Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss.
It appears that former New York Congressperv Anthony Weiner still hasn’t learned his lesson from all his previous sexting scandals, one of which cost him his New York City mayoral race.
This time, Weiner has been caught sending images to a woman not his wife, including an image of himself in his underwear clearly “aroused,” but with his 4-year-old little boy getting into bed with him. It was supposedly 3 AM!
Excuse me, what is a little child doing up at 3 AM?
Supposedly, Weiner is a “stay-at-home dad” while his wife, Hillary sidekick Huma Abedin, is off campaigning with Hillary for President. And because of this newest sexting scandal, Huma has announced that she is separating from Weiner. But why did it take her so many years and so many sicko sexting scandals?
The latest story broke in the New York Post, which has been unnecessarily posting some of Weiner’s quite graphic images. But look at these Post headlines starting with that initial article, “Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him,” “Trump: Good for Huma, Weiner sucks,” “Experts expect Children’s Services to investigate Weiner,” “State Senator says Weiner should be probed for child abuse,” “Texts reveal Anthony Weiner knew his marriage was ‘busted’,” and “Anthony Weiner bragged about using his kid as a ‘chick magnet’.”
I’m really sorry to be linking to articles like that, and which contain graphic images (You’ve been warned!). But I think this not only tells us a lot about Anthony Weiner, but it says something about news journalism today. Sexual matters-turned-sleazy, sexual innuendo, and perversion sells, apparently.
And is Anthony Weiner perverted! He’s got extremely deep, unresolved psychological issues, for sure. Like Donald Trump, Weiner seems to be stuck emotionally in the 7th grade as far as his level of maturity is concerned. “Sick puppy,” you bet.
As I noted before, Weiner reflects the lack of self-control, discretion and judgment that we have been seeing from government bureaucrats and politicians in recent years. Most of those who are drawn to positions of power and control and the central planning apparatus show such infantile traits and shortsightedness. If I were a psychiatrist or psychologist I would find it of interest to see any one of those people in the office. And I would bet that if Anthony Weiner were a patient in psychotherapy, the therapist would have drawers full of files on his case, like that patient on The Bob Newhart Show, Mr. Carlin.
And as long as people are digging into the Weiner-Abedins’ private life, it is also interesting that he is a militant Israel-Firster and she is a Muslim, and maybe even associated with the extremist organization Muslim Brotherhood.
According to Roger Stone,
Two years after Huma was born, the family moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and with the patronage of Abdullah Omar Naseef of the Muslim World League, founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs with offices in Saudi Arabia and London, England. In the 1980’s Syed Abedin was a counselor of the Muslim World League. After his death in 1993, his wife Saleha took over and serves as director of the IMMA (Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs) and as the editor of that organization’s academic magazine, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. More recently she still edits the Journal and is also a part of the administration of Dar Al-Hekma Women’s College.
Naseef’s connections to the entire Abedin family are significant — and, for reasons you’ll see in a moment, very troubling. As Vanity Fair wrote, during “his early years as the patron of the Abedins’ journal, Nasseef was the secretary-general of the Muslim World League” and gives more shocking details about the Abedins:
“It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.”
That’s what all the fuss is about. Since 1962, the Muslim World League has been funded by the Saudi government to the tune of more than $1.3 billion.
And according to this article on The Hill,
Senator (John) McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.
In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.
The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.
So if it’s true that Huma Abedin is sympathetic with Islamic extremism or jihad, then it just doesn’t make sense that she would marry an extreme militant Israel-Firster such as Anthony Weiner. And yes, he’s an Israel-Firster and has been very critical of and biased against Palestinians.
For instance, according to Philip Weiss, in a Jewish event responding to concerns over Obama’s Israel-Palestine policy Anthony Weiner referred to “Eretz Israel,” which means the Biblically-directed expanded territory of the Land of Israel, and he referred to convicted spy-traitor Jonathan Pollard as “Jonathan.” Weiner also stated that “Israel has no partners in Palestinians, who vote for terrorists.” (Many people really believe that all Palestinians are “terrorists,” thanks to government propaganda.)
Weiner is extremely “right wing” when it comes to Israel, yet, as that particular event showed, when the subject turned to health care he goes full commie, promoting single payer, medicare for all, nationalized healthcare, and gets very excited when discussing those things. You see, many of these same infantile political hacks are also central-planning ideologues who love government control.
Weiner is also a denier of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and has tried to ban a Palestinian delegation from the UN. (“They should start packing their little Palestinian terrorist bags,” he said. I know, many people really believe that Palestinian = terrorist, based solely on collectivist propaganda, certainly not based on reality and the truth.)
But does the Muslim and possibly Sharia Law sympathizer Huma Abedin know any of this about her so-called husband? Who knows? In any event, given how close she has been with Hillary Clinton since the 1990s and that Huma is a major player in the Hillary for President campaign, she is obviously just another political hack, like Anthony Weiner and like Hillary. Political power is what matters to these people and they are really screwed up psychologically, in my view.
I can just imagine what kind of childhood the little Weiner-Abedin 4-year-old, Jordan, is having with parents like that. Clearly, Anthony Weiner is unfit to be a father, and I hope that they decide to let a relative take the child to raise him. Even Huma, who is obviously never there for the child because she’s traveling with Hillary, is probably an unfit parent as well. However, I’m way against any government agency getting involved. No CPS here, which is a criminal racket and should be abolished. But I do feel bad for the little kid having to grow up in an atmosphere such as this one. But then, Bill and Hillary Clinton raised Chelsea, and look at what a terrific adult she … turned out … to … be.
In my previous post I made a reference to Hillary Clinton’s unethical acts as a lawyer working with the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry in 1974 during the Watergate crisis, and I linked to this article from “TruthOrFiction.com.” I also had seen some other articles on Hillary’s time there and had not been fully aware that the Committee’s staff supervisor at the time, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, had dismissed Hillary Rodham from the staff because of her dishonest and unethical behavior. Zeifman had stated that she had written a “fraudulent legal brief” and taken documents to cover it up and then lied about it to Zeifman. The apparent purpose of Hillary and a few other staff members to break House rules and the Committee rules was, according to Zeifman, to deny Richard Nixon his right to counsel during the investigation, and to further delay the investigation and hearings, and with an ultimate goal of ensuring that a Democrat would get elected President in 1976.
In other words, Hillary Rodham’s work with that House Committee was not to seek justice, as she obviously had no moral scruples and no sense of ethics, but was solely for political strategy and maneuvering. From my basic research on the Internet, it appears that neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton, while they may have personally opposed the U.S. at war in Vietnam during the 1960s, they were not particularly seen at any actual protests and were not active in that area. They were, however, active in building their political careers. Power-seeking seemed more to their liking.
I realize that some of my posts or articles may have a slightly “negative” tone to them, or pessimistic maybe. But no, I am just realistic about things, and I try to be objective. For instance, in the title of my previous post, “Voting to take away more of your own freedom,” I am just telling it like it is regarding what people will be doing this Fall. It’s not my fault that many people are dupes and believe the propaganda and assumptions about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, voting for the “lesser of two evils,” and so on. You don’t like my calling you a “sheeple”? Tough noogies. I calls it like I sees it.
Now, there are the Trump people who actually believe that he will “run the country like a business” (How Orwellian is that?), or that he will control “illegal” immigration or build a Berlin Wall on the southern border. Or that the “conservative” Justices he would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court will not be another traitor John Roberts or a David Souter or another Anthony Kennedy. (LOL)
And then there are the many people who will be voting for Hillary because they want to see “America’s First Woman President,” or because they believe Hillary is a “liberal” who agrees with the “Social Justice” agenda. And the people will vote for her regardless of all the baggage. And boy, does she have a lot of baggage.
In 1972, Richard Nixon won his reelection by a landslide over George McGovern, despite the Watergate scandal going on that year. And the sheeple voted for him despite the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.
You would think that when it is revealed that top Pentagon bureaucrats had expressed major doubts as early as 1965 whether the Vietnam War would be winnable yet the bureaucrats escalated their aggressions anyway, sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of young American men (and many more innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians), that most commonsense-thinking people would recognize war criminals when they see them and vote to remove them from office (and push for their prosecution).
Nope. Not sheeple. Not the American sheeple who let their rulers walk all over them and then the slaves go on to reelect those very rulers.
Americans are loyal and faithful to their rulers, regardless of how corrupt, criminal and murderous the rulers are. Americans bend over and take it again and again and again. At least most of them do. And that’s because many people are raised to be brainwashed to love and worship authority, and are certainly indoctrinated with that authoritarianism in the public schools and by mainstream media outlets who repeat word for word the propaganda spewed out by the ruling bureaucrats.. And many people worship the military, which is an authoritarian institution of slavery that has been used by evil Presidents to start wars of aggression against foreigners and invade other countries that were of no threat to us, or to unjustly enter foreign wars which could have been prevented in the first place.
So back then in 1971, the sheeple were calling for Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg to be prosecuted for “treason” or “espionage,” when in reality it was those Johnson-McNamara bureaucrats who were committing treason in their war for ego and power. And in more recent times, the sheeple call for the prosecution (and execution) of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for their informing the American people of the war crimes and/or treasonous domestic spying being committed by our rulers Bush-Obama-Clinton-etc. The sheeple just don’t want to know the extent of their rulers’ criminality and loathsomeness.
So the voters and the voter fraudsters and White House Plumbers reelected Nixon in a landslide despite what a loathsome crook and a mass-murdering war criminal he was. The sheeple approve of mass-murder by government and bureaucrats sacrificing young compatriots to serve their egos. Let government criminals get away with their crimes. That is why Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages was no big deal, and why the sheeple approved of George H.W. Bush’s brand new war on Iraq in 1991 (which, with murderous sanctions, led to 9/11, ISIS and more terrorism, more war, and bankruptcy. Yay!)
And now we have the authoritarians on the Left who believe in militarism for the sake of “humanitarian” goals, killing foreigners to save them from poverty and so on. A lot of these people on the Left are also true believers in “Social Justice,” in human-caused climate change/global warming and/or cooling, the concept of “microaggression” and censorship. Many of the oldsters among them are ’60s flower child hippies whose brains had been totally fried by hard drugs by 1975. Thanks, guys.
Those leftist sheeple — and there are many more of them now than there ever were — are all for Hillary. Meanwhile, the FBI director lists point after point his justifications to indict her for the email server criminality, yet he then concludes by recommending against indictment. And there are her documented lies to Congressional committee, and maybe to the FBI. Hillary’s Clinton Foundation now and its cahoots with Saudi and other foreign dictators and tyrants. Hillary’s shady history going back to her First Lady days, and all the way back to her dishonest and unethical behavior working with the House Judiciary Committee on the Nixon Watergate scandal. It seems as though she has become the very ugly beast she was trying to take down at that time, alas.
But the brainwashed sheeple and the “Social Justice” warriors will vote for her, the mainstream Goebbels media outlets will continue covering up for her, and this is Amerika in 2016. No different from Amerika in 1972 with Nixon.
The current choices of candidates for President show the decline of society in its thoughtfulness and moral scruples. So many people now are addicted to their stupid little electronic gadgets, their meaningless texting and so on. They are constantly holding onto their little phones like their baby rattles and staring down like zombies. Many people are also on prescription drugs or just high on marijuana or pacified by all the terrible chemicals in their favorite junk food.
So now we have Hillary Clinton, who was already a warmonger when she was First Lady during the 1990s and she is a warmonger now. There are her scandals, including Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster, the other suspicious deaths including the more recent deaths, the email scandal, the Clinton Foundation scandals, and on and on. Yet she has a lot of support among the ignorant sheeple. And Bernie Sanders has shown what an extreme sell-out he is! But Mrs. Clinton is so corrupt and sleazy, which is not very much different from the kinds of people we’ve had as President thus far.
And then there’s Donald Trump. Many libertarians and conservatives support Trump, despite his being a welfare-state socialist who wants to expand Medicaid to have a Medicaid-for-All single payer government-run insurance scam. That kind of liberty-destroying government-run scheme will make it easier for corrupt bureaucrats to go after the politically-incorrect, the gun owners, people who criticize government, and so on. But that is what Trump wants because like many people on the Left he is ignorant or contemptuous of free-market success. Trump also has dragged innocent victims through the courts to use eminent domain to steal their property away from them. He loves eminent domain — government theft of private property — and he thinks it’s a wonderful thing. So in my view he has a covetous, thug-like mentality. Now, those conservative and libertarians who are in denial and are hypnotized by years of seeing him on Reality TV or whatever that is, obviously don’t care that he’s a socialist and an anti-private property authoritarian. But the truth is the truth. And they agree with him on building a socialist government wall, which says a lot about them!
Regarding the “Libertarian” Party’s candidate, Gary Johnson, he supports the TPP, is open to “universal basic income” (As decided by whom? As distributed by whom? As funded by whom, Gary? Voluntary participation? Involuntary?), and he supports a “carbon tax“! So Gary Johnson is exploiting the Libertarian Party (which had actual libertarians Ron Paul and Harry Browne as its standard bearers!) in order to promote his own failed Republican candidacy from 2012. This guy is as libertarian is Hillary Clinton! Just how stupid are people now?!
And there’s Jill Stein who is quite good on foreign policy, very Ron Paulian. But her domestic economic policy really, really sucks. She is a totally fanatical “climate change” kook, and like ALL the aforementioned, she doesn’t believe in the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression, and individual freedom. Like the aforementioned, Jill Stein wants to have more regulations and intrusions into the people’s lives and property, and to be enforced by a well-armed police state. As I have stated before, a regulated state is a police state, you “liberals” out there.
I heard the Constitution Party’s candidate on the Glenn Beck radio show this week. He’s just another anti-immigration conservative, or so it sounded like. Does he know that the U.S. Constitution says nothing about immigration?
I’m sure if people felt some sort of obligation to vote in November, if they want their vote to be a principled pro-freedom vote they could write in Ron Paul or others who believe in voluntary action and who would pardon non-criminals and release them from the jails and prisons (or promise to do so if elected). Non-criminals are those who have not violated the persons or property of others or threatened to do so.
Please don’t believe the crap that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, because both Hillary and Donald are equally dangerous and equally bad. I’m sure the Reality TV zombies disagree with me on that.
Voting never solved anything anyway. And if voting in a rigged election (which Hillary is going to win anyway) is to be “defensive,” then that says something about our entire system. A majority of the population should not have the ability to empower people to take away the rights and liberty of their neighbors. And you shouldn’t have to vote for a “lesser of two evils” in a defensive way to try to get someone in power who will violate your life and freedom a little less than the other evil one. That’s just sick.
This is supposed to be a land of freedom, in which you do what you want, as long as you are peaceful and don’t violate the persons and property of others, with no reporting of anything to a bureaucrat or agency that you wouldn’t report to your next-door neighbor. If no one has any reason to suspect you of something criminal (with “criminal” meaning violating the persons or property of others or threatening to do so) then others leave you alone. As Clint Eastwood would say, “Everyone leaves everyone else alone.”
And I wish people would cut it out with this anti-immigration nonsense, too. This is a huge territory with over 300 million people. It’s not an exclusive, private club. However, it should be a land of freedom in which exclusive private clubs are free to exist.
But there are those who believe in the “United States of America” being a communistic collectively-owned territory (although with that is collective ownership of everything and everyone within the territory — good luck with that!). That is an anti-private property point of view. It is not a pro-freedom point of view.
As the Declaration of Independence notes, all people have unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say, “These unalienable rights only apply to American citizens.” Some people actually believe that having such rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a benefit of American citizenship, and “non-citizens” don’t have such rights. Anyway, those rights are “unalienable,” which means that we have them inherently as human beings. Alas, many anti-immigration conservatives suffer from cognitive dissonance in these areas.
In a land of freedom, you own your own life, the community doesn’t own your life and the government doesn’t own your life, you own your life. And you don’t share in ownership of your life with the community or government either. Freedom means having the freedom to put whatever chemical into your own body you want, as long as you take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions and actions. Freedom also means having the freedom to make use of your own body, your energy, intellect and knowledge, your labor and skills in whatever way you want, to sell your labor or the products of your labor to whomever you want, or to hire whomever you want, as long as its all voluntary. No bureaucrats’ permission, no license, no fees, no involuntarily confiscated income or wealth (because that’s stealing!), no list of arbitrary rules and orders to have to obey except in a contract voluntarily agreed to by you. That’s freedom.
That kind of freedom used to be what the “Libertarian” Party promoted, because the advocacy of that kind of actual freedom is actual libertarianism. I would say that the “Libertarian” Party is ruined completely now and should close down. And I don’t believe that people who believe in a free society have any reason to vote in the upcoming elections. Unfortunately, voter turnout might actually be high, between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, because those two clowns reflect the majority of ignorant sheeple zombies in our society, a society which is going to further decline in the near future.
Here is my latest article on LewRockwell.com, Some Thoughts on Moral Relativism, Collectivism, and Central Planning
Another anniversary of the U.S. military’s atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has come and gone, and once again the same rationalizations were repeated especially on the conservative talk radio shows.
But the majority of the American population continue to repeat their defense of murdering innocent human beings, including children. The conservatives, however, suffer especially from the cognitive dissonance of their claiming the importance of “protecting innocent human life” (such as with the abortion issue), yet they support the intentional targeting and mass murders of innocents.
“Well, we had to save the lives of U.S. soldiers…” in their hypothetical future ground battles which otherwise probably would never have happened. But, as a matter of military strategy, they say it was necessary to kill innocent children and their families who were of no threat to anyone.
So the collectivist-minded reasoning is that those innocent children were on “the other side,” not our side. So it’s okay to kill them.
Such rationalization of murdering innocents is out of collectivism, in which, even though those innocents “over there” were not involved in attacking us, because they happened to be within “enemy” territory, “we” had no choice but to disintegrate them.
Many people have a faith in the State that is so strong that they dare not question their collectivist rationalizations of their government’s murders of innocents.
But those conservatives who constantly preach about moral relativism in society are themselves guilty of it with that particular issue especially. Their defense of the Bush-Obama wars of the past 15 years is also rife with moral relativism.
This year’s Presidential campaign is another reminder of the denial of a collapsing society and specifically the federal government in Washington. The election is between the two major party central planners-wannabe on steroids, with some other candidates.
On “making America great again,” I don’t know how you can make an entire country or territory great when so many of its inhabitants obediently worship the centralized apparatus that stifles greatness, that kills opportunity, that enslaves the people.
For instance, have you ever really thought about a system such as taxation in which an agency demands something from you without any voluntary agreement, and threatens to put you in a cage or kill you if you don’t comply?
Sounds kinda like a gangster, doesn’t it? Hmm.
But most people are okay with that because they’ve been indoctrinated to be okay with it since their earliest days. But giving the federal government the power to exercise such a criminal racket over the people has certainly enabled further criminality (e.g. getting into two world wars and other subsequent wars, the New Deal, the Great Society, etc).
Unlike businesses in which their consumers patronize them voluntarily and it’s actually illegal to threaten consumers with a jail cell or death if they don’t comply, in contrast the central planners of government may issue the threats and carry them out as well and they get away with it. You like that?
Speaking of America, should there really be a single entity with a population of over 300 million over a territory of several million square miles? Was it realistic in the first place?
As Friedrich A. Hayek wrote,
Agreement about a common purpose between a group of known people is clearly an idea that cannot be applied to a large society which includes people who do not know one another. The modern society and the modern economy have grown up through the recognition that this idea — which was fundamental to life in a small group — a face-to-face society, is simply inapplicable to large groups.
And I liked Jim Cox’s recent article on 50 seceding states. Decentralization is the answer to society’s problems which are mainly caused by central planning. America is itself a collectivist concept. A large territory of centralization of power.
I know, people rationalize the centralized racket with their hypnotized mantra of “common defense.”
Yeah, that’s working out well. That national defense apparatus in Washington has been starting wars of aggression, poking hornets’ nests and provoking foreigners, and making Americans less safe and more vulnerable.
In fact, I think that people are even worse now in their subservience, denial and ignorance. After Vietnam, especially after the Pentagon Papers, you would think that in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush wanted to start his his war of aggression against Iraq, that the American people would not approve of it. But no.
As for “defense” and the federal tax-thieving and spending in general, we’re now talking about money in the trillions of dollars. But there’s no such thing as a “trillion.” It just doesn’t exist. And all those special interest groups in and around Washington are getting rich on phony money handed out by the Federal Reserve and the racketeers of Congress.
Really, the military and security contractors have been getting rich off the feds’ destruction of other countries and mass murders of foreigners. That’s “defense.”
But, after all the years now — decades, in fact — of Ron Paul’s advocacy of monetary freedom, especially during his last Presidential campaign in which his bills in Congress were getting much more media attention, the sheeple still have no idea of such alternatives and they’re fine with the government’s monetary monopoly that enables and empowers the politicians and banksters to fleece and rob them, shake them down and enslave them.
So besides government’s mass murders, wars, and money, my last issue concerning moral relativism, collectivism, and central planning is the immigration issue. I just don’t understand the conservatives who think they believe in free-market capitalism and private property rights, but when it comes to free markets in labor and employment, not so much.
While the conservatives and nationalists say they hate central planning, they love central planning in “national security” as mentioned above. But they also love it in the immigration issue. The opponents of a free market in labor and employment want the central planning bureaucrats in Washington to continue with their socialist immigration controls, regardless of the chaos such controls have caused for a half-century or more. Put armed guards and snipers on the government borders and build a government wall.
I know that some people suggest that the taxpayers “own” the property that is considered “public” property such as that around the nationalized border. But do they really support the U.S. government’s control over the lives of foreigners as well as markets involving labor and employment? Should the government arrest foreigners who are in the territory without a bureaucrat’s permission, and arrest the businesspeople who employ them?
In contrast, in a free-market capitalist world, employers are free to hire whomever they determine to be the best workers for the wages agreed upon by the worker and the employer. Third-parties who interfere with those private contracts are intruders. Again, that’s in the world of free markets, not the world of government-controlled and centrally-planned markets.
When government borders and arbitrary bureaucratic regulations restrict markets, they are no longer free markets, in my view.
Now, as Walter Block noted in his essay, A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration (.pdf), if you are concerned about foreigners getting into the territory and getting on welfare, then that’s a case against the welfare state.
Abolishing the welfare state is what libertarians and conservatives should concentrate on there.
But preventing others from making a better life for themselves, people who have not harmed anyone, should be solely the work of the criminal State and its immoral apparatchiks.
And if you are concerned about would-be terrorists infiltrating the territory or being brought in by the government planners themselves, the main contributors to the radical Islamic extremism are those government bureaucrats. Getting rid of those damn bureaucrats would be very helpful in that area as well.
Which brings me back to the issue of decentralization. Secession and decentralization are the morally right and practical answers to the problems society faces right now.
The problem is central planning, and socialism. And for me personally, the Left‘s solutions of central planning and collectivism will further contribute to societal collapse. I’d rather not have to live through that, when it’s otherwise quite avoidable.
On the LewRockwell.com blog, Becky Akers asks, “Can you steal from a thief?” referring to the government as an organized gang of thieves whose property is stolen property.
Indeed, most of the reports on this story speak of “theft” from the NSA and “stolen data.” But since the NSA is nothing more than a glorified, legalized thief, does it own anything to steal? In other words, if a burglar named, say, Obummer steals $100 from me, and then a second burglar named, perhaps, Hitlary swipes that hundred bucks, did she steal it from Obummer or from me? Also, if Obummer used my money before Hitlary’s hit to buy a lock-pick set and rob some houses, so that his total take is $2500, does any of that loot belong to him?
The Feds plunder us of billions in taxes to pay the NSA’s hackers, turn on its lights, power its computers, cool them with water in a desert (yo, EPA: where are your draconian fines for this wretched despoiler of the environment?), etc. Does anything the NSA produces belong to it? Or do we, its victims, own every misbegotten product and exploit of this infernal agency?
We could obviously extend this speculation to all the State’s “property.” Since every pencil, triplicate form, and weapon government “owns” comes from us, is it possible to “steal” from these thieves what they stole from us? Or are those who help themselves to property their taxes bought far less culpable than the government that thieved in the first place?
Dr. Drew Pinsky was interviewed on a Los Angeles radio show in discussion of Hillary Clinton’s health issues. The doctor not only was concerned about Hillary’s health but her medical treatment that he thinks might be causing her worse problems. (Maybe her doctors are Republicans?) He says “she’s receiving 1950s-level care by our evaluation.”
UPDATE: Within a week of that interview, CNN has canceled Dr. Drew’s HLN show.
The Donald Trump campaign has been a real clunker since the knighting of Hillary at the Democrat convention. But now Trump campaign chairman Paul Manthefort is essentially being replaced by Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen Bannon and advisor-pollster Kellyanne Conway. Since the Trump campaign has been such a joke thus far perhaps Tim Conway would’ve been a better choice. Really, the whole thing is a farce as far as I’m concerned.
Justin Raimondo has this analysis today of Trump’s foreign policy and Trump’s statement on “ideological vetting” of immigrants, the loyalty tests he wants to give them. As Justin put it, “will any would-be terrorist answer truthfully when asked if he or she believes in Sharia law, as opposed to the US Constitution?” Exactly. So, I don’t think that Donald Trump actually thinks things through in any particular issue, economics or foreign policy, and he just makes statements based on the emotional aspects of an issue and/or what his neocon or other handlers tell him.
And saying that he’s fine with U.S. citizens being tried at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba, so their Constitutionally-protected rights will not be protected? But will he be fine with himself being renditioned off to Guantanamo for a “trial” of torture and solitary confinement by President Hillary? I know, some people think I’m way off with my asserting that American politicians would use such unconstitutional and criminal apparatus against their own fellow Americans. But those people are either not informed of actual U.S. history or they are in denial of just how criminally-minded most politicians really are. The Clintons are Bonnie and Clyde “on steroids,” in my view.
And regarding Guantanamo and torture, and the actual guilt or lack thereof of the prisoners being detained there since 9/11, out of 779 of those prisoners, 670 of them have already been released because there was no evidence against them. 5% of those detainees were captured by U.S. troops and 86% of them were captured by Afghan villagers and others who were paid bounties by CIA and coalition forces.
According to Andy Worthington, senior intelligence analysts had concluded that one-third to one-half of Gitmo detainees were “mistakes” and “had no connection to terrorism whatsoever.” Several cases against detainees had been dismissed by judges based on the detainees giving false confessions, by way of torture. So, when government officials claim that of the 600+ Guantanamo prisoners released, 107 were “confirmed of re-engaging” in terrorism, it is more likely that those people “re-engaging” were not “re-engaging” but joining in hostilities for the first time. I am sure that many neocons, Exceptionalists and Rethuglicans can’t possibly comprehend this, but if they were kidnapped and taken off to some prison and tortured even though they were not involved in any criminal activity, they would probably want to join in the fight against those who tortured them.
But I don’t expect Donald Trump to understand any of that, even if he is a left-liberal progressive who wants to base economic policies on “heart” and “compassion” and base foreign policy on collectivism and nationalist isolationism. But because he’s pretending to run for President he has been talking like a “conservative,” a neocon (as well as a non-interventionist), and a “law and order” guy.
See Donald Trump disagree with Donald Trump (Warning: foul language):
And Trump is attracting many people because he’s a Reality TV performer who is good with demagoguery and manipulating the emotions of the masses. He’s also a character. As my Grandma would say (not about Trump but about some others like on the TV news), “That guy, what a character…” And many people are laughing at him, because he is so laughable, a real “laughingstock.” So one reason I am constantly writing about and criticizing Donald Trump is that this whole campaign is a farce. It is NOT serious! Even Gary
Statist Johnson being the Libertarian Party nominee and misinforming the public on what libertarianism actually is, that too is a farce! And with Trump in this campaign have been Cruella Fiorina, Ted Scruz, Rick Sanitorium, and Jeb! And with Hillary Rotten Clinton has been Bernie Ward Sanders, Hillary’s fellow communist. The Donald is helping the Democrat-Communist Party remain in power to further communize and tyrannize Amerika. Doh!
According to Wikipedia: “The FBI’s main goal is to protect and defend the United States, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.”
So here is a Breitbart article: “FBI facial recognition database ten times larger than promised, contains 90% non-criminals.”
And a WND article: “FBI seeks secret control of smartphones.”
Another WND article: “Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons.”
An article on the Intercept: “Secret rules make it pretty easy for the FBI to spy on journalists.”
An article on WhoWhatWhy: “Was Tamerlan Tsarnaev a double agent recruited by the FBI?”
And from the Rutherford Institute: “America’s Gestapo: The FBI’s reign of terror.”
As Ron Paul might say, just some more reasons to abolish the FBI. (Or at least, privatize it.)
Thomas Knapp says that the Libertarian Party needs to dump Bill Weld as VP, forthwith. Weld is an ignorant nutso. (And then they need to dump Gary Johnson, quite frankly.)
Robert Wenzel says it is time to disband Libertarians for Trump.
Since it is clear that Donald Trump is terrible on economics, terrible on trade and terrible on private liberty, “Libertarians for Trump,” aside from Trump’s street-style dismissal of political correctness (although he is even weak here when it comes to gays), has had to hang its support on the idea that Trump would be less war-like than Hillary Clinton.
But Trump, this morning, has just showed us how misdirected LFT members are. Trump just went out of his way to praise the super neocon John Bolton.
And Wenzel writes further reasons why Libertarians for Trump should not continue. The main purpose for Libertarians for Trump was because they believe that Donald Trump is less likely to start World War III than Hillary Clinton. But Trump is just as dangerous, surrounding himself with neocons, bloodthirsty warmongers and authoritarians like Jeff Sessions, Tom Cotton, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and now John Bolton.
I think that Hillary has been planning for decades to divide and conquer not just the GOP, which she has now accomplished, but liberty-minded and Constitution-oriented groups such as the libertarians, including the Libertarian Party. The libertarian movement has been arguing amongst themselves now, mainly over a socialist government-is-the-solution-to-everything ignoramus Donald Trump.
Back in 2012 Ron Paul had influenced a lot of the young people, who then went to a total anti-liberty demagogue Bernie Sanders. In the political world, Ron Paul has been the most effective speaker and motivator and informer for the masses on the cause of liberty, and the principles of liberty such as non-interventionism, private property, and free markets as the means toward a much more peaceful and prosperous society. Now Ron Paul is no longer a part of the political world, but he continues to spread the message via the Institute for Peace and Prosperity, the Ron Paul Liberty Report, his homeschooling curriculum, as well as giving speeches and doing interviews.
But now, in the political world not only are there no (or very few) real liberty advocates but, in contrast, the advocates for bigger and more intrusive government, a more powerful police state, and less and less liberty are getting louder and louder, and more powerful, especially with Donald Trump helping to put Hillary Clinton in power.
I have a feeling that, when the younger people see exactly what President Hillary has in store for them, they will be advocating for secession, nullification, and civil disobedience quite a lot in the coming years.
There is more rioting being perpetrated by people associated with “Black Lives Matter,” this time in Milwaukee. The ignorant thugs respond with violence reflexively to news that there was a police shooting and killing of a black suspect, regardless of the circumstances of the situation. One fact of relevance is that the officer who did the shooting was himself black. So, it’s not a “white cop shooting a black victim” situation.
Further, during the rioting some of the thugs were intentionally targeting and beating up white people, because they were white. The marauders allegedly were pulling white people out of their cars to beat them. Wisconsin was the same state a few years back, in 2011, in which a mob of black teens intentionally targeted white people to beat up.
But so far I am not hearing this latest black violence against whites being reported by mainstream media outlets.
Why are people in the media so afraid to report on black thugs who are beating up on innocent white people just because they’re white? I guess it’s like Ed Asner and other celebrities on the Left who are afraid to criticize Obama for fear of being called “racist.” I think that’s very childish. In these instances, the racists are the black people who are targeting whites with violence.
I understand why black people would get upset when yet another police shooting might involve a white officer against a black victim. But why don’t they get equally upset at the several thousands of shootings going on, especially in Chicago, by black people against other black people? Oh, the police shootings are symbolic. It’s the images that matter. And I get that point. But Americans, whether they are black, white or any race or ethnicity, should not live in fear of the police.
One problem is that the police are burdened with having to enforce unjust laws, such as those regarding drug prohibition, and the many thousands of bureaucratic laws that should also not exist. But it’s mainly this drug war that’s causing the government police to act like Nazis and thugs against innocent people.
And we know that minimum wage and other regulations cause unemployment and restrict the young people’s opportunities, either as beginning workers or entrepreneurs.
End the drug war and its simultaneous police state, and repeal minimum wage and other regulations and then there will exist many more honest opportunities for the young people.
But the activists and bureaucrats who have imposed all these economic and social controls, thus causing more and more problems as a result, are the same ones who manipulate the tensions (that they are creating) between government police and the young and minority people. The race-baiters include Jesse Jackson and Al Shrapnel and all their younger cohorts, as well as Barack Obama. Nearly eight years with “America’s First Black President” and race relations are worse, not better.
The Boston Globe editorial board (or is it bored?) has described Donald Trump as a “thinly disguised white nationalist,” i.e. racist. Others have called Trump a racist. Now, I don’t believe he is a racist, although he is a collectivist. Certainly not an individualist.
Trump’s father, Fred Trump was certainly a racist who had tried to evict or prevent from renting in his buildings black people and other minorities, and I think that Donald Trump grew up seeing that and feeling that such attitudes are morally wrong which is how he became a left-liberal progressive who espouses “New York values,” i.e. being socially liberal. He’s very “liberal” on gay rights, and doesn’t have a problem with “transgender” biological males going into the ladies room (even if the ladies in there obviously do have a problem with it).
Even his economic views are on the left, with his unwillingness to cut entitlements including not dealing at all with Social Security, his wanting to expand Medicaid for everyone in a “single payer” scheme, and so on.
But Trump is a nationalist who wants to use the powers of government to restrict the rights of American consumers and producers to trade with foreigners, and who wants a collectivized government-imposed “deal” that supposedly benefits Americans, American companies, and so on, even though such Trump-concocted deals will not do that. He is also very authoritarian and doesn’t like to be criticized in the media or he’ll take critics to court. So Trump’s campaign is attracting a lot of fellow nationalists, and, unfortunately, attracting some people who seem to be more concerned with maintaining a white majority in America than they are in reducing government’s power and control over the people.
And Trump is attracting fellow authoritarians who don’t like to hear people criticizing the government and its bureaucrats. There are a lot of people who get emotional with the American flag, the National Anthem, and are supporters of the U.S. government’s militarism and “American Exceptionalism.” And many of these people don’t like it when dissenters or protesters or writers criticize the idea of American Exceptionalism or the national security state apparatus, such as the NSA, the CIA, the military, and so on. They say that Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are traitors for exposing wrongdoing from those agencies. And some authoritarians and nationalists, including the ignoramus Newt Gingrich, think that government’s critics are “traitors” who should be prosecuted.
It’s actually the other way around. According to the U.S. Constitution, treason is when the people’s government, or others, turn the State’s armed apparatus against the people, or support the enemies of the people. The Constitution in Article III, Section 3, states that Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. It is referring to the “States” as a plural form, and referring to the prospective disloyalty of the federal government against the people of the states. Sadly, there are authoritarian people who believe that “treason” is mainly disloyalty by the people toward the federal government.
So my own interpretation of that includes when the agents of the government use any part of the government’s powers against innocent people. Some recent examples include the NSA’s spying on innocent Americans who are not suspects, the IRS and Lois Lerner targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny and harassment, and Obama’s assassination program of people not even charged with crimes.
So regarding the people who want to see arrested and jailed those who openly criticize the U.S. government and its military’s killing sprees overseas or the NSA and other parts of the authoritarian apparatus in Washington, the authoritarians aren’t exactly friends of the First Amendment, regardless of their alleged stand against political correctness, such as what we hear on conservative talk radio. And these are the kinds of people who are also attracted to Donald Trump’s nationalistic rhetoric. Whether Trump or Hillary is elected in November, both will bring on a resurgence in speech intolerance, dissent intolerance and censorship, with Hillary and her leftist political correctness censorship and Donald and the nationalists and their authoritarian intolerance and censorship. Jonathan Turley has been writing about the loss of free speech in the U.K. and other European countries as well as the absence of free speech in the Middle East and Asia. He’ll be writing a lot more about the U.S. in coming years, no doubt.
But the thing is with Trump, even though he is a leftist on the “socially liberal” matters, he just doesn’t get what freedom is supposed to be about in America. Freedom is when the consumers have the freedom to buy whatever they want, the best quality goods and at the lowest possible price, in America or anywhere in the world. Freedom is when producers can build their plants wherever they want as long as they don’t trespass on private property. Freedom is when workers and employers establish voluntary contracts among themselves, regardless of where they are from, and third parties don’t intrude. Trump and fellow nationalists do not like that kind of freedom. They like control. Government controls over the people to restrict such freedom. You’d think that people who are socially liberal progressives like Donald Trump would favor that kind of freedom. But no.
And speaking of private property rights, Donald Trump is also for private property rights when it comes to protecting his property, but not the rights of others. In fact, like the Left, Trump is very covetous of other people’s property and will try to take it from them by force if necessary. Trump has several times dragged innocent property owners through the government courts using “eminent domain.” Eminent domain is nothing but government theft of private property. I really don’t understand what kind of individual would do that to innocent people. An extremely narcissistic and covetous person who really believes that his proposed parking lot is worth using the armed apparatus of government to take property away from its rightful owners. If some lady doesn’t want to sell you her home, and no price is good enough for her, then you leave her alone. At least that’s the moral way to deal with things, in my view. So there’s another reason to be uncomfortable with Donald Trump, when it comes to using the armed apparatus of government against other people.
This week Donald Trump asserted that Obama and Hillary “founded” ISIS, and said that he really meant that their policies created ISIS, or caused the beginnings of ISIS. But really, ISIS began and grew as a result of the disastrous wars that George W. Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan, his drones murdering innocents there and elsewhere including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. (and as continued by Obama), which provokes and motivates those foreigners to retaliate, or to form new groups outside of al-Qaeda to retaliate against the U.S. and the West. The new group ISIS also exploited the chaos Bush’s wars created in Iraq, and has been trying to take over Iraq and Syria.
This group ISIS and the subsequent terrorist attacks in the U.S., France, Belgium and elsewhere by ISIS’s sympathizers are all results of government interventionism. This is why interventionism is not only immoral but it’s invasive and criminal, in my view, and it causes blowback. We can even go back to before 9/11/2001, as those terrorist attacks were in part results of the U.S. government and UN’s and NATO’s interventionism, their wars and sanctions especially against Iraq throughout the 1990s. President George H.W. Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 and sanctions were extremely unnecessary and in fact criminal aggressions against another country that was of no threat to the U.S.
I believe that Bush Sr. and his fellow interventionists and globalists were planning such a war long before that, as during the Reagan Administration they had already been setting up those Middle Eastern U.S. military bases which should never have been placed there. Given what dishonest slithering snakes these government hacks, police statists, militarists, corporatists and bureaucrats are, I believe that they knew what they were doing during the 1980s and for those illicit purposes. Because the Bush people — and Bush being a CIA guy was very astute at sensing this — could see that the Soviet Union was very close to collapsing on its own weight, and they were preparing to create new “enemies” with which scare the American people, in order to justify the continuation of the military-security-industrial complex and the national security state, in my view. Reagan should never had chosen Bush as his VP.
We can even go back to before the 1980s, at least to 1953 and the CIA’s coup in Iran that replaced the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with the “Shah,” Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose repressive SAVAK police state tortured and terrorized the Iranian people, backed by the U.S. from the 1950s up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I doubt that there would have been hostage takings of Americans in Iran in 1979-1981 had the U.S. government not propped up the SAVAK regime of the Shah for three decades. Perhaps the CIA and U.S. government bureaucrats knew what they were doing during those decades?