want more gun control, more restrictions on innocent civilians’ right to keep and bear arms and to exercise their right to self-defense. But banning things doesn’t solve the problem. Banning alcohol during Prohibition and banning street drugs since the “War on Drugs” made them illegal hasn’t solved the problem of drug use. People still get their drugs.

Chicago has the strictest gun-control laws, but one of the highest gun-related crime and murder rates in the country. The 1990s-era assault weapons ban didn’t reduce gun-related violence. Banning things doesn’t solve the problem of people going crazy and killing people.

As far as the out-of-control cops who act hysterically and shoot innocent people for no good reason, like the one recently in St. Paul, I would like to know if that cop, like so many others, had been taking any kind of steroids, pain killers or psychiatric drugs. Was he a military vet? Does he have PTSD?

As I wrote here, many police officers are using and abusing steroids. Some local government police departments have been cracking down on that, by testing cops for steroid use. According to WebMD, anabolic steroids can cause “irritability, rage, aggression, violence, uncontrolled high energy (mania), false beliefs (delusions), and addiction.” And we know that some officers are themselves street drug users (and sellers) despite their own zealotry in enforcing the drug war.

But also many police recruits are military vets having returned from their criminal activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, suffering from PTSD and are on those SSRI antidepressants (which also include the “cocktails” of different prescription drugs at the same time). And such antidepressants have been shown to make people more depressed and suicidal, and cause aggressive and violent behavior.

And what about the Dallas cop-killer? Have they found any prescription bottles in his home? I’d really like to know that.

And as I have mentioned in this post, quite a few of the mass murderers in recent years had been taking SSRI anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds such as Xanax, anti-psychotics, prescription pain killers, and other prescription drugs. Such people include the alleged South Carolina church shooter Dylan Roof, the Santa Barbara college shooter Elliot Rodger, the Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, Columbine School shooter Eric Harris, and probably the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan.

The reason the mainstream media won’t report on the prescription drugs or psychiatric drugs that the mass killers had been taking leading up to their rampages is that the pharmaceutical companies are major sponsors for many mainstream media news outlets. Money rules, folks.

So far, we can end the national security state and the militarism and U.S.-led violence against foreigners that causes blowback of violence from foreigners and causes the more recent unintended consequences of domestic societal violence. And we can hold cops more accountable and make them cut it out with the steroids and other drugs. Those actions might help to reduce violence in the cities.

Another thing we can do is end the drug war. The drug war has been targeting black Americans and other minorities and has been causing the police harassment of and violence against innocent people, black, white and everyone, in the cities and the suburbs.

If you end the drug war, most of the pushers and traffickers will be gone, as will the gangs, the turf wars, the drug lords, and the Mexican cartels, and so on. They all rely on drugs being illegal for profits and to thrive in their culture of pushing, trafficking, and murderous violence.

Ending the drug war will also take away the financial incentive for those youths in the cities to get into that kind of stuff, and they will not become users, pushers or traffickers.

Economically, ending the minimum wage and other intrusive regulations will open up markets. The free market will enable anyone of any race or color to make a living, including enabling the city youths to get their foot in the door of opportunity and work experience.

When you repeal all minimum wage laws, millions of entry-level jobs will open up for those youths and they will then have something to do with themselves. They will not be just hanging around and getting into trouble, and they will be productive people and have a much higher degree of self-respect.

The bureaucrats and the leftists’ selfishly imposing minimum wage and other restrictions on workers’ freedom has caused unemployment, caused all those entry-level jobs to disappear, taking away the youths’ opportunities and abilities to learn skills and to have the ability to climb up the ladder. The activists and bureaucrats have been keeping those at the bottom of the ladder at the bottom of the ladder. Bureaucrats are extremely selfish in their activist agenda, very short-sighted, and ideological to a religiously fanatical degree. In my view, it is they who are the real racists.

Those who believe in free markets want freedom for everyone of all races, ethnicities, everyone. The only restrictions are: Don’t steal, don’t defraud, don’t initiate violence against anyone else’s person or property, don’t trespass. You want to open up a business? Go do it, no permission from the government, no fees, no government forms to fill out. You want to operate a taxi service? Just put “TAXI” on the roof of your car and go do it. Charge whatever you want. If consumers think you’re too expensive, they’ll use someone else. No license, no medallion. Just let the people have their damn freedom.

Another thing to do toward reducing violence in the cities is de-monopolize and de-bureaucratize the education system. Let local people control education of their kids. Not even local public schools, as they should all be abolished and replaced with private, voluntary education facilities. That will also further enable the minority community. Another issue with education in the minority community is the attitude of some of the youths, that studying hard and achieving is “acting white.” I’ve heard that many times now. They need to cut it out with that. By studying hard and achieving you are merely acting in your own self-interests, toward getting better jobs in life and being paid higher wages or salaries based on your achievement and skills.

And those are my suggestions toward ending violence in the cities (and the suburbs).

Will Hillary Really Be Worse Than Trump?

I’ve mentioned some of these things previously. But for those who think that a President Hillary will be worse than a President Trump, it depends. Both are very totalitarian-minded and autocratic, neither has any respect for private property rights and freedom of association, or for freedom of speech and of the Press. However, I don’t think Trump can possibly win against any Democrat.

The bottom line for me is that, if Trump is the Republican nominee, the Democrats and PACs will use his awful, moronic, and ignorant statements over the past year, over and over and over in their ads, which will only further contribute to his landslide loss to Hillary (or any Democrat if they replace her at their convention). But the real disaster if Trump is the nominee and Hillary wins is that, as I have stated previously, Trump will take many other Republican candidates down with him. Both Houses of Congress may very well be taken over by the Democrats and that will be a rubber stamp for Hillary’s agenda. I don’t think that another Republican nominee will cause such down-ballot losses.

However, if the Republicans do replace Trump at the Republican convention, such as with John Kasich, Newt Gingrich, or Scott Walker, then the nominee will probably still lose to the Democrat. But a Hillary Presidency with a Republican Congress should give us gridlock and, one can only hope, government shut-downs. But Republicans have given Bush-Obama many of the socialist programs they wanted (except for voting as a party unanimously against ObamaCare). Whoever wins in November, we’re all screwed.

Libertarians for Socialism

Here is my recent article that appeared on, which is published by Robert Wenzel, who also publishes My new article is on Libertarians for Trump, and because Trump is a left-liberal progressive and a socialist central planner-wannabe, I call it “Libertarians for Socialism.” I think it’s important to be truthful and realistic.

Libertarians for Socialism

By Scott Lazarowitz

There do not seem to be any principled or libertarian candidates for President in 2016. Even the Libertarian Party has been disappointing.

But I just can’t understand the “Libertarians for Trump” movement now. I am thoroughly perplexed, and even somewhat distressed by it.

Some of the libertarian Trump supporters have stated that Trump is “anti-Establishment.” However, when he puts his money where his loud mouth is, Trump has donated thousands and thousands of dollars to Democrat and Republican politicians, but nothing to Ron Paul or other possibly libertarian-leaning Democrats or Republicans. They’re all statists, and hacks.

Do actions speak louder than words?

The Libertarians for Trumpers apparently believe that Trump will “shake things up” in Washington, and believe Trump’s rhetoric of “free-market principles,” even though Trump seems to follow George W. Bush in “abandoning free-market principles to save the free-market system.”

They seem to believe Trump’s rhetoric criticizing the Bush-Obama wars and NATO. And Walter Block believes that Trump is less likely than Hillary to start World War III.  However, Trump’s main foreign policy advisors include the warmonger Sen. Jeff Sessions. And Trump’s latest heartthrob is the ultra-bloodthirsty warmonger and police-statist Sen. Tom Cotton. (Not a good sign.)

So here I express my bewilderment at libertarians who are supporting a long-time Establishment-backer who believes in government scheming and conniving to pick winners and losers, as though Trump is actually anti-Establishment, and will “rock the boat” if he becomes President.

Sorry. Trump is not a boat-rocker. He is a deal-maker. A cahooter.

Trump believes strongly in making deals, which is fine in the private sector. But government deals are political deals. If conservatives and libertarians think that Trump will not sign bills with more anti-discrimination amendments, tax-raising amendments and on and on, they are kidding themselves.

Yuri Maltsev, an economist under Mikhail Gorbachev’s regime and author of the books Requiem for Marx and The Tea Party Explained: From Crisis to Crusade, has written terrific articles on Soviet healthcare and on the real Gorbachev.

However, Dr. Maltsev has joined other libertarians in attempting to differentiate between Trump and Hillary Clinton as a capitalist vs. a socialist, a “choice between freedom and socialist slavery.”

Nope. Donald Trump is just another socialist, whether he proclaims that or not.

One thing that’s been important to libertarians is the truth. We must let the truth be told, and let the chips fall where they may.

So the truth is that Trump has exactly the kind of anti-capitalistic mentality as many of Trump’s leftist critics. Trump is against the free market when it comes to healthcare, trade, immigration, labor and employment, and other issues.

And here are some examples:

On healthcare Trump states on his official campaign website that the government must “make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.”

As Trump made clear in his interview last September with Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes, Trump is “going to take care of everybody,” and that “the government’s gonna pay for it.” And he promised to fund all that by raising taxes on the wealthy. In his February appearance on a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, Trump stated that while he wants to repeal ObamaCare he nevertheless likes the mandate because he doesn’t want “people dying on the streets.” In reference to his Medicaid expansion proposal (which he referred to as “Medicare” in the CNN interview), Trump stated, “That’s not single payer, by the way. That’s called heart. We gotta take care of people that can’t take care of themselves.”

And by “we” he doesn’t mean private charities or businesses, which is the free-market way, but government, which is the failed socialist way.

I suppose we can call a socialist a “capitalist” as long as Trump or his campaign website mentions “free-market principles.” But it appears that he hasn’t even considered free-market principles here.

With socialist healthcare schemes, such as in the old Soviet Union, in England, Canada, or Venezuela, you will find more people, not fewer, “dying on the streets” than in capitalist societies.

And regarding Trump’s other policy proposals, on trade we know that Trump opposes free trade and favors a government-controlled, government-managed mercantilist trade, as Robert Wenzel pointed out.

Trump believes in “fair trade.” President Trump will decide what’s fair, not the market. There’s nothing capitalistic about that.

In contrast, a free-market capitalist trade policy is when consumers have the freedom to trade with others anywhere in the world, and producers have the freedom to sell what they make to any willing buyer. The contracts are between them. Bureaucrats will not intrude.

And socialist programs in the U.S. such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are collapsing. But Donald Trump won’t touch Social Security, and, according to his official campaign website, won’t cut anyone’s entitlements.

You see, one thing that the progressives have accomplished is convincing conservatives that socialist government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid involve “free markets” and can be “reformed.” But the truth is, those programs involve the government using its coercive powers to take wealth from the workers and producers and redistributing it to others.

Should libertarians sugar-coat FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society in support of Donald Trump?

Trump not only says nothing about making cuts in the federal budget, he wants to expand the size and powers of the federal government, its usurpations and take-overs.

A real free-market capitalist who wants to take part in government would argue for massive cuts in the budget and spending, eliminating whole government bureaucracies and departments and dismantling Leviathan.

The whole point of “free markets” is that markets are free of governmental intrusions, controls, and thefts by the bureaucrats.

And like other politicians, Donald Trump wants to reform the tax code. But like other politicians, he doesn’t seem to question the morality or legitimacy of the income tax, or of involuntary taxation in general.

Morally, if transactions and contracts are involuntary, with one party of the contract coercing or compelling another to participate, we would call that scheme a criminal racket, extortion, or robbery.

What we can’t call that is being part of a “free market” or free-market capitalism, in which all parties to all contracts participate voluntarily, under the rule of law which forbids theft, fraud, trespassing, coercion and force.

Another disturbing aspect of Trump mania is this collectivist promotion of government bureaucrats maintaining control over immigration, labor and employment.

I thought that libertarians were individualists who believed in private property rights and the idea of self-ownership. Not some kind of collectivist control over markets and people.

The real libertarian advocacy of human freedom includes free people selling their labor to willing and able buyers, and the contracts are between them. Socialist bureaucracy which interferes with that freedom is an interference with the free market. And when the government builds an actual physical wall, that is a further obstruction to markets. As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out, government immigration controls are socialist policies. They in no way resemble free markets or free-market capitalism.

Trump’s own history as a “crony capitalist,” and his running to the government courts to use “wonderfuleminent domain to steal private property from its rightful owners, show that he has no understanding of, let alone respect for, the moral and economic principles of liberty promoted by libertarians, free-market capitalists, or anarcho-capitalists.

In the old days, Americans had the freedom to associate with whomever they wanted, and to not associate with whomever they didn’t want to associate.

Americans had the freedom to keep everything they earned and honestly acquired, to do with their own wealth and income whatever they wanted, to save it, invest, start and grow businesses, give to charity or buy merchandise or property. There were few if any regulations on their economic activities.

And they could come and go as they pleased. No “Your papers, please.” And foreigners could come to live, work, start a business, or spend their money, with very few bureaucratic impositions getting in their way.

In the old days, this freedom of the people is what led to the biggest boom in economic prosperity and is what raised the standard of living of just about everyone in the country.

In contrast, it was and is socialism that takes wealth from the people, that subjugates the people, and reduces prosperity and lowers the people’s standard of living.

So what we really need is someone who proposes to liberate the people and dismantle all the criminal bureaus and commissions in Washington. Donald Trump is not that person.