Design a site like this with
Get started

New Article: Are There Any Candidates for President Who Want a Free Society?

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Are There Any Candidates for President Who Want a Free Society?

March 20, 2023

There do not seem to be any candidates for President, or politicians in general, quite frankly, who are promoting freedom and an actual free society.

Besides Marianne Williamson (and potentially Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) on the Democrat side, joining The Donald and Nikki Haley on the Republican side is the young hotshot entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy who has announced his run for the dreaded 2024 Republican Presidential nomination. Ramaswamy is the other one with the high forehead, like Matt Gaetz. (Are they related?)

Ramaswamy is a conservative anti-woke America Firster. Therefore, I oppose his candidacy, and here’s why.

I agree with the anti-woke stuff, but Ramaswamy is just another American nationalist and militarist. In some of his interviews he seems to want to tell us what America is and what being American should be all about. But like most other politicians and nationalists he doesn’t really get what America is all about.

I am not an America Firster, I am a freedom firster. America was supposed to be about freedom, not about “Making America Great Again” (sic).

Freedom is based on the principles of self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of thought and conscience.

Freedom before “America,” in my view.

This America First nationalism is just another form of collectivism, which is what nationalism is. It is group think.

In contrast, the American Revolutionary founders were not nationalists — the nationalists at that time were loyal to the British regime. That was their nation.

No, the Revolutionaries at that time were by and large individualists. They were secessionists.

And even among those Revolutionaries, the ones who wanted federalism and a central government were the ones who wanted a power structure over the states. The Anti-Federalists were the ones who believed much more in the individualist philosophy, private property and voluntary exchange.

So, in an interview with Axios, the young whippersnapper Ramaswamy promoted “a vision of American national identity that runs so deep that it dilutes these other religions, from wokism to Islamism.”

Yech. Are you sure you’re promoting nationalism and not fascism? This stuff sounds very authoritarian to me, getting into how people should think and view the world.

“American national identity” that is to “run deep”? As though the population needs to be brainwashed to believe in one particular “national identity”?

In the old days, pre-woke,  the government schools indoctrinated the kids to have this sense of nationalism, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, i.e. Pledge of Obedience to the State is really what that is. In fact, the government school kids were made to have their arm stretched out toward the flag in the same way the Heil Hitlers were doing in Nazi Germany. But Americans were offended that “fascists” were copying them, so the American school bureaucrats got rid of that.

And because the schools are run by the government, the cultural Marxists have gotten in and turned the indoctrinated authoritarianism of nationalism into other forms of collectivist authoritarianism promoted by the wokesters.

And while Vivek Ramaswamy is for abolishing the federal Department of Education (sic), how about abolishing ALL local and state government Departments of Education, all government school committees and bureaus and all the involuntary tax-thefts that are used to run them?

Conservatives oppose privatizing all the government-run schools, because, deep down they are authoritarians, and they like the idea of government having authority over kids’ education. It’s just a matter of “electing the right people” to try to control the curriculum.

There should be NO government involvement in kids’ education whatsoever!

What this society was really meant to be is a free society, as mentioned above.

So, besides promoting freedom in education, the kind of candidate I can see supporting for President would promote the following:

Abolishing the IRS, income tax, and all other forms of involuntary income and wealth confiscation and redistribution.

I have already written how the involuntary income tax-thefts are the enablers of all the government criminality that exists today.

Such a new President would by Executive Order abolish such criminal thefts on Day One, and/or not enforce it, and pardon anyone who is harassed or arrested by any federal agent attempting to steal one’s own wealth or property.

You see, if a serious, popular candidate proposes such a moral correction from the federal regime in Washington, you will see parasite Congresscriminals whining, “But without the income tax-thefts, how will we be able to fund all the horrible programs and intrusions that we inflict on the American people on a daily basis? Obviously American workers will not voluntarily give us the money because no one in his right mind would voluntarily pay to fund such crap! We MUST keep the income tax in place!!”

Sans involuntary tax-thefts, Americans would go back to paying for all of what they want or need voluntarily, trade among the people would all be voluntary, and charity would also all be voluntary. Like it used to be prior to the early 20th Century, which had been a time of the greatest increase in standard of living of all time up to that point.

If trades and transactions were made to be all voluntary, and all forms of stealing was made illegal, then illicit wealth accumulation (illicit because of being the receiver of stolen loot, i.e. from taxation) would also not exist. Except for outright robbers stealing from others, which would also be reduced because in a free society the people would not be disarmed and made defenseless by the government.

And when I refer to the illicit wealth accumulation i.e. from the stolen loot from taxation, I am more specifically referring to the “national defense” contractors and the pharmaceutical companies. Those two industries are the most troubling welfare recipients, in my view.

Abolish the immigration police state.

Like most “conservatives,” Ramaswamy supports the current police state socialist controls over the border, in which the central planners in Washington attempt to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible!

And on the immigration issue, as I noted, Ramaswamy is like Trump and the other nationalist conservatives. They believe that the territory is all one big private club for which people have to pay their dues. “Citizens” own the territory and you can’t come in unless you have everybody’s (i.e. government bureaucrats) permission.

And you have to get the bureaucrats’ permission if you want to employ someone at “your” business. And I’m putting that in quotes because the businessman in America is not the ultimate owner of one’s business, the government is. If you have to get the government’s permission to hire someone, then that is an example of a socialist society. It certainly isn’t capitalism, or the free market.

In a free society that consists of a free market, the business owner is the ultimate decider of whom to hire at one’s own business. If you want to hire someone from Mexico, then you hire him (and take responsibility for the consequences, of course). If others disapprove of that, they don’t have to do business with you. That’s the American way.

And the anti-immigration crusaders say immigrants are coming into the country to “get on welfare” — but that’s a case for abolishing the welfare state, not imposing a police state on the border.

End the “War on Drugs.”

The anti-immigration crusaders also support the “War on Drugs,” which is for them a related issue. They are concerned about fentanyl being smuggled into the U.S. and killing people. As I have said before, drug prohibition is the main contributor to the fentanyl crisis.

The “War on Drugs” has resulted in more dead and miserable people than there has ever been from drugs themselves.

But authoritarians like the “War on Drugs,” a nanny state/police state, because they probably think that they are self-righteous and morally superior to those who want chemical enhancements to their lives, even though the anti-drug moralists need to have their BOOZE!!! But I digress.

Like Trump, Ramaswamy wants to militarize the War on Drugs. Take out those drug cartels, with “air strikes and drone strikes.” The prohibitionist authoritarians have been wanting to send the U.S. military into Mexico for years now. I’m sure using the military for non-defensive reasons will work in Mexico, just as that has worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and on and on.

However, the drug cartels wouldn’t exist were it not for the U.S. government’s 60-year-long failed “War on Drugs.” Prohibition causes the black market to occur which causes higher profits which incentivizes low-lifes to exploit people’s need to get high so the low-lifes can profit from their addictions.

This kind of authoritarian prohibitionism is NOT the kind of society America was meant to be.

End the military worship and support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And then there’s the military worship. Conservatives tend to like men in uniforms, especially with an officialdom and authority with their positions, like government police and government military. Especially “our” military. Most conservatives and Republicans (and liberals and Democrats as well) support the criminal invasions overseas by the U.S. military sent over there by lying, corrupt Presidents in the name of this, that and the other thing.

But as Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has pointed out, the American founders were wary of having a standing army. The founders knew that past governments had used their standing armies to impose tyranny on their own people, and that is why the Anti-Federalists insisted on writing the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights.

We know the people on the left don’t like the idea of individuals and the general population exercising their 2nd Amendment right to be armed. But I am not sure that most conservatives really understand that right.

Because most conservatives are authoritarians, if given the choice between an armed civilian population and disarmed government, or a disarmed civilian population and an armed government, when push comes to shove most of them would feel compelled to choose the armed government and disarmed civilian population, in my view.

But if society is to ban any weapons, the only form of weaponry that should be banned is nuclear weapons, which can only be used in an indiscriminate way. See Murray Rothbard on that.

Decentralize, eventually abolish the U.S. government, start with 50 independent states and further decentralize from there.

We saw from the “Civil” War that Lincoln’s goal was not “freeing the slaves,” but preserving a union and centralized power structure, whether the population wanted it or not. Most conservatives and nationalists agree with this priority, and that is why many of them worship Lincoln.

So, like most Democrats and liberals, I don’t see most conservatives and Republicans as being particularly concerned about living in a truly free society. As long as we are living under the rule of a powerful government in Washington, that is what authoritarians care about.

Activist Post – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – Creative Commons 2023

“National Divorce” Needed – Not between Left and Right, But between the People and the Government

There is now a revived discussion of “national divorce” in America as apparently started by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

I heard her on with Sean Hannity on the radio, and she seems to want to divide the country into “left” and “right,” even though there are a lot of people in the middle. And she says we would still be the “United States of America” with the federal government in Washington. So what she is suggesting just isn’t doable.

There are people who just want to live their lives, and want to live in peace and freedom, and want to be left alone. That is actually our basic right as human beings. The people who don’t want to leave the rest of us alone are the problem. They are the aggressors, the boundary-violators, the property trespassers, the coercers and intimidators, the thieves, the violence initiators and criminals. They are the ones who want to use the apparatus and police enforcement of government to force their will onto others and jail them for non-compliance.

We should just have a free society, a decentralized society. That would require, at the very least, getting rid of the federal government altogether. “But that would mean we would no longer be the United States of America, in other words no longer a country,” people would say.

Yes, that’s right. Greene and her cohorts on the “right” need to face the fact that the territory is just too big to be all one single country. It’s too big in area or square miles and it’s too big in population. This is one reason why it is becoming more and more divided.

Greene and fellow nationalists like Donald Trump seem to love and worship their treasured USA, which is really just a myth and not an entity of the real world. In the centralized “America,” what we really have is a self-serving centralized bureaucracy in which the elite few live off the labor of the masses. And that’s it.

I don’t know about “national divorce,” but we have a right to live in freedom. The first thing to do is get rid of the income tax.

As I wrote in my recent article, the income tax (or really any involuntary confiscation of wealth by bureaucrats) is involuntary, not based on a legitimate voluntary contract, and therefore is nothing but theft.

And the income tax is the main enabler of all the criminality in society right now, everything from the Biden crime family ties with Ukraine and the morons of CONgress sending billions to Ukraine, to the CDC/FDA/NIH/Pharma complex committing fraud/theft on a massive scale and injuring and killing people, and all points between.

Even many conservatives express their brainwashed mantra that “well the income tax is the price you have to pay,” and “you owe society something in return for its letting you live in freedom,” etc., etc.

Well no, we don’t owe society anything, that is, if we have an inherent right to live our lives, in freedom. Society as a whole isn’t giving us our freedom. There is no obligation to “pay back society.” If so, then we are owned by the society or community in which we live, and we don’t really have self-ownership.

The free society is based on self-ownership, private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, and the non-aggression principle.

But sadly even conservatives lapse into promoting a society of government ownership that violates those principles. Like the people on the “left” and the other nationalists, they are sufferers of “Stockholm Syndrome,” as Gary Barnett noted recently.

What we really have is a society of compulsory obedience to government diktats. For example, there are people who live in their community and they have their own education groups to teach the kids in the neighborhood reading and writing and math. But there are other people in that community who like the idea of a local government running the government schools and with a government school committee that determines the curriculum.

But the first group of people aren’t participating in that, and they aren’t going to pay the taxes that are demanded to fund the government schools. What happens to that first group of voluntary education advocates? The government-loving group will send the government police after the first group and arrest them for not forking over the loot, and arrest them for “truant” kids.

And on and on. There are many other examples. And speaking of government police, in a free society if you are worried about community security, there will be no restrictions on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, or their right to use them in self-defense. (Except for nuclear weapons which are indiscriminate, as Murray Rothbard pointed out here.)

Related to that subject, I wonder what today’s conservatives would pick if given the choice between a society with an armed government and a disarmed civilian population, or a society with a disarmed government and an armed civilian population. Hmmm.

But when it comes to MTG and other conservatives’ suggesting a “national divorce,” they probably won’t want to let go of this fantasized mythological “America,” from (government) border to border and coast to coast and sea to shining sea, and some sort of made-up collective ownership of the territory as a whole by the “citizens,” which doesn’t exist.

There is no such collective ownership. No one owns the territory. What we have here, or are supposed to have, is a society of many, many parcels of private property with many private owners of private property.

But with that fantasized collective ownership of the territory as a whole that many nationalists and conservatives seem to have, there is that anti-immigration sentiment, which goes against the principles of private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. They need to get over that, quite frankly. (I have addressed that here.)

Anyway, the “national divorce” that is needed to restore freedom in society is not a divorce between left and right, or liberal and conservative, but a divorce between the people and the government (by abolishing the government and having a voluntary society).

Informative News and Commentary

Gary Barnett: Social Contract Theory Idiocy: What Contract?

Ron Paul: The Real Disinformation Was The ‘Russia Disinformation’ Hoax

Jacob Hornberger: End the Welfare-Warfare State

Laurence Vance: Freedom of Conscience

Andrew Napolitano: The Legacy of George W. Bush and His Torturers

Gary Galles: Concentrate Where the Murders Are Concentrated

Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud

John Leake: Team Halo: The UN’s Medical Goon Squad

Andrew Earvolino: Beware the ‘America First’ Foreign Policy Phonies

Joseph Mercola: The Most Important Topics of Our Time

Mark Oshinskie: Steven Spielberg and the Other Unsmart Coronamaniacs

Thomas Knapp: Lies, Damned Lies, and George Santos

Campus Reform: SUNY to Require DEI and Social Justice Courses in Fall 2023

And Mike LaChance: Scientist Tapped By Biden For Intelligence Advisory Board Suffered ‘Acute Mental Health Crisis’ After Trump’s 2016 Win

Non-MSM News and Commentary for Christmas

Jeffrey Degner: Reclaiming the Anti-State Roots of Christmas

Children’s Health Defense Team: 6 ‘Noncompliance’ Strategies for Protecting Kids and Teens in 2023

Paul Sperry: How the FBI Copied Parts of the Debunked Steele Dossier Directly Into Its Spy Requests

Caitlin Johnstone: U.S. Military Thanks And Praises Retiring CNN “Journalist” For Her Service

Peter McCullough: “Anti-Science” a Weaponized Term Used by Those Who Refuse to Face Vaccine Safety Data

Jonathan Turley: Without a Hope or a Prayer: Why the Arrest of a British Woman Outside of Abortion Clinic is a Wake-Up Call for Free Speech

Matt Taibbi: Twitter Files Thread: The Spies Who Loved Twitter

John Kiriakou: Time to Revive the 1995 Act that Called for Abolishing the CIA

Trish Randall: How the FBI Used Twitter to Lie to You

Joseph Mercola: Covid Criminals in the Wild Wild West, and FDA Could Gain More Power to Ban Dietary Supplements Under Proposed Federal Law

Douglas Macgregor: Washington Is Prolonging Ukraine’s Suffering

Brandon Smith: If Government Officials Want To Prevent Rebellion They Should Stop Committing Treason

Daniel Larison: In Biased Somalia Report, Washington Post Serves Military’s Interests Only

Bob Ryan: Greenhouse Gasses Are Good

And Gateway Pundit: Judge Peter Thompson Rules Elections with Broken Machines in 60% of Precincts and No Chain of Custody for Ballots Are Free, Fair and Certifiable

My 2014 Article on Elections and Statist Dogs Chasing Their Tails

We have mid-term elections coming up. In 2014 I wrote an article that was on expressing my view of the futility of these elections. So, I will repost that article here.

More Elections in 2014? More Statist Dogs Chasing Their Tails?

January 9, 2014

As I wrote in 2010, each election has been a progressively worse rearranging of deck chairs. This coming year’s elections will be no different. ”Reforming” an inherently flawed system is impossible, and to me each election reminds me of a helpless dog chasing after its own tail.

America was supposed to be a society of freedom, which goes with the ideas of self-ownership and private property. Instead, we have democracy, which is majority rule at freedom’s expense.

A society in which 51% of the people can vote to impose their will on the other 49%, and steal their stuff. That’s democracy, in a nutshell.

As I mentioned in recent articles, it’s hard to get people to understand these things.

The older people have grown (or regressed) to accept the statism that is imposed on them at the expense of freedom and prosperity.

And the younger people are born into the society in which “normal” to them is their enslavement by the State to serve the State, and for the benefit of those who are employed by the State or who are the immediate recipients of forcibly redistributed wealth.

Some people have a problem with my calling things as they are, such as how our current system of statism is one of institutionalized criminality.

Well, the people really had better snap out of it, and it would help if they actually understood why our current system is one of institutionalized criminality and certainly not one of freedom.

Our current system is one of rule by the State – federal, state, and local governments, especially federal — in which its rule is compulsory on the people within the territory. The State’s rule is enforced by those employees who have been given artificial authority over others.

However, while the State and all its “officials” do not own the territory over which they rule and wield power, such an ownership is nevertheless implied in the officials’ imposition of their authority without such authority’s legitimacy being questioned by those who are ruled.

But in reality, while such assertions sound absurd to most people, these State employees essentially own your property, they own your home, and they really own your life. Asserting your own rights and independence, and especially questioning the State’s authority, is a no-no.

So as our society has regressed, the people not only don’t protect their rights, their property or their lives and children from the predations of the State, they submit to such enslavement willfully.

I wish that more people could understand the difference between our current system of statism and a society of freedom in which all human interaction must be voluntary.

For example, many people are uncomfortable with questioning the legitimacy of Social Security (and Medicare). They feel that so much of their earnings have been taken from them, they genuinely hope (and pray) to get it back during their retirement.

It’s very upsetting to someone who doesn’t have much in savings to hear that she won’t get back what was allegedly promised.

But what is Social Security, really?  The government compels you to have to participate in this one government-run retirement scheme, whether you like it or not. It is not a voluntary contract.

Right there, we see that such a scheme and such a system of compulsion is immoral from the very beginning. It has also been a fraudulent scheme from the very beginning, in which many people are misled to believe that earnings taken from them will be placed into some kind of “insurance account,” and then returned to them later on.

That is not the truth. The truth is, the earnings which are taken from you are put into the federal government’s general treasury and Congress spends it in real time along with all other revenue which is illicitly taken from the people. So the whole thing is a scam, a criminal racket from beginning to end. But so many people just don’t want to hear that.

Are there any politicians who propose to abolish Social Security and the IRS and restore the people’s freedom to plan their own retirements and savings as they see fit? (I didn’t think so.)

Another racket is the State’s usurpation of community security and policing, now known as “law enforcement.”

As I wrote previously regarding our current police socialism, government bureaucrats have usurped and monopolized the production of security, which includes the legal restriction against the people’s 2nd Amendment-protected attempts to protect themselves from threats against their lives and property.

And the federal government’s monopoly in “national security” is also a scam, a criminal racket. Generations of Americans have been fooled into believing that empowering central planners in Washington will “protect” them from foreign aggression. When in fact, such an empowerment has done nothing but enable and encourage the central planning bureaucrats to act belligerently against foreigners, starting wars of aggression or entering other countries’ wars for no good reason.

The national bamboozlers did a wonderful job convincing the American people that had our government and military not entered World War II, “we’d all be speaking German.” Now, do you really believe that Hitler and his military could have come across the ocean and successfully invaded, occupied and taken over America?

And then there was the Cold War with Russia.

And now the Cold War’s replacement the War on Terrorism. If there has ever been a statist dog chasing its own tail, it is our “national security” bureaucrats, some of whom have been duped into really believing they are going after terrorists.

Sadly, these terror warriors and their neocon supporters have become a fanatical jihad in their warrior idiocy.

So we have an NSA and an FBI who spy on their fellow Americans, clearing the way for intimidation, suppression of political dissent and blackmail.

And we have an FBI that concocts terrorist plots out of thin air so it can then thwart them, a TSA that engages in criminal molesting and raping of innocent civilians yet never finding one terrorist since 9/11, and a CIA drone-murder-of-innocent-civilians program that does nothing but further motivate foreigners to want to kill Americans.

And these Rulers of ours know full well that the real way to prevent terrorism is to stop invading other countries that were of no threat to us, stop occupying their lands and stop murdering their people and destroying their countries.

In other words, you will stop causing foreign terrorism against your fellow Americans by stopping provoking foreigners. Duh.

So the system of government monopoly in “national security” we currently have in place is a scam, a criminal protection racket.

The real way for the people to protect themselves from foreign aggression is recognized by the 2nd Amendment, by the way. Putting armaments in the hands of government bureaucrats has been a self-destructive act, which several of the early Americans such as James Madison warned against as well.

So, there’s the fraudulent Social Security scam, the local police and national security monopoly rackets, and the list never ends. Just look at this ObamaCare stuff. Talk about a criminal racket. What’s worse is these schemers’ real intentions, single payer and in fact complete government control over everyone’s private medical matters.

And with the extremely cold weather we have been having, a further exposé of fraudsters is the global warming scam. When they call people “deniers,” the global warming crowd are like flat-earthers, and going on witch hunts, while it is they, these crazy people who are the real “deniers.”

And speaking of terrorists, how about all those years during the 2000s that the warmists shoved their scare-mongering films and so forth into the public schools, terrorizing the kids into having nightmares?

People believed all the studies “proving” the human-caused global warming theories based more likely than not on flawed studies, whose “scientists” depended largely on government grants (i.e. receiving loot stolen from others via taxation-thefts).

And the reason for that stuff and replacing our light bulbs with poisonous ones isn’t out of love for the environment either – it is out of love for government, as the goal of the crackpots is to enlarge and empower the government and its bureaucrats to, right with the “national security” fanatics, create a Total State with politicians and activists having complete control over the whole society.

So, with the 2014 elections will conservatives continue their blind faith in Republicans such as Mitch McConjob and John Boehner Keynes the anti-Tea Party speaker?

Do the “progressives” really believe that they’ll get a politician elected who will actually protect our civil liberties and end the wars? Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

For those who want to live in a genuinely free, peaceful and prosperous society, you’ll have to accept the fact that the idea of “government as a necessary evil” is a myth. I know it’s an old cliché by now, but democracy really is “the god that failed,” for sure.

Any institution and its agents who claim some authority over your life, the power to order you to do this or that, the power to force you to do extra labor to serve their needs, and the power to arrest and detain you for engaging in peaceful behaviors which harm no one, is an evil, criminal institution.

In conclusion, when considering further rearranging of deck chairs in November 2014, please reconsider!

Copyright 2014 (link to article)

More Truthful Information (i.e. “Disinformation” According to Official Gubmint-Approved Media)

Ron Paul: Americans Suffer from Natural and Government-Created Disasters

Jacob Hornberger: Price-Gouging Hypocrisy Among Republicans

Brett Wilkins: Despite Calls for Diplomacy to End War, U.S. Confirms More Weapons Headed to Ukraine

Connor Mortell: We Are Not the Government, But America Is No Longer Anything More Than the Government

Pepe Escobar: Germany and EU Have Been Handed a Declaration of War

Caitlin Johnstone: We Survived The Last Nuclear Standoff Through Compromise And De-Escalation

Douglas Young: The Censorship Temptation

Joseph Mercola: Why Additional Engineered Pandemics Are to Be Expected

Allan Stevo: If You Can’t Treat a Doctor Like Your Servant on the Mask Issue, You Won’t Be Able to Do It When It Comes to Your Healthcare

Edward Curtin: Only Adult Children Still Believe U.S. Propaganda

Sheldon Richman: The Scourge of Conscription

Laurence Vance: Drug Decriminalization Disaster

Kurt Nimmo: More Evidence Points to U.S.-NATO Sabotage of Nordstream

Robert Bridge: Should Europeans ‘Thank’ the Americans for Destroying Nord Stream?

Veronique de Rugy: The Government Should Be Pro-Market, Not ‘Pro-Business’

James Bovard: Thank Joe Biden for Your Covid-Positive Nurse

Steve Kirsch: New Paper Confirms the Covid Vaccines Kill Brain Cells and Heart Cells Leading to Death

Naomi Wolf: Lipid Nanoparticles: Are They Subtly Changing Human Beings? Gary Barnett: Anarchy Means Only No Rule, No Rulers; In Other Words — Freedom

Jason Morgan: To Limit the Reach of America’s Stasi, the FBI, Vacate All FISA Rulings

And The Daily Caller: “Aligned With Our Mission”: Seattle Children’s Hospital Promises To Keep Operating On Trans Children

More News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger: Moral Blindness on U.S. Evil, and “Russian Bad!”

Jeffrey Tucker: The Day Anthony Fauci Wrecked American Freedom

Doug Casey: How Covid Lockdowns Will Become Climate Lockdowns

Gary Barnett: All Government and All Rule Are Always and Inherently Immoral and Evil

Andrew Napolitano: Your Gun Is None of the Government’s Business

Jerome Corsi: “Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,” a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy

Gateway Pundit: BEWARE: Internet Hoaxes Go Viral on Deep State Operative Ray Epps as Media and Liz Cheney Panic

Caitlin Johnstone: The Phoniest, Most PR-Intensive War Of All Time

Dave DeCamp: British Official Says Nuclear War Threat Higher Than During the Cold War

Norman Solomon: Nancy Pelosi Taiwan Visit Could Get Us All Killed

And PBS: The U.S. and the Holocaust

End Selective Service, No More Draft!

Edward Hasbrouck has this article on, Congress Is Again Considering Proposals To End, or To Expand, Selective Service.

So, once again I would like to repost what I wrote about that issue here in 2013, More Calls for “National Service” as Americans Are Already Increasingly Enslaved by Government:

September 18, 2013

Jacob Hornberger and Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation had this discussion on the “Libertarian Angle,” regarding calls for “national service.” In this edition, they also discussed Syria and monetary policy.

As part of their discussion on “national service,” Sheldon Richman pointed out that many of those calls for “national service” are not particularly for people to serve other people or their neighbors or the community, but to serve the nation. The implication is that the inhabitants of the territory here owe something to the nation.

The truth is, many amongst the “national service” crowd really believe in the idea of sacrifice. They say you must sacrifice some of your time and labor to “serve” others. But, as Ayn Rand noted, they really mean sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.

But really, to the nationalists we owe a sacrifice to the State. We have something, such as freedom and opportunity, for which we must show gratitude by being compelled to “serve,” something that the State has given to us or provides for us, and that we owe something in return. That is the underlying premise of the “national service” crowd.

Why there would be a resurgence in calls for “national service” at this time, after 12 long years of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now the tyrannical ObamaCare, is beyond me. You want us to serve THAT? That monstrous Leviathan?

I was very disappointed to read just recently from war and Big Government critic Andrew Bacevich that he supports some sort of “national service” program, or a “citizen soldiers” program. He was interviewed on NPR and stated:

My proposal, to be clear, is not to restore the draft, but to enact a program of national service. National service means all able-bodied young people owe a couple of years of service to the country. Some of them may choose to serve in the military. All the rest will serve in other capacities, you know, whether it’s a renewed equivalent of the Civilian Conservation Corps, or whatever.

And I was also reminded of the extreme disappointment I felt in the early ’90s when William F. Buckley, Jr. came out with his book, Gratitude.

Oh, we should be grateful that the government or the State provides for us our freedom and opportunities, even though it is those damn bureaucrats who are employed by the State who have done everything they can to demolish our opportunities and trample on our freedom!

“Grateful”? Sorry, I would be grateful if Americans decided to shut down the criminal institution that is the U.S. government and unshackle the chains and release its hold on our enslaved lives.

In 1990 the New York Times provided this quote from Buckley’s book:

The objective should be to enroll, by the turn of the century, more than 80 percent of Americans born in 1973 or later. . . . Yes, there needs to be a National Service Franchise Administration. Its primary function should be to gather information for use by the states and indeed by individuals seeking (for instance) a locality that sustains an NSFA program most congenial to their inclination. . . . But the NSFA, observing its mandate, should also recommend appropriate legislation to Congress, legislation having primarily to do with federal sanctions.

These are “freedom-loving conservatives”? (Humph. With “conservatives” like this, who needs communists?)

So the “national service” crowd seem to believe that we should be grateful for our enslavement. That is why so many of the nationalists, collectivists and statists are so resentful toward libertarians. We libertarians actually appreciate the idea of freedom of choice, freedom of movement, self-ownership, voluntary association and voluntary contract. You see, when you let people have their freedom, then the State has less control over your life, and the nationalists, collectivists and statists whose self-identity is closely linked to their love for the State also feel a loss of control.

But  in regards to this call that others serve the nation, to most people the “nation” or the State is really an abstract concept which is based on myths and a religious worship of this god the State.

Sheldon Richman and Jacob Hornberger in their discussion mentioned James Bovard who has written extensively on the sham that is AmeriCorps (a.k.a. ObamaCorps). Here is Bovard’s most recent piece on that.

The truth is, human beings own their own lives, they are not owned by the State, the “nation,” their neighbors, the community. It is not the State or the nation that provides your freedom. Your freedom is a natural thing that you have inherently.

But the only people to whom you “owe” anything are those with whom you have established actual contracts that would involve agreed-to transactions or trades.

In my 2009 response to Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy’s calls to revive Bill Clinton’s “AmeriCorps,” I wrote,

Here are some examples of how people serve others: steel workers and carpenters in the manufacturing sector serve the companies they work for, but are really serving the actual consumers who need the items they produce, such as computers, trucks and office buildings. There are people in the service sector who serve people who need groceries, get coffee at the local diner and clothes at the department store. And of course there are charities who serve the needs of those who can’t afford the daily necessities. And there are professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants who serve many people’s needs.The people in the “social services” sector such as nurses and nurses’ aides serve the needs of medical patients and teachers serve the needs  of children and young adults who need to be educated.

Now, the people in all these groups are not forced nor coerced to serve others; they do it voluntarily, and yes, most of them are paid for their work. They receive a financial compensation which is in their self-interest and they do a service to others, and their work is not planned or mandated by state authority with the armed force of legal compulsion. At the same time, there are many, many people throughout the population who do volunteer work, also in absence of government mandates or coercion–they do it out of their own genuine concern for others. People who lack that concern will probably not do volunteer work even if it’s mandated by government. You would have to have state-imposed conscription to force them to do such “involuntary servitude.” However, their sacrifice is not needed.

In fact, the “national service” people really don’t like that kind of voluntary trade and association. They seem to need some kind of sense of control over others in which “service” is valid when it is compelled and controlled by bureaucrats, based on some belief that we as individuals are owned by the State (or by the collective of the community). This has been the philosophy behind AmeriCorps, and other kinds of “national service,” as well as being the same kind of philosophy behind many government regulations and bureaucratic intrusions in our personal and economic lives.

Some Additional Thoughts on the Overturning of Roe v. Wade

Here are some further points I wanted to make on the overturning of Roe v. Wade that I didn’t get in my earlier post.

In the overturning of Roe v. Wade by 6 to 3, the majority opinion was written by Justice (sic) Samuel Alito, who clearly stated that this decision was only to do with abortion and the main point being to protect the life of the unborn baby. Alito noted that the decision was not meant to affect other High Court decisions such as regarding gay marriage or contraception.

But in a separately written concurring opinion Justice (sic) Clarence Thomas wrote that this overturning Roe v. Wade decision should be used to reconsider past rulings favoring contraception and gay marriage.

I don’t know what it is with these fascists on the “Supreme” Court such as Thomas who do not believe in individual liberty and self-ownership and private property rights. Of course private people have the right to use contraception to prevent a pregnancy if they want to. The individual owns one’s own body. If the community in which one lives wants to impose a rule of no contraception, they could do so in a condition in which the community owns the life of that individual. But that is not what we have in a free society.

And individuals have a right to freedom of contract, in their personal lives as well as their economic lives. So that would include marital contracts. If a community or one’s neighbors don’t like private individuals’ contracts and associations, they would legislate against certain kinds of contracts such as gay marriage, that is, if the community or neighborhood owned the lives of said individuals.

But in a free society one’s community does not own one’s life or body. Right? In a free society recognizing self-ownership, private property rights and contract rights, when others in the community who don’t agree with the private people’s private contracts and relationships, those others may not interfere or intrude. “MYOB,” we used to say. I have addressed the “right to marry” in this earlier article.

Regarding the exceptions to anti-abortion laws, such as when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or cases of rape or incest: I am mostly in agreement with the exception of when the mother’s life is in danger. However, the point is to protect the unborn baby from being killed — how does that change just because of the circumstances of the conception, such as a rape or incest? The unborn baby is not responsible for the violent actions of the father.

Incidentally, we would have far fewer rapes or attempted rapes if more women would arm themselves. That is another reason to preserve everybody’s right to keep and bear arms. You would think the feminists would advocate for the repeal of gun control laws that infringe upon the right of women to defend themselves against attempted rapists.

And on this overturning of Roe v. Wade, why so much hysteria? At many of those pro-abortion rallies we are hearing screaming activists behaving like abortion is now totally illegal. All the decision does is send the issue back to the states, and each state will decide what to do. I’ve never seen so much hysteria and irrationality. And the old biddies of “The View” have suggested going on a “sex strike.” (Like that’s a bad thing?)

Some More Good Tweets


Voluntary Decentralization Necessary to Restore Freedom

Here is a Libertarian Party tweet, a great thread here. There are some naysayers, but they probably like the idea of dependence on corrupt thugs to rule over them. Some say such decentralization and a free society is impossible, but it would require an adherence to property rights and respect for the self-ownership rights of the people, and the right to self-defense of the people, which includes the right to keep and bear arms. Click on the date within the tweet to view the whole thread.

The “New and Improved” Libertarian Party

June 4, 2022

As I have noted previously, the Libertarian Party has been “taken over” by the Mises Caucus.

This page on their Platform was accessed via Wikipedia. The LP Mises Caucus supports private property rights, the Austrian School of economics, decentralization, localism, nullification, secession, non-interventionist foreign policy, and rejects socialism, central planning and central banking, wars of aggression and empire building, and identity politics and “wokism.”

In this video, Michael Malice interviews the new Chair of the Libertarian Party National Committee, Angela McArdle. She is closely associated with the LP’s Mises Caucus.

Maybe now the LP can oust the pretentious “woke” crapola, and get back to the non-aggression principle and the advocacy of self-ownership, which were the founding ideals of the LP.

Regarding their past Presidential candidates, Ron Paul in 1988 was the best, and Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000 a close second. The LP went further downhill after Browne and just became another wing of The State with its terrible nomination of statist Gary Johnson twice, and the psychologist Jo Jorgensen in 2020.

In 2020 LP presidential candidate Jacob Hornberger won the most votes in the primaries in states which “allowed” Libertarian Party primaries, getting roughly 9000+ votes vs. Jo Jorgensen’s roughly 5000 votes. But the LP convention nevertheless went with the “woke” moron Jorgensen rather than the principled Hornberger. Perhaps Hornberger’s constant criticism of the CIA and its crimes abroad bothered the sheeple of the LP? Perhaps the LP had been infiltrated by CIA? Who knows?

Maybe in 2024 the LP can get a candidate who is willing to tell the truth about the criminal regime in Washington and not be afraid of the truth. Maybe Jacob Hornberger can run again in 2024 (at age 74?).

Here are some of my further thoughts on libertarianism and the Libertarian Party:

Whoever the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential nominee is, he or she must confidently and powerfully condemn and denounce any and all Covid policies inflicted on us by bureaucrats. Any and all mandates, lockdowns, shut-downs, stay-in orders, masks, “vaccines” that are not vaccines, and everything else. Anyone who does NOT condemn and denounce, I would not touch with a ten-foot pole, that’s for sure. So for me personally, that’s my #1 issue.

And we need someone who not only utters the nice slogans, “No More Wars,” “Close Down the Foreign U.S. Military Bases,” etc., but will run on a platform to abolish and close down the CIA, the FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, ICE, as well as the IRS, the Fed, CDC, NIH, FDA, the Departments of Education, Energy, and just about everything else that is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

And also a platform that makes use of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment that recognizes the right of the people to nullify the edicts of the U.S. government. For example, on oil drilling and becoming energy independent once again whether the Washington DC rulers like it or not. Also nullifying Covid mandates and prohibitions, vaccine and mask mandates, lockdowns, etc.

It would be nice to have someone who can rationally express why the war on drugs is immoral from the very beginning. Why each individual has a right to self ownership and the right to ingest whatever one wants and take responsibility for the consequences for one’s decisions.

Either the individual owns one’s body, or the government owns one’s body, in which case of course the government has the authority to tell you what you may or may not put into “your” body.

Do you own you, or does the government own you? Are you a slave?

And “Taxation Is Theft” isn’t just a slogan. The reason taxation is theft and slavery is that, for example if you did 100 hours of labor, then the compensation for that labor you receive from the employer or client belongs to you, because you’re the one who did the labor. Anyone who takes ANY of that compensation from you, via coercion or threats and in the absence of a voluntary contract, is committing theft.

For decades and decades the brainwashed American sheeple have not even paid any attention to the Libertarian Party, much thanks to the corporate media who are fused with the two government parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. Corporate “mainstream” media will not cover third parties in any meaningful way.

Republican, Democrat. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Two sides of the same statist coin. “Government is Supreme” is their motto. They love the State.

And I hear these “conservatives” on talk radio who dismiss the Libertarian Party and say we MUST vote for the Republicans, only they can save us. I wrote my response to that a few months ago. Republicans are Democrat Lite.

And the far-right wing of the Republican party do not seem to get private property rights, free markets and freedom of contract. If they did, they would support the right of workers to get employment wherever they can get it, without having to get a government bureaucrat’s permission. And they would support the right of employers to hire the workers of their choosing without having to get a bureaucrat’s permission (i.e. the immigration issue).

And on the immigration issue, the current Libertarian Party platform plank on Free trade and Migration states: “We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

Will these so-called “conservatives” ever realize that the problem is the government? That the problem is socialist government central planning?

And like some “libertarians,” Republicans (Democrats Lite) still believe in the income tax and they want to keep the IRS. Even when they are targeted by the evil, fascist IRS, they still LOVE the IRS! They also love the national security state and love the FBI, NSA, CIA and all the rest, regardless of all the abuses those government criminals have committed against Americans.

People have to wake up and realize that we will continue to have a repeat of these “left” and “right” swings, and an increasingly declining society as long as we only elect Republicans and Democrats to public office.

The two major parties are a criminal racket, in part because they have colluded to make restrictions on ballot access and keep third parties and independent candidates off the ballot. And the Republicans and Democrats are the fascist statist wing of government supporters. Propping up the criminal racket that is government is their first priority.

And the corporate “news” media have not been the journalists we might hope they would be. They have for the most part been propagandists for the government and mainly the Democrat party. Shame on them.

The Libertarian Party has to get back to its founding principles, advocating self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, private property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of association and freedom of non-association, freedom of contract, the right of self-preservation and self-defense, the “right to be secure” in one’s “persons, houses, papers and effects,” and freedom of movement. (See my 2016 article on libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.)

News and Commentary, More Reasons to Hate the State

Mike Maharrey: Lysander Spooner’s Strategy to Stop Unconstitutional Acts

John Whitehead: America, Meet Your New Dictator-in-Chief: The President’s Secret, Unchecked Powers

Steve Watson: Video: Fauci Openly Admits Biden Mask Mandate Is About Preserving “Authority”

Gary Barnett: Most All That Is Rational, Good, Beautiful, and Moral Has been Destroyed in Favor of Collective Idiocy

Thomas Knapp: Of Car Keys and “Gun Control”

James Risen: The FBI Tried to Ambush My Source. Now I’m Telling the Whole Story.

Robert Malone: Masking: More Harms than Good?

Andrew Napolitano: The Government Culture of Death

Veronique de Rugy: Corporations’ Woke Signaling Won’t Override Profit Motive

William Astore: A Graduation Speech to Air Force Cadets

And Gateway Pundit: CIA Notes Confirm US Intelligence Officials Targeted Trump After He Was Elected — Ran a Coup on President Trump While in Office