Make America Great Again by Abolishing the National Security State

Former CIA officer Ray McGovern and NSA whistleblower William Binney have an article out on the Surveillance State behind Russia-gate. While Donald Trump may not have been accurate in his use of the word, “wiretapped” when claiming that his campaign and Trump Tower were wiretapped, he is right that he was being “surveilled,” or spied on by the national security state.

Adam Dick, of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, writes that Rep. Devin Nunes has revealed that, quoting Nunes, “on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition” and that “details about US persons associated with the incoming administration — details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value — were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

As I wrote in this recent post, NSA and the British GCHQ and thousands of private contractors with “clearance” have been spying and prying and sharing data on innocent people for years. But what do they do with all the data? I’m sure they behave like angels, as all bureaucrats and their little minions do.

In a related matter, I find it very difficult to believe that Rep. Adam Schiff and other Congresspeople and many in the mainstream media really believe that Putin and the Russian regime either hacked the DNC or voting machines and/or “colluded” with members of the Trump campaign to manipulate election outcomes. After ALL the subsequent information that has come out, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Meet the Press stating that the intelligence community had no evidence to prove “collusions,” but they concluded that anyway (based on their own political agenda, of course). And also FBI director James Comey and NSA director Mike Rogers stating they had no evidence to prove that election machines were tampered with to change the outcome of the election.

And the WikiLeaks releases that included documents revealing the CIA’s ability to hack computers and leave a “fingerprint” belonging to others (such as Russians, if it wanted to). Which may have been the way that DNC email hacking (if it was, in fact, hacked in the first place) showed a possible “Russian fingerprint.”

Do Schiff et al., and Scott Pelley and Todd Chuck et al. really not know about all those revelations, and thus continue to do stories of “Russia hacking the election” or “Russia colluding with the Trump campaign,” based on ignorance? Or are they knowingly promoting that false narrative, i.e. “fake news,” for the purpose of propaganda? (But hey, since when do network news people ever engage in propaganda?)

But there may be an ulterior motive in these Congresspeople & media colluders’ pushing their fake news agenda: Justin Raimondo notes that those pushing the “Russia influenced the election” false narrative may also try to go after “far-right” websites such as Breitbart and Infowars, in the same way that the McCarthy witch-hunters went after communists or communist-sympathizers.

Prof. (Philip) Howard’s research tells us that “misinformation” (i.e. opinions Howard doesn’t agree with) is being spread via “computational propaganda,” and that this is a Bad Thing since it creates “distrust among voters.” And it isn’t just Trump-bots the Professor is “concerned” about: in the run up to the Brexit referendum (and guess which side he was on!) he warned that Brexit-bots were spreading similar “misinformation.” Howard and other concern-trolls from academia moan that these automated bots could “sway” elections – but, then again, so could other “automated” means of persuasion, say, Internet ads that pop up on your computer, or, indeed, any other form of “computational propaganda” that utilizes advanced technology (television ads) to make the case for a candidate or cause. What these people are edging toward, but don’t dare say openly, is that they advocate censorship of opinions they don’t like.

…

Howard hails from Canada, where they don’t have a First Amendment, and where “hate speech” – another alleged “problem” with social media, according to the Professor – is illegal. Here in the United States, people like Howard, who want to regulate speech, have to hide their real agenda. Thus we have the Adam Schiffs of this world, and their media camarilla, pushing an “investigation” into pro-Trump web sites on the pretext that they’re part of a Vast Russian Conspiracy to take over America. If “hate speech” doesn’t work, then try invoking “national security” – that’s a sure bet.

But God forbid they should investigate the national security state. As Sen. Chuck Schumer stated, “if you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you” (i.e. giving you the JFK treatment, or the RFK treatment, or the MLK treatment, and others, etc., etc., etc.).

President Harry Truman, who was President when the CIA was created, stated that it “was a mistake. And if I’d know what was going to happen, I never would have done it.” And John F. Kennedy was right to want to “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

The CIA, NSA, and the NGA. (The what?) They “protect” us, don’t you know.

And the FBI. Since when would the FBI ever be a threat to its own fellow Americans? Actually, most terror plots that the FBI thwarts are plots that the FBI themselves concoct, plan and set up with the help of some mentally deficient patsy. The FBI’s motive is budgets (government budgets funded by tax dollars confiscated from those who are actually productive in life), and keeping fear alive to justify their existence.

As Pastor Chuck Baldwin would put it, What would Patrick Henry say today?

Is there a “Libertarian” Case for Making Universal Health Care “Work”?

As I suggested in my recent article on “conservatives” who support socialized medicine, not just Medicare and Medicaid but the ObamaCare 2.0. bill that thankfully was pulled even before a vote, ObamaCare should just be repealed. No “replacement” necessary.

In my my earlier article, I also wrote, “So not only would we be better off by repealing ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, the entire Social Security Act of 1935, but also all income taxes, and giving the IRS the heave-ho. That way, when government stops stealing from the people, families can once again afford to see a doctor or go to a hospital. More charities will spring up and more people will be financially able to donate to them. And a change in cultural attitude would result in sickness no longer being subsidized.”

And now, an article on America Thinker by Daniel John Sobieski also suggests to at least repeal ObamaCare, by passing the same bill that Congress already passed in 2015 that Barack Obama vetoed, and that rational people should hope that Donald Trump would sign. Let the medical-related businesses, doctors and consumers make their own adjustments.

In a related recent post, Tom Knapp responds to an article from the allegedly libertarian Niskanen Center, titled, “Universal healthcare access is coming. Stop fighting it and start figuring out how to make it work.” (Are you sure that’s not the “Nixonian Center”?) The Niskanen Center has involved an actual Libertarian Party activist, Ed Crane, and the famous “Koch Brothers” who have been referred to as “libertarians.” However, the Center seems to devote itself to causes involving global warming and a carbon tax, and attempted last year to make a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders, according to Wikipedia. In other words, this is not a libertarian think-tank.

But on the issue of health care and the Niskanen Center’s idea of making Universal Health Care “work,” Tom Knapp writes:

… On the moral/ideological end of things, the liberaltarian case is that we should support (or at least find ways to work with) single-payer healthcare and a basic income guarantee because they can make some things better for some people.

That’s true as far as it goes. But it’s also true for burglary. If burglary is legal, I can go around stealing and pawning people’s big-screen TVs and make good money, right? But stealing is wrong. And the only way the state can hand out free stuff — be it healthcare or monthly checks or whatever — to one person or group of people is to steal from, or enslave, some other person or group of people. Single payer healthcare and basic income guarantee schemes fail the most basic moral test per libertarianism.

As a practical matter, they also fail on two other metrics:

1. Suppose the scheme “works.” Congratulations. You did something immoral and got the result you wanted. But if your aim is to abolish, or at least minimize the size, scope and power of, the state, you just accomplished the opposite of your goal. Making the state’s schemes “work” perpetuates the state and its schemes. Accomplishing some side goal in a way that works against your real ultimate goal is not a win, it’s a loss.

2. These schemes can only work temporarily, and the longer the sugar high lasts the harder the comedown is going to be. Ask the Venezuelans how state socialism is working out for them. Making single payer health care or a basic income guarantee “work” for now means more harm to more people later. Better to let these schemes fall apart on their own than to help the state stretch them out until the inevitable correction looks like the Holodomor.

The Latest in Political Correctness News (And Politically Incorrect)

The brainwashed zombies on the college campuses who are burning the blaspheming witches at the stake (like at Middlebury College recently) seem to be coming from the upper middle and upper class, and from apparently self-segregated neighborhoods, according to this Brookings Institution article, “Illiberal arts colleges: Pay more, get less free speech.”

So the ones at those elite colleges engaging in extremely uncivilized behaviors at the recent “protests” are the ones whose rich families can afford to send them to the most expensive schools. Perhaps the intolerant censorship cultists would feel more at home in Pakistan, where the Islamabad High Holy Wacko has pronounced that all blasphemers on social media be considered “terrorists.” I am sure that the brainwashed snowflakes in the U.S. feel just as terrorized by “blasphemers” Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, and if the little college nazi-wannabes don’t like free speech they ought to give Pakistan a try.

But there may be hope. Harvard faculty members have signed a statement endorsing “freedom of expression.” Yay. And how many out of Harvard’s 2,400 faculty members have signed this brave statement? (Answer: 11 — ooooh. They really mean business.)

Meanwhile, Statebook Facebook still maintains its double standard, banning Christans and Bible passages in discussions of homosexuality while allowing assassination threats toward the U.S. President, and allowing statements such as calling for white women to be hunted and killed. Good ol’ Facebook.

And apparently there is the issue of black girls mysteriously missing in the Washington, D.C. area. The politically incorrect truth, according to this WND article, is that they are mostly runaways and they are running away from their abusive, single mothers. The girls are running away from abuse, and they don’t want to return. But we’re not allowed to tell the truth about that. (If we get rid of government welfare enabled by government theft of private wealth, and re-privatize charity, there will be fewer abusive single mothers, that’s for sure. But it would be politically incorrect of me to say that.)

Back to freedom of speech. Another example of how the college totalitarians view speech or expression as criminal but actual physical aggression as justified, is at Hampshire College, in which Hispanic students offended by some basketball players wearing braids (claiming “cultural appropriation”) attacked those players. Thankfully, the emotionally troubled violent attackers were charged with assault and battery.

Many times now, “social justice” warriors who physically attack and assault peaceful, innocent people, are not arrested and charged with assault. So we have stupid college professors (and primary and secondary school teachers) out there promoting this crap and teaching the kids that harmless speech (words or displays or images) is intolerable and criminal, while actually starting fights, initiating aggression and physically hurting others is tolerable and justified.

The kids are being literally brainwashed to believe that inflicting violence on peaceful, innocent people is permissible. It’s nuts.

In contrast to the PC garbage and SJW crapola that the government schools are feeding the kids, there are some kids who have escaped all that by being homeschooled, such as Patrice Lewis’s kids. Lewis gives a very good 4.0 report card on her kids’ post-high school college or career success.

One big influence on the impressionable snowflake youngsters, besides the teachers and professors, has been our political “leaders,” such as George W. Bush starting two wars of aggression, against Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that didn’t attack us, and weren’t threatening to do so. Bush and his apologists gave the message that “preemptive” war is permissible. And now Donald Trump is going along with those similar neocon-chickenhawk aggressions, or threats thereof. Trump is now as barbaric and savage as he promised he would be, according to Glenn Greenwald. (Trump hasn’t murdered as many innocents as were murdered during the World War II firebombing of Tokyo, but it looks as though he’s trying.)

But it’s politically incorrect for us to tell the truth about our government’s “national security” bureaucrats. To many of the same people who make fun of today’s political correctness and the SJWs, showing disloyalty to our rulers at a time of crisis is “unpatriotic,” i.e. politically incorrect. (But it’s politically incorrect for me to point that out, as well.)

As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger wrote in 2012, “The statist version of patriotism entails citizens who rally to their government in time of crisis… (In contrast), we say that genuine patriotism entails a critical analysis of government conduct, especially during crises, and a willingness to take a firm stand against the government if it is in the wrong.”

And boy, has our government been in the wrong, many times.

Bush’s justification for Afghanistan was that the Taliban wouldn’t hand over Osama bin Laden, despite that Bush had no evidence of bin Laden involvement in 9/11, evidence which the Taliban insisted be shown for extradition. And Bush’s justification for Iraq was his made-up WMD story and the alleged connection between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But even worse, prior to 9/11 Bush’s father George H.W. Bush started his war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, intentionally bombing civilian water and sewage treatment centers and imposing sanctions to prevent the Iraqi civilian population from rebuilding, which caused them to have to use untreated water, and which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Actual violence is only justified in cases of actual self defense. So Bush the Elder should not have invaded and bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1991, and the same goes for Bush the Younger in 2003, and Afghanistan in 2001. (Look what we have now because of all that.)

Extreme nationalists and “conservatives” still defend these immoral and murderous actions of initiated violence against innocents.

Many of them actually believe that most of the recent terrorist attacks have been by Muslims, but that is not the case. Because most of the Press mainly regurgitate everything the gubmint tells them without researching and investigating, they have been overreporting on the Muslim-instigated attacks, and underreporting on the non-Muslim-instigated attacks. I have heard many of the hysterical conservatives on the radio, and their loyal dittoheads, hysterically say things like, “The Muslims hate us and they want to kill us!” etc., etc., etc. Well, that may well be. You’d probably want to kill people whose government has been bombing your lands and murdering your family members or your countrymen for 25 years, no? Thanks to George H.W. Bush for poking the hornets’ nests of such a primitive and barbaric culture to begin with. (But it’s politically incorrect for me to point these things out because the truth doesn’t follow the government propaganda narrative that most of the sheeple believe.)

It’s Not About “Health Care,” It’s About Control

As I have written in two different articles now, ObamaCare should have been repealed in its entirety, and not replaced. However, the recently defeated Paul Ryan-Trump-ObamaCare 2.0 bill wasn’t even necessary because of Trump’s earlier executive order to not enforce some important parts of ObamaCare, as pointed out by Robert Wenzel.

But among many problems with it, that new Paul Ryan bill would have retained the original ObamaCare gun control provision, according to Gun Owners of America. Besides all the other awful aspects of TrumpRyanCare, the original gun provision apparently allowed the ATF and any other law enforcement agencies to go through citizens’ medical records (with medical records including not just physicians records but psychiatrists and other counseling records as well), for whatever purposes they could concoct or rationalize.

In January 2013, after his reelection and after the December 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting, Barack Obama imposed a list of executive orders regarding guns, as part of his and the control-obsessed gubmint-worshipers’ disarmament agenda. On the list was this order #16: “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

As I had been saying for many years now, the more involvement the government has in the people’s private medical matters, and the more access via your medical providers that government bureaucrats have into your private life, the less safe, secure (and, I would argue, the less healthy), you will be. That is because as doctors become reporters to bureaucrats on their patients’ private matters, and the doctors become more dependent on the government for their reimbursements (in order just to make a living), the more those doctors will become bureaucrats themselves.

And that’s the bottom line for me. “Dr. Bureaucrat” and so on.

The innocent commoners of the old Soviet Union (as opposed to the new Soviet Union, USSA) suffered a great deal at the hands of their government doctors. Of course, when doctors are essentially de facto employees of the government, we will have a much lower quality group of doctors. And of course those government doctors will have no problem reporting on their patients for whatever trivial reason, involving gun ownership, or involving any controversial group memberships, philosophical or political ideologies, or whatever. (A good reason to never tell your doctor anything too personal or something about you that could be controversial.)

Such an atmosphere of distrust is not good for anyone’s health. Supposedly the ObamaCare crowd are concerned about our “health.” Or are they?

No, not really. When social activists very enthusiastically want the gubmint to take control over the health care system and your medical matters, it is not “for your own good,” as some people suggest.

Rather, it is all about control. It is easier for those extremely covetous people to control you when they have access into and legal, compulsory control over your private life. One’s medical matters are a very personal and important part of one’s private life, that’s for sure.

And many in the GOP (Grand Old Progressives) are a part of that government-intrusion crowd who loves control over the lives of the masses, over the lives of their neighbors. So time and again we are reminded that Repugnicons can never be trusted, and this has been another one of those times. Will the “conservatives” ever learn? If we went back in time to 2012, would the conservatives out there have reconsidered Ron Paul?

Why Do Conservatives Support Socialized Medicine?

Here is my latest article on American Thinker, Why Do Conservatives Support Socialized Medicine?

March 24, 2017

This week on the radio Sean Hannity was talking about the “importance of free markets,” at the same time mentioning that Donald Trump would have to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies” and other interests. This was in regard to the Republicans in Congress working out their repeal of ObamaCare and imposing their own intrusions into medical care.

But the truth is, when you have a particular scheme being imposed on the people by Congress and the president, with various arrangements designed by Congressional central planners, and with a U.S. president having to “negotiate with pharmaceutical companies,” that is not an example of “free markets.”

The supposedly conservative Hugh Hewitt on his radio show continues to support the government maintaining its power to force private insurers to have to provide policies to people with “preexisting conditions” and policies in which they must allow “children” up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

This is “free market”? This is “conservative”?

Sorry, those views are not free-market views, nor are they “conservative.” Apart from having some adherence to fiscal conservatism and private property rights, conservative used to mean the advocating of personal responsibility.

But just how is forcing insurers to include the adult children (age 18-26) of their consumers in their consumers’ insurance policies “responsible”? Whatever happened to property rights? What if an insurer doesn’t want to provide such policies?

And what if an insurer doesn’t want to take the extra risks involved in providing policies to someone with preexisting conditions?

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute commented on how the preexisting conditions requirement for insurers is the more hazardous centerpiece of ObamaCare, not the individual mandate:

If the sickest patients can hop from plan to plan knowing that insurers could charge them no more than anyone else, then each year many will choose whichever plan offers the most attractive coverage for their ailments. Whichever insurer provided the most attractive coverage to the sick would end up with lots of enrollees who pay far less in premiums than they generate in claims. That’s not sustainable. To keep from going out of business, insurers would start competing to not offer the best coverage to the sick. Year after year, sick people would find their coverage getting progressively worse, not better. Just like under ObamaCare.

Given how negative consequences seem to occur when bureaucrats dictate to private businesses, when we’re dealing with health care those unintended consequences will obviously have more serious, perhaps deadly results.

Another jaw-dropper occurred on Sunday on Bloomberg Radio’s rebroadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” who was interviewing the allegedly conservative Christopher Ruddy, publisher of the allegedly conservative Newsmax.

Stephanopoulos asked about something Ruddy had written that week. Ruddy wrote: “Donald Trump staked out a high moral ground by calling for a feasible system of universal health care to replace ObamaCare. He shouldn’t retreat from that no matter how much the establishment GOP dislikes it.”

Huh? “Universal health care?” Ruddy states that he shares Donald Trump’s vision (blurred as it is) that all Americans should have access to health care. But all Americans already had access to health care prior to ObamaCare. I think what he’s saying is that the government should be empowered to make that happen.

Prior to ObamaCare, did the people have as much access to affordable health care?

Actually, more Americans had access to affordable health care prior to Medicare and Medicaid than after, it seems to me. In his book Making Economic Sense, economist Murray Rothbard noted that government interventions in medical care, including government-mandated licensure, has resulted in raised prices.

Prior to Medicare and Medicaid, a much larger proportion of doctors and hospitals were financially able to treat patients for free. LBJ’s “Great Society,” which expanded under Republican President Richard Nixon, made such philanthropy by doctors difficult.

And the suggestions offered by Christopher Ruddy include a lot of Medicaid deck-chair rearranging, as with other socialist Republicans, who don’t understand that more Americans were better off with medical care prior to these illicit intrusions of the government.

These Republicans and conservatives in Congress seem to be addicted to central planning. They seem obsessed with maintaining government controls and government operations of various medical and insurance schemes, despite their resulting distortions and dysfunctions.

Well, Congress can pass the RyanCare revision of ObamaCare and Trump can sign it into law. And history can tell us what will probably happen: employers dropping workers’ health care, Americans losing insurance plans, more bureaucrats confused about what should be enforced and what’s been repealed, more doctors’ offices and hospitals going bananas by government diktat.

The government changes the rules of the game and makes the people have to change their lives around the bureaucrats’ changes, and it’s frustrating!

Yes, socialism is frustrating.

But this is the road to total government control of the people’s private medical matters. Not good.

The socialized medicine that conservatives support has been an easily predictable failure, and more of it will be a nightmare, whether it’s Medicare or Medicaid expansion, ObamaCare, RyanCare, TrumpCare, and all the rest.

We really need to dump socialized medicine into the dustbin of history, once and for all.

Allowing for free markets in health care means letting doctors, insurers, medical patients, consumers enter into whatever contracts or relationships or associations they want among themselves, as long as there is no fraud or theft.

Leave government bureaucrats and their enforcers out of the picture entirely.

If people are concerned that low-income Americans can’t obtain treatment for their illnesses, when there’s freedom (like there used to be), they will be treated by doctors and hospitals that will once again be able to afford to treat them, because the bureaucracy, the mandates and requirements, the regulations, and the tax-thefts will be gone.

And when there’s freedom consumers will be the ones who will be in control — as the medical providers and insurers compete for those health care consumers. In such an environment, prices come down.

Sadly, conservatives who say they are against socialism, redistribution-of-wealth schemes, and central planning seem to be suffering from great cognitive dissonance in their continued support of socialism and central planning in health care.

At the very least, just repeal ObamaCare, root and branch, and don’t replace it. Let doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumers make their own adjustments. Bureaucrats, stay away!

The Latest Inside Scoop

Early this morning Roger Stone was on with George Noory. Stone said that Max Boot and the neocons were “drooling for war,” which seems accurate as far as I can tell. The neocons are nuts, in my view.

Stone also said that his sources (I think he said sources located in New York) say that Bill Clinton is “gravely ill” and will probably pass away some time this year. (However, we heard that about Hillary, given her coughing fits and her fainting spells last year, that the end was near, but now she may actually run for mayor of New York City. Go figure.)

I don’t know if they discussed yesterday’s terrorist attack in London, because I didn’t hear the whole interview. So I don’t know if either of them speculated on what psychiatric drugs the attacker might have been on. Quite a few of the terrorist attackers and mass murderers in recent years were found to have been taking psychiatric drugs, such as Xanax, Zoloft, and Luvox.

And today, Robert Wenzel published a statement from Roger Stone on the Russia stuff. It’s remarkable that those politicians on that committee this week, interrogating James Comey and Mike Rogers, asked questions as though they actually still believe that “Russians hacked the 2016 election.” Especially Adam Schiff. Is he really that dumb? Justin Raimondo calls Schiff a “grifter, racketeer, warmonger.” And some of their groupies in the media — are they really that dumb? Or are they knowingly continuing that false narrative for the sake of propaganda? They are shameful.

And by the way, now we hear that there really is evidence that Donald Trump and others were under “systemic illegal surveillance” over two years ago, according to Zero Hedge.

Anyway, prior to Roger Stone’s appearance with Noory, Mish Shedlock was on. I only heard the end of the conversation, but Mish said that he was born in Danville, Illinois, which is where Rob Petrie was from. I think that if those congressional hearings with Adam Schiff and Sen. Stuart Smalley were a regular TV show, it would have to be classified as a sitcom. They’re very kooky people, in my view.

Concern for Americans’ Privacy and Liberty Over 40 Years Ago

In 1975, Sen. Frank Church held committee hearings on the possibility of U.S. government intelligence community’s intrusions and spying on the American people. Here he appeared on Meet the Press, asked by Ford Rowan whether CIA, military intelligence (sic), etc. could threaten the liberty of Americans.

The Rise of Totalitarian Criminality in the USSA

In a post directed toward libertarians who support federal government immigration controls, Jacob Hornberger describes how the government harasses innocent Americans returning from across the border or overseas. He points out the case of two Americans returning from Canada, in which “U.S. border officials took possession of their cell phones and demanded that they disclose their passwords so that the officials could peruse, study, search through, or copy the contents of the phones.  They complied.”

And the same two people returned from Canada a second time, and the border goons wanted to search their phones again but when one of the illegal search-victims said he didn’t want to go through that a second time, the non-complying citizen was grabbed by the legs and then put into a chokehold by a second government goon thug.

The article that Hornberger linked to on NBC News, also stated:

In 25 cases examined by NBC News, American citizens said that CBP officers at airports and border crossings demanded that they hand over their phones and their passwords, or unlock them.

The travelers came from across the nation, and were both naturalized citizens and people born and raised on American soil. They traveled by plane and by car at different times through different states. Businessmen, couples, senior citizens, and families with young kids, questioned, searched, and detained for hours when they tried to enter or leave the U.S. None were on terror watchlists. One had a speeding ticket. Some were asked about their religion and their ethnic origins, and had the validity of their U.S. citizenship questioned.

The article mentions that cellphone searches by U.S. federal gestapo agents grew “from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016.” (Hmm, did NBC News do any stories on this at that time, which was during the Obama administration? Just askin’.)

Very important to this story is that probably most of those searches were of people who were Muslim, not of people who were actually suspected of wrongdoing. The article quotes a former DHS chief “privacy officer” (sic!) as stating that “The Fourth Amendment, even for U.S. citizens, doesn’t apply at the border.”

Huh? Like many people in government, this bureaucrat probably didn’t even read the very document she cites.

Unless Ms. Bureaucrat was referring to a different “Fourth Amendment,” the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, I don’t see any exceptions there, such as “except at the border,” or “except in terrorism cases,” or “except when gestapo goons want to invade and molest innocent people.” But government people (and their stenographers in the media) tend to make stuff up, as we already know.

Given the information in the NBC News article it appears that it’s mainly Muslims who are being targeted. So because of a few isolated incidents in the past 2 or 3 years, the post-9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria that began over 15 years ago is escalating now. (And Dennis Prager constantly claims that “the left” are hysterical!)

And with Donald Trump being just as authoritarian and ignorant as many of those on the left, expect border searches, TSA molesting, and other DHS and police threats and criminality to increase, and not just targeting Muslims. And the gestapo and stasi goons won’t be just at the U.S. borders and airports but at state borders (as Hornberger mentions the goons are already doing that), and in the neighborhoods, and at our door and in our homes, without warrants, and without any reason to suspect someone of criminal behavior.

And with the drooling love that Trump and his fascist attorney general Jeff Sessions have for police asset forfeiture, expect the searches (phone and physical searches, of persons, cars, homes, etc.) to result in police and fed-goons grabbing a lot of loot (besides what the local, state and federal governments are stealing from the people already by way of “taxation,” of course).

I hope I’m wrong, though.

GCHQ, NSA and Others Share Your Data Routinely, and for Years

Regarding Donald Trump’s claims, based on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s statements, that Obama bypassed U.S. wiretapping laws by getting the British GCHQ (the British version of NSA) to do the spying, Glenn Greenwald recently linked to this article from the U.K. Guardian from nearly 4 years ago that explains how the GCHQ gets the data:

GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world’s communications

Britain’s spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency (NSA).

The sheer scale of the agency’s ambition is reflected in the titles of its two principal components: Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation, aimed at scooping up as much online and telephone traffic as possible. This is all being carried out without any form of public acknowledgement or debate.

One key innovation has been GCHQ’s ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months.

GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects.

This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user’s access to websites – all of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to limit interception to a specified range of targets.

The existence of the programme has been disclosed in documents shown to the Guardian by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as part of his attempt to expose what he has called “the largest programme of suspicionless surveillance in human history”.

…

The Guardian understands that a total of 850,000 NSA employees and US private contractors with top secret clearance had access to GCHQ databases. [emphasis added]

Here is a list of all the private contractors, as reported by the Washington Post. So, thousands of those people have “clearance” and can access all your data, everyone’s data, including Trump.

Another article on WaPo, discussing the case of a Navy yard shooting, begins:

Among the countless unanswered questions surrounding yesterday’s Navy Yard rampage, one gets repeated over and over: How did 34-year-old alleged shooter Aaron Alexis, a man with a history of arrests and gun infractions, get the security clearance needed to enter a military facility?

The exact answer to that question is still emerging as investigators piece together Alexis’s history. But simply put, security clearances are not quite so secure — nor quite as elusive — as some outside the Beltway might assume.

More than 4.9 million federal government workers and contractors held security clearances in 2012. That number includes not only employees of government agencies like the Department of Defense and the Department of State, but also thousands of people who work for contractors on everything from IT to packing crates.

…

Yikes!

The WaPo had done a series, titled “Top Secret America.” In Part 1, we learned that the national security apparatus is actually too big, and too vast. It really has been “like trying to find a needle in a haystack.” In Part 1 of the Post‘s series, we learned:

*Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

*An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

*In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

*Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

*Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

Read Part 2: “National Security, Inc.”, Part 3: “The Secrets Next Door”, and Part 4: Monitoring America.

And that was 7 years ago! I’ll bet that those numbers have grown even more since then. (“Security”? Doh!) So I don’t think that Obama even needed the British GCHQ if he wanted to get personal data from warrantless monitoring on Donald Trump. With XKeyscore, he could get information from databases, which are routinely accessed without a warrant.

That WaPo series, by the way, was an extensive series from 2010 on the national security state that I don’t think the Post would do now, given that nowadays they seem to be concentrating on their fake news propaganda campaign to smear those who criticize the regime.

Is the Stupid Party the “Party of White Nationalism”?

Boston Globe op-ed writer Michael Cohen says that the GOP has become the “party of white nationalism.”

Well … no, but it is the “Stupid Party.”

First, there are many, many Republicans who are not white nationalists or racists in general. Many liberal Republicans who ARE life-long Republicans, such as Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and former Gov. Bill Weld are not only not racists or “white nationalists,” but they are in fact SJWs who believe in one “civil rights” law after another, affirmative action and all the rest.

There are many Republicans nationwide who publicly denounced and distanced themselves from Donald Trump’s outrageous statements during the 2016 campaign, and withdrew or withheld support from him. While I don’t believe that Trump is a “white nationalist,” or a racist, he is a nationalist. But I can see how a lot of people could misperceive some of his statements against Mexicans and Muslims as racist. One of his many problems is that he is ignorant, and he speaks before he thinks, if he ever thinks at all.

And another problem is that Trump is a collectivist. The truth is, each one of us is an individual, separate from every other individual. We are not our brother’s keeper. One individual is not responsible for the wrongdoing of another.

And innocent individuals have a right to travel to find a better place to make a living for themselves and their families, and a right to be left alone and that one’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness not be obstructed by others, as long as one doesn’t violate the person or property of another, or isn’t legitimately suspected of doing so.

But while the Republican Party is not particularly the party of white nationalism, they are the “Stupid Party,” as I noted above.

The Republican Party is the party of idiocy and statism.

The Republican Party is the party of socialism. They gave us Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program. They gave us SCHIP. And now, they want to give us “ObamaCare Lite,” a bill that Trump is promoting enthusiastically. It is socialism, through and through.

And the Republican Party is the Party of war and death. President George H.W. Bush started a brand new war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, Iraq being a country that was of no threat to us and hadn’t attacked us. Elder Bush imposed sanctions and no-fly zones to deliberately withhold the means of rebuilding the civilian water and sewage treatment centers that the U.S. military bombed and destroyed, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, mainly children. While President Clinton continued the sanctions, no-fly zones and bombing throughout the 1990s, Bush did start the whole thing. And all this led to 9/11/01. And then Bush’s son, George W. Bush responded to 9/11 not by ending the sanctions and bombings and misery and death that his father started in Iraq 10 years prior, but by starting a whole new war on Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, as well as a new war on Afghanistan, a country that hadn’t attacked us and didn’t threaten us. (This 2004 article by James Bovard is informative. Read more about Iraq from these FFF articles.)

And look at Iraq now (and Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, and others). Would all this, including 9/11, have happened if George H.W. Bush hadn’t started a war on Iraq in 1991 followed by the deadly sanctions? I say no.

The Republican Party. Maybe not the “party of white nationalism,” but definitely the party of war and death, the party of socialism, and the party of idiocy.

The “Stupid Party.” If you want more information, you can read many of Laurence Vance’s articles on FFF and articles and blog posts on LRC.

So, I don’t think that the Republican Party is the party of “white nationalism,” or racism.

However, the Democrat Party is the party traditionally of anti-black racism, Jim Crow, pro-slavery, and the KKK. Perhaps Boston Globe op-ed writer Michael Cohen might consider looking into that.

More Informative Than MSM (And Today’s Average University Lecture)

Occasionally I post links to some of the latest enlightening articles I have come across. Here are some recent ones.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks, Did Obama spy on Trump? He explains how Obama could have gotten around the NSA (and thus circumvent the law) and gotten into its database via the British equivalent of the NSA, the GCHQ, and says that “Sources have told Fox News” that Obama in fact did do that. “So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.” Here is a video of the Judge explaining on Fox News.

Ron Paul’s USA Today column that whistleblowers are heroic and patriotic.

Jeff Deist says that President Harry Truman was right about the CIA. (So was JFK.)

Jacob Hornberger discusses Bionic Mosquito’s immigration strawman. (or anti-immigration strawman)

Wendy McElroy on Adam Smith’s moral path through quagmire.

Here is a another classic article by Wendy McElroy regarding individualism, I the Person versus We the People.

Jim Davies has an interesting article on guns, to arm, or not to arm? I don’t agree with every specific point, but I do agree with most of it.

And Laurence Vance has written a new book on gun control and the 2nd Amendment. On the Amazon page summary, it states:

These nine essays appeared in a variety of places online during the period from July 2010 to March 2017. Throughout these essays, there are ten things relating to gun control and the Second Amendment that resonate: 1. Criminals aren’t deterred by gun-control laws. 2. The Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions didn’t institute gun freedom. 3. The Second Amendment has no exceptions. 4. The Second Amendment is irrelevant. 5. The right to keep and bear arms is a private property issue. 6. The Constitution authorizes no federal gun laws whatsoever. 7. The ATF shouldn’t exist. 8. The Second Amendment hasn’t prevented a single gun-control law from being passed. 9. Most Republicans are enemies of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. 10. The answer is gun freedom.

And here is Laurence Vance’s recent article, asking, Does the Second Amendment even exist? He also has this thorough essay on “Republicare,” the Republicons’ attempts in Congress to “replace” (i.e. replicate) ObamaCare. And another recent article on misconceptions about discrimination.

Sheldon Richman says that Donald Trump assumes command of the American church.

Adam Dick says that Trump will increase spending, not just in military.

Gary Galles discusses Herbert Spencer’s belief that protectionism is aggressionism.

Justin Raimondo asks, Do we live in a police state?

John Whitehead answers Justin Raimondo’s question.

Carey Wedler with an article on U.S. government drone strikes going up 432% since Killer Trump took office.

Robert Wenzel discusses why Muslim foreigners don’t like the U.S. (See above.)

McClatchy’s with an article on the FBI threat.

James Bovard on his blowup at the enviro checkpoint.

Richard Ebeling on socialism’s century of death and destruction.

William Anderson says that the goal of socialists is socialism, not prosperity.

And Brandon Smith on how to counter leftist violence while maintaining the moral high ground.

Our Choice: Government Medical Care vs. Freedom

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Our Choice: Government Medical Care vs. Freedom:

March 15, 2017

It should be of no surprise that establishment Republicans in Congress are rearranging the deck chairs from ObamaCare to “ObamaCare Lite,” in their saving the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from being fully repealed.

But conservative opponents, such as Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who want ObamaCare fully repealed, are still not going far enough.

The problem is that other government entitlement schemes are interconnected with ObamaCare, and avoiding the “pain” of change would require repealing the other schemes. After all, the reason why medical care has gotten so expensive is because of government interventions, which distort decision-making by medical care providers, drug makers and patients, and drives up the prices, as Hunter Lewis writes at the Mises Institute.

Lewis acknowledges that there will be difficulties after ACA is repealed. Some people may lose their health care plans inflicted by ObamaCare.

However, when ObamaCare became law many people lost their insurance plans and doctors, despite President Obama’s promises to the contrary. Many employers changed full-time jobs to part-time, and many doctors retired early because of the demands of ObamaCare.

As Rand Paul stated in a recent interview with Sean Hannity, rather than expanding subsidies or Medicaid he wants to “expand the economy.”

Expanding the economy requires the shrinkage of government controls. Bureaucratic intrusions cause economic distortions, and taxes take away from workers and producers what they otherwise would be spending or investing in the economy or on health care. Shrinking governmental controls and wealth confiscations thus effect in expanding the economy.

Prior to the past century of bureaucracy enforced at gunpoint, Americans were easily able to see a doctor or go to the hospital if they needed to. If they couldn’t afford it then most doctors and hospitals were able to treat those people for free. But because of Medicare and Medicaid, taxes and fees, many of today’s doctors have difficulty doing that, or perhaps don’t even consider it because Medicare and Medicaid have been an assumed part of everyday life for 50 years now.

Some other non-economic problems caused by government interventions also include an over-reliance on prescription drugs, and doctors ignoring the importance of nutrition to stay healthy to avoid illnesses in the first place.

The only way that full repeal of ObamaCare (and not replacing it with a “Ryan Plan,” or anything else) can in the long run be made easier is further repealing of all the other economic and social distortions that government bureaucracies have inflicted into the lives of the people. Those include programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the taxes and other forms of wealth confiscations by government to fund those schemes.

Besides repealing and dismantling all those bureaucracies and the taxes which fund them, also fully eliminate the compulsory demands by government for personal and financial information about one’s employment and salary status, one’s businesses, and especially one’s medical matters. If those matters are private and none of your neighbors’ business, then they are none of the government‘s business as well.

I know, a lot of people think that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are here to stay and that’s the way it is. In a nutshell, what the government does to administer those programs is to tax the younger, less wealthy workers to redistribute their earnings to mainly more wealthy older people, as Walter Williams pointed out.

The truth is, Social Security (and the related program, Medicare) is not an “account,” into which you voluntarily put some of your earnings, to be received later in life. The money is taken from your earnings by the government without your consent. And the source of the payments that current Social Security recipients receive is not from any “account,” but from those currently employed, from their paychecks. Social Security and Medicare are mainly redistribution of wealth schemes. As Walter Williams noted, Americans have been “duped by Congressional lies” into thinking otherwise, for decades now.

In more recent decades, people are understandably reluctant to even consider the real alternative to the dysfunctional and bankrupted statist quo of government-controlled medical care, insurance and retirement schemes.

The better alternative is freedom. It is not a “Ryan Plan,” a “Rand Paul Plan,” or any government bureaucrat’s plan. It is your plan. Your choice and your control, and on a free and open market of voluntary exchange with services and providers, without the supervision, permission, or control of anyone in government.

With freedom, voluntary contracts between doctors and patients, between hospitals and patients, doctors and hospitals, insurers and patients, and so on, are not intruded upon by bureaucrats or any other third parties. The government doesn’t demand money from workers, from doctors, from medical device makers, insurers. In a truly free society, such acts of plunder would be considered just that: theft and plunder.

But economically, when voluntary association and private property rights are restored in all aspects of the freed society, in medicine the bureaucrats’ price distortions would cease, and prices of medical care would drop dramatically. There is evidence for that. When bureaucracy and central planning intrusions end, prices come down. And in medical care, ending the bureaucracy also ends the government “death panels” and other tyrannies. And I really believe that with freedom, medical and hospital errors will no longer be the third leading cause of death in America.

So not only would we be better off by repealing ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, the entire Social Security Act of 1935, but also all income taxes, and giving the IRS the heave-ho. That way, when government stops stealing from the people, families can once again afford to see a doctor or go to a hospital. More charities will spring up and more people will be financially able to donate to them. And a change in cultural attitude would result in sickness no longer being subsidized.

After the people are freed, with income taxes and other thefts and intrusions gone, the bureaucracy in Washington will be forced to let go of its little fiefdoms, the compulsive warmongering will have to end, and some of the corporate military-security-complex such as Raytheon and Boeing will have to stick with producing products that are beneficial to humanity, not deadly.

The only issue for me is how to get there from here. The central planning-obsessed apparatchiks in Washington don’t want to leave the people alone in medical matters, and are afraid of alienating voters and losing elections. I get that. Selfishness and narcissism rule in Washington, I know.

Some people suggest gradual phasing out of subsidies and government controls over medical care and the phasing in of freedom, as the aforementioned Mises writer Hunter Lewis pointed out.

But, as economist Murray Rothbard suggested, it may be necessary that bureaucrats “be confined to setting their subjects free, as fast and as completely as it takes to unlock their shackles. After that, the proper role of government and its advisers is to get and keep out of the subjects’ way.” Rothbard explained that

Holding back, freeing only a few areas at a time, will only impose continuous distortions that will cripple the workings of the market and discredit it in the eyes of an already fearful and suspicious public. But there is also another vital point: the fact that you cannot plan markets applies also to planning for phasing them in. Much as they might delude themselves otherwise, governments and their economic advisers are not in a position of wise Olympians above the economic arena, carefully planning to install the market step by measured step, deciding what to do first, what second, etc. Economists and bureaucrats are no better at planning phase-ins than they are at dictating any other aspect of the market.

To conclude, the way to fix the health care problem is the same way that will fix problems in education and everything else: liberating the people.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2016

Greenwald: Rand Paul Right about Feds’ Warrantless Surveillance

Glenn Greenwald writes extensively about Rand Paul’s recent comment on CBS’s Face the Nation that the NSA routinely spies on Americans’ communications.

Despite the Corrupt National Security State and Media Propaganda, the Truth Is Nevertheless Revealed

While the feds have been denying Donald Trump’s allegations that they were wiretapping his calls at Trump Tower during the campaign, the New York Times had inadvertently admitted to such wiretapping, as pointed out in this Zero Hedge article.

But the truth is, as Edward Snowden revealed in 2013, the national security state collects and stores data on all Americans, suspect or not. All someone with access would have to do, if wanting to (criminally) target some specific individual, is to search through the stored data and get the info, as Justin Raimondo recently detailed in this article.

Here is a very important interview by Judy Woodruff of NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Russell Tice for further details.

Zero Hedge, a very useful source of information on a variety of important issues, details the recent WikiLeaks release of CIA techniques for creating and causing vulnerabilities in Americans’ security.

The CIA is supposedly assigned to spy on foreign governments to gather information during conflicts between the U.S. and other countries. But what it has really been is an agency of manipulation to effect regime change in other countries, such as Iran and in the CIA’s support of the post-coup Iranian dictatorship.

The latest WikiLeaks release relates to the recent accusations of Donald Trump colluding with Russians, and to Donald Trump accusing the Obama Administration of wiretapping him at Trump Tower.

To get a good idea of how members or former members of the national security state spin things, Legal Insurrection has a good breakdown of the recent Chuck Todd interview of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who admits in the recent interview that the intelligence agencies, which supposedly issued a report concluding that there was collusion between Trump people and the Russians, had no actual evidence to prove it.

Clapper stated: “We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.”

And Legal Insurrection points out that Chuck Todd nevertheless continues with the news media’s propaganda that there was Russian interference in the election, which there wasn’t. Clapper also participated in the propaganda in that interview. One lesson here is: Don’t believe government bureaucrats (or their media sycophants as well).

After we have learned that the NSA and FBI spy on their own fellow Americans who are not suspects, and use the information they gather for non-security-related, criminal purposes, we can also add the CIA to the list of agencies, as I noted above.

In the recent WikiLeaks release of CIA documents, Zero Hedge describes CIA’s ability to hack computers (such as the DNC, if it wanted to) and blame others for the hacking (such as the Russians, if they wanted to do that).

As Wikileaks notes, the UMBRAGE group and its related projects allow the CIA to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks by “leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the very groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.”

In other words, the CIA’s sophisticated hacking tools all have a “signature” marking them as originating from the agency. In order to avoid arousing suspicion as to the true extent of its covert cyber operations, the CIA has employed UMBRAGE’s techniques in order to create signatures that allow multiple attacks to be attributed to various entities – instead of the real point of origin at the CIA – while also increasing its total number of attack types.

Other parts of the release similarly focus on avoiding the attribution of cyberattacks or malware infestations to the CIA during forensic reviews of such attacks. In a document titled “Development Tradecraft DOs and DON’Ts,” hackers and code writers are warned “DO NOT leave data in a binary file that demonstrates CIA, U.S. [government] or its witting partner companies’ involvement in the creation or use of the binary/tool.” It then states that “attribution of binary/tool/etc. by an adversary can cause irreversible impacts to past, present and future U.S. [government] operations and equities.”

While a major motivating factor in the CIA’s use of UMBRAGE is to cover it tracks, events over the past few months suggest that UMBRAGE may have been used for other, more nefarious purposes. After the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election shocked many within the U.S. political establishment and corporate-owned media, the CIA emerged claiming that Russia mounted a “covert intelligence operation” to help Donald Trump edge out his rival Hillary Clinton.

So in other words, the reason why officials have been accusing Russia of hacking the DNC emails is that an exploit was used by someone, perhaps a DNC insider or someone from the NSA itself, to leave a “Russian fingerprint.”

Frankly, I think that the Hillary campaign and/or State Department flunkies and the biased news media have been propagandizing this anti-Russia stuff to take attention away from the “Islamic terrorism” threat. It’s probably a part of their agenda obsessed with race and ethnicity. But the “Islamic terrorism” threat has been caused by the U.S. government’s own provocations of those less developed societies, including the aforementioned Iran and especially Iraq since the early 1990s, like poking hornets’ nests. (Given that then-President George H.W. Bush, who started the first war against Iraq in 1991 for no good reason, was a CIA guy, my own conclusion is that the real reason he did that was to start a whole new war to replace the Cold War that ended when Soviet Union collapsed. But I digress.)

Related to all that, Edward Snowden tweets showing some of the evidence that another revelation from that recent WikiLeaks release was that the U.S. government (NSA etc.), in its criminal spying on fellow Americans, has been intentionally purchasing software exploits to keep commercial products like iOS vulnerable to hacking. (Hey, Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved: Who are the real “traitors” here? Hmmm?)

WikiLeaks also exposed the CIA’s intent to hack the software of “vehicle systems.” The Daily Caller notes that WikiLeaks stated, “the purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.”

In 2013 I wrote about the very suspicious car crash of Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings, in which some experts such as former U.S. government counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke believed that such a crash could very well have been caused by its being hacked. Clarke stated that it’s “easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag … You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”

There were reasons why the national insecurity state would want Hastings killed. He wrote about Gen. Stanley McChrystal, “The Runaway General,” and “Another Runaway General [William Caldwell]: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators.” Psy-Ops are used by military mainly on the enemy. But these zealots were using such techniques on U.S. Senators! Not good. That’s treasonous, in my view.

At the time, Glenn Greenwald highlighted the government/military’s media sycophants, such as John Burns of the New York Times, Lara Logan of CBS News, Norah O’Donnell then of MSNBC, and Julian Barnes of the War Street Journal, who expressed their outrage that Hastings would write such articles about our beloved Regime in Washington.

They and the sheeple on talk radio are defenders of the military/CIA/NSA/FBI national insecurity state in Washington. To them, those who expose the outright criminality of the Regime are “traitors.” Talk about clueless.

And now the TSA is announcing to local law enforcement ahead of time to ignore complaints of “gate-rape” and other perverted criminal acts by TSA’s even more criminally invasive future body searches. And there’s no good reason for all this. We know that when tested, 95% of the “mock explosives or banned weapons” that were taken to airports got through TSA, so there’s no point to the TSA’s existence. Its’ all “security theater.” It’s all criminal.

If you want to prevent terrorist acts from being committed in America, then tell our damn government bureaucrats and military to stop provoking those foreigners overseas, stop invading and occupying their countries, stop bombing them and murdering their people, that our government has been doing for decades and decades, since well before 9/11.

As I noted recently, the CIA/NSA/FBI/TSA/ETC national insecurity state needs to go. They are not “keeping us safe.” It is the opposite. And now, more and more people are understanding that.

Anti-Social Rudeness and Violent Thuggery from the College Snowflakes

(This post later edited to remove a YouTube video that was taken down. Sorry.)

George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley has a very good analysis and commentary on the recent shout-down and censorship of Charles Murray by ignorant, intolerant, totalitarian-minded, violent students and outsider provocateur-agitators at Middlebury College in Vermont.

Now, I don’t like Charles Murray because, while supposedly having been labeled a “libertarian,” he is a statist. And I don’t mean a reasonable “minimal statist” or “minarchist” (such as Jacob Hornberger or Ron Paul), but an authoritarian statist. For example, he advocates the thoroughly incoherent and indefensible “Universal Basic Income” (Provided by whom? How would it be enforced?), and he advises young people to join the military. Sorry, that there ain’t no “libertarian“!

But because he has written some controversial books, including The Bell Curve which touches on the no-no topics of race and intelligence, the college campus Thought Police have to become hysterical, and violent, like they are trained and hypnotized Pavlov’s dogs or something.

In the latest violent disruption, Middlebury College professor Allison Stanger, a political science professor with degrees in Actuarial Science, Math, Political Science, and Soviet Union Regional Studies, was accompanying Charles Murray on his speaking engagement there, when they were shouted at and chairs were pounded and banged, and she was literally assaulted by a thug and had to be taken to the hospital. Murray couldn’t give his speech, and the “students” also disrupted his discussion with Prof. Stanger in a different area. The intolerant little idiots just would not let him talk.

And I think that it’s not only students who have been participating in these shoutings-down, disruptions of speakers, and violent thuggery, but also non-student (possibly paid) agitators who like inflicting their criminal aggressions on innocent people. Prof. Stanger observed that the ones who were there because they genuinely wanted to hear Murray’s talk would make eye contact with her, whereas the shouters and pushers and violent hooligans avoided eye contact. I think that tells us something.

I am SO glad that college wasn’t like this when I was there 35 years ago. If so, I would have dropped out by the second month (or week) of the first semester. This kind of disgusting intolerance of other people’s points of view is extremely disturbing as well. These little twerps are tomorrow’s “leaders,” some people say. However, many of them will be tomorrow’s parasites, as many of them will not be employed and will not be providing for themselves. Are you one of them? (If you are a regular reader here, then chances are you are probably not one of them, quite frankly.)

And to remind us of how intolerant and ignorant many professors themselves are these days, George Mason University professor Phil Magness provides a list of Middlebury faculty who signed an anti-Charles Murray letter, which includes zero professors in the math and sciences departments. Magness also provides similar lists of anti-freedom of speech faculty letters or petitions from other colleges, with similar characteristics: zero or almost no professors from math or sciences.

Perhaps people who tend to think with more reason and logic than others support freedom of speech and are more tolerant of opposing ideas? (And less hysterical?) I’m not suggesting that, just askin’. (And also, many of today’s college professors, like the politicians of today, have brains that are totally fried from all the drugs they did during the 1960s and ’70s. Not good.)

At the Middlebury shout-down and violent attack by the brainwashed zombies who want safe spaces but don’t want others to have them, so far there have been no arrests or disciplinary action of those engaging in violent assaults and disruptions of Charles Murray’s appearance. So, frankly, you moron university faculty and administrators out there are teaching the kids that it’s okay not only to shout people down and censor them, but that it’s okay to commit acts of physical violence against innocent people! How disgusting is that?

In other words, we can’t tolerate certain controversial people or their ideas from being expressed, but we can tolerate very rude and anti-social behaviors and violence against innocent people! No wonder these people accept the Orwellian nonsense coming from the Hillary Clintons and Donald Trumps of the world! Doh!