Further Analysis of the Mueller Kangaroo Investigation’s Most Recent Indictments

Journalist Joe Lauria has this analysis of the recent indictments of Russian military officers (GRU) by the Mueller kangaroo special counsel team. Lauria explains why evidence will probably never be produced.

Lauria quotes former CIA analyst Larry Johnson as wondering how the indictment could possibly name specific Russian GRU officers, and that the U.S. intelligence experts on GRU are the Defense Intelligence Agency, which were “not allowed” to take part in the Intelligence (sic) Community Assessment from January of 2017. Johnson said the information for the indictments was probably obtained by the NSA.

The Democrat National Committee didn’t let the FBI have access to their computers to investigate the “hacking,” but they did hire a private company to look into it, CrowdStrike, which was referred to in the indictments as Company 1.

Lauria writes:

The indictment doesn’t mention it, but within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia in the hack.

CrowdStrike claimed the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy or amateur hackers—or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.

One of CrowdStrike’s founders has ties to the anti-Russian Atlantic Council raising questions of political bias. And the software it used to determine Russia’s alleged involvement in the DNC hack, was later proved to be faulty in a high-profile case in Ukraine, reported by the Voice of America.

The indictment then is based at least partially on evidence produced by an interested private company, rather than the FBI.

Lauria says that a trial of the Russian suspects is unlikely, and therefore the indictment is a political one, not a legal one. And he compares the indictment to the one earlier this year of the Russian click bait ad company, in which its workers were charged with “conspiracy to defraud the United States” and “conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud,” even though all what they were doing was engaging in a marketing scheme, which wasn’t even shown to influence the election in any way.

Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks which received the leaked emails copied from the DNC servers, continues to state that the emails did not come from the Russian government but were leaked by a DNC insider, and Lauria mentions that Assange has implied the leaker was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich.

One of the commenters on the Lauria article posted a link to this True Pundit article, suggesting that the Mueller team plagiarized a YouTube journalist’s lawsuit against John Podesta. Like they just threw something together on the fly, to try to overshadow FBI agent Peter Strzok’s grilling by Congress the day before, and because they wanted to throw ice on the Trump-Putin meeting this week? Who knows?

In my view, I think there really was conniving and scheming going on with Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Lynch, and John Brennan the former CIA director. That’s my conclusion on all this made-up stuff. The “deep state” saw Trump as a threat to their little power fiefdoms, so they had to make stuff up, get their media groupies to repeat their propaganda about Russia “hacking the election” and “Russia-Trump collusions,” and entrap some of Trump’s associates.

I think this Zero Hedge article from March 2017 gives some good information about various shenanigans that were then blamed on the Russians.

Mueller And Rosenstein Indict More Russians for Things That Didn’t Happen

Now, I’m not a Trump supporter, as readers already know. But I think the truth is important. The truth is that the Establishment and its media mouthpieces hated Donald Trump because he dared to express criticism of the incompetence and corruption in Washington. Trump was also “uncouth,” to put it mildly, and our betters inside the beltway didn’t like that.

So here’s the latest edition in this long attempt by the Establishment to take down one of their loudest critics. Jeff Sessions’s sidekick at the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein, has announced indictments of 12 Russian military intelligence officers in “hacking” the DNC and the Hillary 2016 campaign. Obviously the timing of special counsel Robert Mueller’s handing out these indictments, just days before Donald Trump is to meet with Vladimir Putin, tells me that the Mueller team might just be making it all up. There is no evidence presented against the Russian military intelligence officers.

And there is no evidence that the DNC was “hacked.”

Former CIA officer Ray McGovern and former NSA agent William Binney wrote that the DNC was not “hacked” but that emails were leaked by an insider, and they wrote further on the holes in the “Russia hacking DNC” narrative.

In this congressional testimony by former FBI director James Comey and former NSA director Mike Rogers, the two both stated that they were not aware of any evidence to show the 2016 election was hacked:

REP. DEVIN NUNES: Thank you, Director Comey.

Admiral Rogers, first I wanna go to you. On January 6th, 2017, the intelligence community assessment assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections, stated that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

So my question as of today, Admiral Rogers, do you have any evidence that Russia cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of Michigan?

ROGERS: No I do not, but I would highlight we are a foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization. So it would be fair to say, we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer.

NUNES: How about the state of Pennsylvania?

ROGERS: No, sir.

NUNES: The state of Wisconsin?

ROGERS: No, sir.

NUNES: State of Florida?

ROGERS: No, sir.

NUNES: The state of North Carolina?

ROGERS: No, sir.

NUNES: The state of Ohio?

ROGERS: No, sir.

NUNES: So — so you have no intelligence that suggests, or evidence that suggests, any votes were changed?

ROGERS: I have nothing generated by the national security industry, sir.

NUNES: Director Comey, do you have any evidence at the FBI that any votes were changed in the states that I mentioned to Admiral Rogers?

COMEY: No.

And on Meet the Press former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the one that all the other national security agency heads report to, stated that there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusions.

Clapper told Chuck Todd: “We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., 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 Todd asked if the evidence actually exists, and Clapper answered, “Not to my knowledge,” and “we had no evidence of such collusion.”

There has been a lot of testimony in the House and Senate over the past two years of all this. Senators have been repeatedly asked if they have seen any evidence at all to confirm what the media people have been alleging. Senator Chris Coons stated, “I have not seen specific evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.”

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when asked by Wolf Blitzer: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the — you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?” And Feinstein answered, “There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.” Blitzer asked her, “Do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” And Feinstein answered, “Not at this time.”

So anyway, with the timing of all this now, it appears that Rosenstein knew that Republicans in Congress have been considering charging him with contempt of Congress and preparing articles of impeachment against him for refusing to hand over documents which give weight to accusations that the FBI’s Hillary email investigation was a farce and the whole investigation of “Trump-Russia collusions” is made-up by the Establishment parasites in Washington who just wanted to get rid of Donald Trump. Rep. Mark Meadows stated that, “when we get these documents, we believe that it will do away with this whole fiasco of what they call the Russian Trump collusion because there wasn’t any.”

Continued Societal Sickness In USSA Amerika

Jacob Hornberger writes about the deep state’s absorption of Donald Trump, especially on NATO. The U.S. government is under the control of the national security establishment, not Donald Trump.

In my view, Trump has a central planning-obsessed fetish with NATO, because he is a collectivist. Trump is a confused “America First” nationalist, but at the same time he accepts NATO regardless of how illegitimate a collectivist group NATO is. Not only that, but Trump seems to want NATO strengthened. He seems to be on board with a large collective military apparatus, because he loves all things military. But the truth is, NATO is long due for dismantling and being shut down.

And on trade Trump wants to shoot his own fellow Americans in the foot, as Walter Williams pointed out. Trump does not believe in peace and prosperity, in peaceful, free exchange between traders, between buyers and sellers. He instead worships governmental control and authority, governmental interventionism, and sadly he seems to get off on militarism.

And with all that we have Trump supporters who pick on someone with a “Puerto Rico” shirt, etc., and we have Trump haters who pick on someone with a “MAGA” hat, etc. This is happening a lot lately. What’s wrong with these people? What psychiatric drugs are they on? As Martin Hill wrote on Target Liberty, “I can’t imagine encountering any of these people. I’ve seen a lot of stuff but have never seen anything like this where literal complete strangers feel the liberty to menace, threaten and demean others for simply racial or political reasons. Political differences of opinion are one thing, but what has happened to civility, charity, dignity, kindness, human respect, and love for one’s neighbor? We live in an extremely sick society.”

For some examples of how sick our society is, just read William Anderson’s article about PC and the bureaucratization of the economy. Instead of actual managers who try to make a good profit providing for the consumers what they want, we have “diversity officers,” more accurately “political officers,” as William Anderson points out.

Conservative Cognitive Dissonance on Supreme Court Justices

I like pointing out cognitive dissonance in conservatives. And Laurence Vance does just that by writing that constitutional conservatives “fail the drug test.” Conservatives are hoping for a “constitutional conservative” on the Supreme Court even though many of the policies they want upheld are unconstitutional.

“Supreme” Authoritarian Dictocrats Should Not Exist in a Free Society

Can you believe how hysterical the people on the Left are with Donald Trump’s pick of Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court? They’re screaming and howling because the Supremes will take away their “reproductive rights,” which is absurd.

But the conservatives are hysterical, too, in their own ways. Their own worship of the “Supreme” decision-makers like gods is pathetic. The sheeple have been bamboozled to believe in the State apparatus like a god, and it is no such thing. It is a criminal racket.

At the Mises Institute Ryan McMaken says that the Supreme Court is much too powerful, calling it the “American version of the Soviet politburo.” It is really just another federal legislature. And while there are legal and constitutional ways to change the structure of the Court, those are just not likely to happen, for political reasons.

McMaken says the solution is to mock the court and undermine it. I thoroughly agree.

You know, like “Hey Ruth, WAKE UP!!” (as Sister Mary Elephant would say) Or, “Hey Roberts, senile much? Blackmailed much?”

I know, that’s probably not exactly what Ryan McMaken had in mind.

But I’ve been trying to do my part, such as in my frequently referring to the Supremes as the “Supreme Bureaucrats,” which is what they are.

I’ve referred to them as the “Supreme Sheeple,” and the “brilliant Supreme Intruders,” as I wrote in this 2010 blog post. Or “lettered imbeciles,” as I wrote in this 2012 article, and this 2016 blog post, in which I wrote, “When the society is dependent on 9 lettered imbeciles to decide whether or not the people may have their freedom, that society is probably doomed.”

When Justice (sic) Antonin Scalia died, I wrote,

Well, another bureaucrat bites the dust. And yes, U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” (sic) Antonin Scalia was just another bureaucrat. He claimed to be an “originalist,” basing his opinions on the “original intent” of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently that does not include the writers of the Bill of Rights (which he seemed to have long forgotten was also a part of the Constitution).

…

Scalia did NOT take the Framers’ passion for liberty and private property rights seriously. Thomas Jefferson would NOT agree with such police state tactics. Especially when the purpose of such State criminality is because someone has some damn DRUGS! Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al. would even oppose your police state laws prohibiting drugs in the first place if they were around today.

No, Scalia was not an “originalist.”

…

He was like the typical government bureaucrat: preserve the power of the government, restrict the people’s liberty. (We’re all going to be taken to the FEMA camps anyway, as Scalia believed. Oh, well.)

And in this article I wrote,

So, according to the “originalists” of the high court, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution contain exceptions for “drugs” and “terrorism”!

And the overly privileged Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the approval of the Affordable Care Act, after changing his mind (Hmmm. I wonder what could have done that?), incoherently opining that the government has the constitutional authority to order us to buy health insurance.

But now we have a Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who would dismiss as “foolish” the possibility of the Supreme Court even considering the constitutionality of NSA warrantless wiretapping, while the high court’s refusal to even hear the appeal of NDAA due process-free indefinite detention of innocents shows what fascists or total fools (or both) these people really are.

And I wrote similar critiques recently when Anthony Kennedy retired from the “High” Court: “For some reason, Anthony Kennedy doesn’t understand that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t mention “exigent circumstances.”

No, the Supreme Bureaucrats should NOT be held in high esteem. They are protectors of the State and its always expanding powers over the people. The Jolly Junk-Jurists are the official rubber-stampers of the rulers’ crimes against innocent people!

In this 2013 blog post I referred to the “USSA Supreme Court.” What, is that incorrect? Nope, it is actually the most accurate description for them.

And in this 2013 article I wrote, “Perhaps the overpaid highly-paid Justices have more important things on their minds, such as what temperature at which to set their bubble baths later on, and so forth.”

And I concluded that article with this:

I really thought that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo eminent domain ruling was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Court’s legitimacy as Ultimate Decider was concerned.

Then, last year the Supremes decided in favor of the ObamaCare mandate, with Chief Bureaucrat John Roberts declaring that the mandate was a “tax,” even though its proponents weren’t even arguing that it was a tax.

The Court’s self-delegitimizing was at that point a matter of settled law, in my book.

On Harassing Government Apparatchiks

Robert Wenzel writes:

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former communications director, says of the harassment facing Trump Administration officials and other high-ranking government officials:

“I would say it’s burning people out.I just think there’s so much meanness, it’s causing some level of, ‘What do I need this for?’ And I think it’s a recruiting speed bump for the administration. To be part of it, you’ve got to deal with the incoming of some of this viciousness.”

Burning people out from government work? Well, good!

As far as I am concerned, government officials who advance the cause of the state should have no protection under the law. They are the reason the state expands and they should not be protected from verbal harassment by those objecting to implementation and expansions of state power.

Mitch McConnell, Steve Miller and the rest are no friends of liberty. Now the problem is that the harassers, for the most part, do not want to eliminate power centers but rather to take over control of the power centers themselves. And after a takeover by them of power centers, I would cheer if they were also harassed.

These harassment tactics are low-level skirmishes that hint that evil is done by some in power but the skirmishes don’t come close to featuring the real problem: the existence of the power centers in the first place.

What Is “Democratic Socialism”?

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation and Richard Ebeling of the Citadel discuss “democratic socialism.” The flaky self-described democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democrat party’s nomination for Congress in New York for this November’s election, and New York Democrat party Cuomo challenger Cynthia Milhaus Nixon has just announced that she is also a democratic socialist.

Against Brett Kavanaugh

No surprise that Donald Trump (the police statist, drug warrior, militarist and central-planner-in-chief) has chosen D.C. Circuit appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next U.S. Supreme Bureaucrat to replace the terrible Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh is a True Believer in the legitimacy of the centralized powers in Washington, a rubber-stamper of the national security state and the “war on terror,” and an obedient defender of the men in blue.

What we need more than ever is the opposite of all that, the opposite of authoritarianism. We need a true radical defender of liberty and of the lives, persons and property of individuals to be free of the aggression of others, especially free of the aggression and intrusions of the State. The early Americans, after all, were abused, their lives, homes and property criminally invaded and searched by the British soldiers. The ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights with rules that government bureaucrats and enforcers must follow, knew from their own experiences that those with the powers of the State could not be trusted!

This Kavanaugh person has spent much of his whole life surrounded by Washington, D.C. power. Kavanaugh was born in Washington, D.C.! His mother was a prosecutor and judge in Maryland. During the 1990s and 2000s Kavanaugh’s wife was the personal secretary to then-Governor and then-President George W. Bush.

So, Kavanaugh is a very ensconced and enmeshed inside-the-beltway apparatchik, in my view. Stuck in the centralized State apparatus.

Regarding his judicial decisions, in at least 3 cases Kavanaugh rubber-stamped the holding of terrorism suspects without charge or even actual suspicion at the Guantanamo prison. (al-Bihani v. Obama, Uthman v. Obama, and Omar v. McHugh.)

One thing that authoritarian government apparatchiks don’t seem to understand is that, in a civilized society, those who are accused of something morally have a right to require the accuser to present evidence, and to have a process by which the accused can refute such evidence against him. And to not be held in a prison without charges or after one was randomly apprehended without suspicion and handed over to an invading military.

No one should have the authority or power to just sweep someone away and lock him up, without charges or a reason to suspect him of criminal acts. Most of the suspects detained at Gitmo were innocent of terrorism and uninvolved and released. Many of the detainees were apprehended by Afghan villagers who were being paid bounties by mostly the CIA and the U.S. military.

This is why “war” can never be used as an excuse to suspend anyone’s right to due process! Not in a moral and civilized society, no.

Authoritarians believe that we should just blindly trust government rulers’ judgment. But, as I wrote in this article, we shouldn’t just blindly believe the government when it claims that someone is a “terrorist,” because the ruling bureaucrats could say that about any one of us, and have us detained, tortured, indefinitely imprisoned or killed, and for any reason.

And why should we trust the government in Washington? A bunch of liars, crooks, extortionists, parasites, and worse, lawyers. After all, we know how the U.S. government bureaucracies have gone after conservatives and Tea Partiers, such as through the IRS. And we know how the Obama DOJ and FBI went after the Trump campaign and then his associates following Trump’s election. They went after Trump because they didn’t like his openly criticizing and questioning the legitimacy of the wars that the national security state and the Bushes started.

So due process is important, and everyone has a right to due process. Not just U.S. citizens, but everyone. The Declaration of Independence refers to unalienable rights. Obviously, all human beings have unalienable rights, not just “citizens.” The unalienable right to liberty isn’t a right that is given to people by the government.

With this so-called “war on terror,” we have good reason to get judges who will strike down each and every criminally invasive and liberty-violating policy and procedure whether its against Americans or against foreigners. And that includes AUMF, NDAA, and especially the Patriot Act. And I wouldn’t rely entirely on the Constitution, either. Past Supreme Court decisions have given weight to the Declaration of Independence.

We need someone who rejects the government’s “war on terror” as a legitimate “war.” It is not legitimate.

The apparatchiks of the centralized apparatus in Washington were anguished by the threat of reducing their powers when the Cold War ended, and they had to invent a new Enemy. Which they did especially when George H.W. Bush sent the military to invade Iraq in 1991 and stir up trouble with sanctions and bombings that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths leading up to 9/11.

Another reason to reject Kavanaugh is his deference to the State’s rulers and their enforcers. Most of the American Founders believed the exact opposite of that, which is why they insisted on a Bill of Rights. At least the Anti-Federalists did. They believed in the idea of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms, not dependence on, submission to and obedience toward armed police authorities. We need someone who rejects entirely the idea that government has any moral authority to monopolize community policing and security in the first place.

And on issues such as immigration, health care and abortion, I suspect that Kavanaugh will be a judicial “technocrat,” like Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts, finding this or that part of the Constitution that justifies this or that governmental intrusion or criminality.

But what we need is someone who actually can see the forest for the trees, and can see that the “land of liberty” is one in which one’s liberty isn’t dependent on a bureaucrat’s interpretation of some document. We need someone who recognizes the non-aggression principle and the concept of self-ownership, and understands private property rights and presumption of innocence, and who will thus overturn all anti-liberty decisions, and strike down all bad laws the enforcement of which violates the persons or property of innocent people.

Obviously, Judge Kavanaugh is not that guy.

Recent Articles

Joe Jarvis writes about the evil kidnappers of CPS.

Laurence Vance addresses common trade myths.

Jacob Hornberger defends uncompromisingly promoting liberty.

Wendy McElroy says that the free market can provide law.

Sheldon Richman on the Trump-Kushner Delusion on Palestine.

And Justin Raimondo makes a case for peace, from Singapore to Helsinki.

The “New Normal”: A Generation Ignorant of What Life Was Like Before 9/11

Tom Knapp discusses the new normal of the generation born after 9/11/2001. They have no idea what life was like before the big change, a society of much more freedom, no sexual assaults by the TSA, no TSA period!, no “Homeland” Security. i.e. a lot more freedom and actual security, a lot more security from government goons preying on innocent Americans and foreigners.

Hospitals and Doctors Are Clueless about Nutrition

Bill Sardi discusses the high cost of malnutrition at today’s hospitals. And he discusses the issue of Medicare as well.

2018 Candidates for State-Wide Offices: New Hampshire

So far I have written about the 2018 candidates for Massachusetts, Utah, and New Jersey. It looks like Willard Romney did win that primary race in Utah for U.S. Senate. I hope the people of Utah can take a serious look at the Libertarian Party candidate, Craig Bowden. If you really believe in free markets and freedom of association, abolishing victimless crime laws, removing the U.S. from the UN and NATO and withdrawing troops and closing foreign military bases, then consider voting for Bowden and not the socialist globalist warmonger drug warrior Willard Romney.

But now I want to take a look at New Hampshire. Obviously I’ve been trying to promote Libertarian Party (or otherwise libertarian) candidates when I can. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die State,” libertarians seem to be emphasizing bitcoin and marijuana legalization. But we need libertarians who “hate the State,” as Murray Rothbard would say. Libertarians who recognize the truth that the State is a criminal organization, especially the centralized racket in Washington.

The state primary election is September 11th. Incumbent Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, son of former New Hampshire governor (and George H.W. Bush Chief of Staff) John Sununu, is running unopposed.

But, regardless of which candidate will be the Libertarian Party nominee, there are big reasons to vote for the LP nominee, rather than either of the two Government Party statists.

Sununu is said to be a “conservative,” good on eliminating many regulations and reducing taxes, and good on “constitutional carry.” But he definitely turns outright socialist, in my view, on “increased funding by $57 million for the developmentally disabled community,” “greater healthcare access for veterans,” and “increased funding to provide better care for seniors,” according to his campaign website. And he’s pandering to Democrats on Medicaid expansion.

However, on the freedom side, Sununu signed a bitcoin-friendly bill, exempting Bitoin from money transfer regulations, according to Reason.

And he signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana.

But what about other drugs? We know that drug prohibition in all forms doesn’t stop people from getting drugs. In fact, prohibition creates a black market that contributes to increased violent crimes associated with the underground drug market.

There is a moral case for drug freedom. And I don’t do drugs, by the way. I don’t even drink. But the government has no role in telling people what they may or may not put into their own bodies. If so, then the government owns your body, not you.

But here is where Sununu has gone waaayyy off the rails, and not only is he not “libertarian,” but he can’t even claim to be a conservative.

Sununu signed the “transgender rights” bill. So obviously, Sununu doesn’t grasp the importance of private property rights and freedom of association (and freedom of non-association).

And, as I wrote in this article, one can make a case (albeit a non-libertarian one) to ban discrimination based on race or gender even on privately owned property, but when it comes to this LGBT stuff, we’re talking about lifestyles, sexuality, and personality issues. The gender identity issue has nothing to do with how one was born such as one’s race or one’s sex. And as I wrote in that article, the social activists are working their way into attempting to force acceptance via legal compulsion, and now forcing access into others’ private lives and private property. So, with the LGBT activists, it’s getting personal, and much more intrusive!

Sununu stated that “If we really want to be the ‘Live Free or Die’ state, we must ensure that New Hampshire is a place where every person, regardless of their (sic) background, has an equal and full opportunity to pursue their dreams and to make a better life for themselves and their families.” Well, sure, Gov, but not on MY property. But he says no, I must associate with or allow onto my property someone who is confused about himself and his gender, or who rejects the gender as he was born and who claims to be someone of the opposite gender. I may NOT discriminate against this person.

In other words, Sununu believes that someone has a “civil right” to force others to associate with or allow onto one’s property those who are deeply confused and living a life of a lie.

The bottom line for me is (and the true libertarian answer to that is) that people have a right to discriminate for or against others and for any reason on their own private property. It doesn’t matter if the property is someone’s home or someone’s business, a hotel or restaurant or place of employment. If it is privately owned, then it is privately owned. It is not public property. No one has a right of access onto other people’s private property. Except they do have that right of access, via “civil rights” laws.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should only have addressed public property and government-run functions, not private property and privately owned businesses and functions.

Now, regarding the libertarian non-aggression principle, which side is being the aggressor in these cases? The private property owner or business owner who doesn’t want to hire someone or doesn’t want to allow males in his gym showers designated for females? Or the rejected possible worker or gym customer who gets the armed force of government to compel the businessman to allow him in? We know the answer to that question. And that’s the bottom line.

The 1964 “civil rights” Act began the process of officially making private property really public property. It is only privately owned on paper.

And to say that someone’s reasons for discriminating against others are relevant, then we are really talking about thought crimes.

Sadly, two Libertarian Party state representatives voted for the transgender “civil rights” bill. One was Joseph Stallcop, who was elected in 2016 as a Democrat, and switched to Libertarian last year. The other one was Brandon Phinney. At the end of this post, I wrote this about Brandon Phinney:

The Reason article states that the new LP member, Brandon Phinney, works in the “Carroll County Department of Corrections.” Yech. You know, Brandon, it would help the libertarian cause if so-called, self-described “libertarians” didn’t have actual employment by the government. Especially being a part of the whole apparatus that locks up innocent people for disobedience, i.e. disobeying unjust laws inflicted by the nanny state, the police state, and the regulatory state. Can you find something less loathsome?

So, do those two “libertarians” and LP members in the New Hampshire state legislature want to be like Gary Johnson, who wants to force a Christian baker to have to do extra labor to serve the lesbian couple? And, like Gary Johnson, do they want to force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi wedding cake?

But I digress. This is about the governor’s race right now.

Speaking of transgender-related thought-crimes legislation, Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law a ban of “conversion therapy” for transgender or sexual orientation. This is major league stuff, and I can’t believe that a governor of the “Live Free or Die” state is doing this. This law says that if a teenager is confused about his sexual orientation or gender identity and wants to become more what he think he should be, and wants to seek guidance from a professional therapist, then he may not do that, and the therapist can be disciplined by the state’s licensing authority.

“In this chapter, ‘conversion therapy’ means practices or treatments that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.  Conversion therapy shall not include counseling that provides assistance to a person undergoing gender transition, or counseling that provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual-orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as such counseling does not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Thought crimes much, Gov. Sununu? Micromanaging and central planning much?

The social activists’ are succeeding in their push to legally force people into acceptance of certain lifestyles and acceptance of other people’s personal issues that others shouldn’t have to accept if they don’t want to!

And why did Sununu sign into law a bill that says private campgrounds and hotels must pay out $500 per bingo game or $2,000 for more then one game per day? “Shall not exceed”? Who is the state government to tell private bingo game venues they may not pay out more than a certain government-designated amount?

He might as well be a Democrat. Too bad he’s running unopposed in the primary.

Like most Democrats, the two Democrat candidates for governor, Steve Marchand and Molly Kelly, are typical Democrats. Think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. You get the idea.

But there are two Libertarian Party candidates for governor.

Jilletta Jarvis is good on gun rights, asset forfeiture, and being against sending New Hampshire National Guard to the border. However, she is vague on immigration and seems to be against sanctuary cities. On education she seems to support the continuation of government schools, not a word about privatization and decentralization in education. And finally, she wants to “reform” occupational licensing for “fair and equal opportunity for entrepreneurship to all people.” “Reform”? Do you mean abolish licensure?

But not a mention of the libertarian non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property rights, voluntary exchange, freedom of thought and conscience, or freedom of association there.

We need a radical who will really defend the life and liberty of the individual, as the Libertarian Party did in 1984 and 1988.

And Aaron Day, a former Republican, is the other LP candidate. Day has had several controversies, including being sued for defamation in his participation in displaying billboards which called three businessmen “heroin dealers” and extortionists. In the lawsuit, Day apparently settled the suit for over $1 million. His alleged co-conspirator Michael Gill, who didn’t settle, was a no-show at the trial, and then the jury decided to award plaintiffs $274.5 million for the billboard defamation.

Day may also have contributed to U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s losing her reelection bid to Maggie Hassan. Given just how bad Ayotte is on just about every issue, even though Hassan is a far-left loony, then I am glad Day was able to do that, if it’s true.

Aaron Day is apparently running against Sununu mainly because of the Medicaid expansion issue, but also the transgender rights issue.

Day’s views are generally libertarian. But Jarvis, not so much, according to the Live Free or Die Alliance.

But which one of the LP candidates could possibly have a chance to bring libertarian views to the attention of New Hampshire voters (and maybe even oust Sununu)? Day, with all his controversial baggage? Or Jarvis, who seems to be vague on some issues? Who knows?

New Hampshire is one of only 7 states in which the state’s attorney general is appointed by the governor, state legislature or state supreme court. So with the election of governor you get, at least in new Hampshire, the governor’s own crony for attorney general. Is there a Judge Napolitano in New Hampshire?

No Justification for Trade Retaliation

Economist Donald Boudreaux has this article on trade retaliation being unjustified and unjust. Here is an excerpt:

Do producers really have rights — property entitlements — to at least some minimum volume of consumer demand for their outputs? The answer given by Anglo-American common law has long been a clear no.  Under this law, economic competition is neither tortious nor criminal. Indeed, far from being wrong for producer Smith to lower his prices or to improve his product quality in ways that result in economic losses for producer Jones, such competitive actions by producer Smith are positively praiseworthy.

Examined from the perspective of consumers, under the law consumers are free to spend their incomes as they choose, and to change how they spend their incomes. And while businesses are free to offer for sale new goods and services, and to make their existing product offerings more attractive to consumers, businesses are not presumed to be entitled to any minimum volume of consumer demand.

Quite the contrary. The recognition is widespread that each and every business is always at risk of not succeeding, of losing sales, and even of going bankrupt. Implied in this recognition is the absence of any obligation on the part of consumers to spend their money in ways that improve or protect the economic well-being of particular producers.

Dr. Boudreaux makes a very good case for consumer sovereignty.

Contrary to Donald Trump and his government-control-obsessed anti-market trade restrictions, the free market provides the best conditions for a higher standard of living.

PC Government Media the Racist Pots Calling the Kettle Black

David Gornoski has this post on how the “PC media,” a.k.a. mainstream media, a.k.a. government media, projects their racism onto Ron Paul. It appears that a staff member of Dr. Paul placed a (what some people believe to be) racist cartoon in a tweet by Dr. Paul.

What Gornoski points out is that Dr. Paul has spent a lifetime opposing the racist drug war (in which a much higher proportion of minorities are put in prison for drug-related “offenses”), opposing the wars and bombings of predominantly Muslim countries, and opposing collectivism in all forms. Racism is a form of collectivism. But the government media have not spent any time at all condemning the wars, the drug war, and so on.

Gornoski writes that “Politically correct media is a minority oppressing cartoon – shilling for inflation-financed wars and a nanny state backed by imprisonment and fines. These media-enabled policies harm minorities and the poor the most.”

People Have a Right to Discriminate

Laurence Vance has this article on discrimination, referring to the recent Supreme Bureaucrats’ gay wedding cake decision. And he says that leftists are hypocrites when they oppose discrimination like the Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, but the leftists then going on to support a restaurant owner kicking out Sarah Sanders.

I’ll have more to say about this anti-discrimination stuff soon in my next state-wide elections profile in which I have found one political hack candidate pandering to the LGBT activists — and he’s a conservative Republican!