(This cartoon was originally from April, 2009.)
Zero Hedge shows that Russia may have good evidence against Ukraine regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down.
James Bovard comments on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 Commission, a “bootlicking national disgrace.”
Charles Burris discusses the Zbignorant Brzezinski anti-Soviet scheming and conniving that continues today.
Washington’s Blog reports that blackmail is a big part of NSA’s tax-funded “work.”
Ron Paul explains what the media won’t report on the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
And Philip Weiss says that finally the mainstream media is reporting on the humanitarian crisis that Israel has been causing in Gaza for years.
Jacob Hornberger has these interesting thoughts on the child immigrant crisis.
Omar Baddar gives some clarification as to which side, Israel or Hamas, is implementing “human shields” more than the other. Remember, the U.S. mainstream lapdog media merely repeat what their controllers in the USG tell them. This article here is quite a bit more objective and truthful.
From 1967, Murray Rothbard discusses Israel and Zionism.
From 2002, Burt Blumert tells of his Palestinian gold customers in San Francisco.
William Grigg details the criminality of police socialism.
Robert Wenzel lists the 17 books that Rand Paul erased from from his website for recommended reading, including three by his father, Ron Paul. (Also: The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt. Economics in One Lesson? That extremely controversial book?!! Doh!)
In his article today, Justin Raimondo mentions the June 12 Palestinian murders of three Israeli children, which was used by the Israelis as part of the reason for a war of aggression into Gaza still ongoing. But on May 15th Israeli troops murdered two Palestinian teens who were merely standing around minding their own business. While Israeli officials came up with one lame excuse after another, the security camera which caught the whole thing shows the cold-blooded murders which Human Rights Watch has stated is an “apparent” war crime. Meanwhile, the Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Moshe Feiglin can’t wait to clear out all of Gaza and replace the “enemy population” with Jews.
Glenn Greenwald writes about the always objective NBC News whose execs told their veteran reporter in Gaza to get out of there after he reported from his own eyewitness account of the four Palestinian children playing “football” on the beach being murdered by the Israelis.
Washington’s Blog has this post on the implausibility of the 9/11 attacks being committed without some government involvement or backing, involving several possible governments mainly the Saudis.
Becky Akers writes about the negatives of State secrets (many) and the positives (none).
Wendy McElroy suggests that, instead of Obama’s ocean “land-grab,” privatize the ocean instead.
And William Grigg writes about a typical day of yet more police brutality.
Judge Andrew Napolitano comments on AG Eric Holster’s assertion that people criticize Obama because he’s black, that criticisms of Obama are “racist.” Well, if he really believes that, then he must be pretty dumb. You would have to be really stupid to believe that any criticism of an incompetent ignoramus tyrant such as Obama who is ruining America’s medical system, drone-murders innocent civilians overseas with impunity, and illegally imposes executive orders, is a racist criticism. And Napolitano notes how Obama and Holster are investigating not just criticisms of Obama but satires and lampooning of the buffoon, in order to intimidate and silence Obama’s many critics. (I guess I’m an anti-white racist for criticizing George W. Bush and his fellow war criminal socialist father, George H.W. Bush.)
Wendy McElroy writes about Voluntaryist Anthropology, and the existence and history of state-less societies. (I think that a result of having more and more Obamas and Eric Holsters as Rulers the more state-less societies we will probably have in the future.)
And Chris Floyd gives a good thorough analysis of the atrocities being committed in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
William Grigg has an update on the Detroit lady who had attempted to defend her daughter against a CPS-S.W.A.T. team siege. Charges against the courageous mother were dropped but the DA tried to reinstate the charges this year but they were finally once again dropped. I’m still not seeing anything about the lady insisting that the CPS officials who caused the whole thing themselves be arrested and charged with kidnapping, child endangerment, forced drugging, etc. I think that more families who are victims of CPS Nazis need to fight back and insist that when these bureaucrats act criminally against innocents, they need to have criminal charges pressed against them.
And Radley Balko has more on the criminalization of parenthood, citing several examples of parents being arrested for a child who skips church, for dropping a child off at a park to play unsupervised, and for leaving a 4-year-old in a car while stopping off at a store. Now, what kind of cop would actually arrest a parent for those things?
Ron Paul informs us on what’s missing from the immigration crisis debate.
And Robert Wenzel asks, If it comes down to a Hillary vs. rand Paul election, who would a libertarian prefer to win?
I have written quite a lot about the Justina Pelletier case. Well, Wendy McElroy has this column on that case, regarding a bill that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is sponsoring that will cut federal funding for research by medical or psychiatric facilities which uses a “ward of the State” as guinea pigs for their sick experiments. Justina Pelletier was kidnapped by Massachusetts Department of Children and Families and handed over to Boston Children’s Hospital psychiatrists against her and her parents’ will. The “doctors” took her off her medication and treatment she had been on up to that point, and because of that and who knows what psychiatric meds etc. they then put her on, she was then in a wheelchair and unable to walk and had other medical issues in addition to her Mitochondrial Disease she already had. The “doctors” are religious zealots with their “behavior modification” ideology. The Pelltiers should not only be suing them — and suing each “doctor” involved personally with malpractice — but they should insist that those “doctors” be criminally charged with child abduction, endangerment, and false imprisonment.
I think that Michele Bachmann et al. should instead of withholding funding for research involving “wards of the State” etc., how about withholding ALL funding for ALL research and tell the “researchers” that if they think their “research” is so important then go convince people to fund it voluntarily.
The conservatives on talk radio are going on and on and on about the immigration issue and the problem of those immigrant children crossing the government-drawn borders. But many of these same conservatives support the drug war, which, according to Mark Thornton, is really the main cause of that immigration crisis. Well how about it conservatives: Which is more important to you, resolving the immigration crisis, or continuing to support this really counter-productive and hypocritical drug war?
Copyright 2014 LewRockwell.com (Link to article)
In reading how Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s books were banned in Sweden by the ultra-politically correct European Students for Liberty, and that his appearances in Finland apparently were not acceptable to some intolerant European libertarian bigwigs, I was glad that despite the PC crowd he was still able to make his appearances there.
You see, as with Lew Rockwell, with Hans Hoppe the problem is mainly the State. Social tolerance and diversity are side issues. But acceptance of the State and its criminal functions – that’s the problem. Regardless of Hoppe’s non-PC social views he was nevertheless welcomed into the libertarian big tent.
Once again, though, when considering whether there is room in the libertarian tent for those of diverse social views, it seems that the ones concerned about LGBT issues, equal pay, racial or gender bias, etc. seem to want to push their social agendas onto others a little more aggressively than the other way around.
Further, a lot of what the State is about is making up rules by legislative diktat and calling it “law,” and hiring thugs and goons to enforce those “laws.”
In reality it is the agents of the State and its enforcers who are the actual criminals of society. And it is also necessary to shine a light on those who use the State’s “anti-discrimination” laws as a means to harass and financially extort from someone who has expressed an “offensive” i.e. politically incorrect point of view or has declared one’s right to exercise freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. This is another area in which minarchists should rethink their acceptance of a State with monopoly power.
For instance, we can look at the case of the same-sex couple who felt offended when a photographer didn’t want to photograph their wedding (or “commitment ceremony” in this case). The couple could have merely respected the photographer’s right to not associate with or do work for them and then move on to find another photographer who would work for them. There probably are dozens of professional photographers in every region of the country who would do the work, even in the southern redneck areas, I’m sure.
Now, I think that the couple were so “offended” by the photographer because hyper-sensitivity has become the norm in America. The government schools emphasize this now in which teasing is now called “bullying,” and “zero tolerance” is just a euphemism for thought control. In a truly moral world, of course the photographer has a right to refuse to do business with someone, and based on whatever reasons she has — it’s her business.
It seems to me that there are many people now who are more offended by someone not wanting to associate with a member of a “protected class” of people, than they are offended by people forcing others to associate with them. Just as there are many people now who are more offended by a child pointing his finger like a gun saying “bang, bang” than those who are offended by teachers calling the police to arrest the child. In other words, mere thoughts and points of view, and mere verbal expressions, seem to offend more than the actual uncivilized behavior and acts of aggression being employed by the State at the wish of those who are emotionally intolerant and hyper-sensitive.
But morally, people do not have the right to force someone to associate with them or do business with them. If someone rejects you, then you move on to someone else — that’s the civilized, moral and libertarian thing to do. But using the State and its enforcers to compel an involuntary association from someone is criminal, in my view. In that same-sex commitment ceremony case, while the photographer is exercising her right of freedom of thought, association and voluntary contract, the couple are not only the intolerant ones, but they are in fact acting criminally in their financial extortion and harassment of the photographer.
And I wonder just how much the couple felt it important to sue the photographer out of genuine principle (or spite, revenge, or pettiness, depending on how you look at it), or did they see the situation as an opportunity — in our sue-happy society — to use the courts to “get something for nothing”?
Now, I’m not accusing, I’m only asking.
But the couple really did get something for nothing: They forcibly obtained free money from someone even though they were not aggrieved or harmed in any way by the photographer. The couple found another photographer for their commitment ceremony. So in my view, what the couple did was in fact a criminal act, an act of stealing money from a totally innocent person who merely did not want to work at their ceremony. And they also caused the photographer a lot of emotional strain and anguish, and unnecessarily so.
And I realize that’s a rather harsh interpretation of the situation on my part. Yet, it is truly a realistic and frank summary. But that really is what our narcissistic society has become. Certain people in certain groups want to impose their views and ways of life onto others, and they will use the force of government law and police to do it.
And that was exactly the case during the era of Jim Crow laws. Local government councils and their enforcers legally restricted a shopkeeper’s right to allow people of any race or ethnic background to enter the premises and do business there. And that was by law, and such laws really were enforced. The racist morons on the city councils and their supporters felt so uncomfortable seeing black people associating and doing business with white people, that they empowered their local government police thugs to forcibly restrict such associations.
The Jim Crow laws also included the legally-sanctioned and forced racial segregation of publicly-owned functions and facilities, such as government schools, public transportation, and so forth. (Incidentally, while the current conflicts in Israel continue to escalate, I’m sure that many people don’t know about the Jim Crow laws in Israel, separate buses for Israelis and Palestinians, and separate schools as well. But I digress.)
Fortunately the 1964 Civil Rights Act repealed the Jim Crow laws and ordered the government to end segregated policies, and forbade government goons from preventing private business people from engaging in commerce with people of different races. The government-run public schools and public transit buses must provide services to all members of the public regardless of race, etc., and a white businessperson who wants customers of all races and ethnicities should not be prevented from having them.
However, the Act went further by intruding into business owners’ private property rights to associate freely and trade with others, including their employment and customer policies based on the owners’ own preferences (and biases and prejudices). But if the Act didn’t empower government goons to criminally violate private businesses, and if, say, a white store or restaurant owner continued to discriminate against black people, then there would be plenty of protests and boycotts against that business, and/or the more liberal-minded competition across the street would win many more customers thus putting the racist out of business.
This is why freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are so important, especially in the context of private property rights. Even a racist has a right to be a racist, as long as one is peaceful and doesn’t violate others’ persons and property. For example, a black woman who owns a store has a free association right to not let white people in her store. It’s her store. If neighbors don’t like that, they don’t have to shop there, or they can offer to buy the store from her. But morally, should the neighbors have the “right” or more accurately the power to force the store owner to allow someone into her business she feels uncomfortable with? Of course not. Would the neighbors advocate that a black homeowner who doesn’t want white people in her home be forced to let people in her home? Of course not, and yes, it is the same thing. Private property is private property. Just because something is a commercial business doesn’t make it any more owned by the public (or by the government) than if it were a residential property.
And with the same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony case, if a lesbian photographer doesn’t want to provide services for a traditional opposite-sex wedding, she shouldn’t do that, she should not be forced to do that, and a couple’s suing her as a punishment for her refusal would be a criminal act, in my view.
So these situations in which the State exists to force certain social views onto others, and worse to use its enforcer goons to impose such views or financial thefts as punishments for those who don’t comply with the edicts, should be examples with which the minarchists, the limited government libertarians can reconsider whether we really should have a State monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making in the first place.
I have a feeling that the so-called European Students for Liberty who didn’t want Hans-Hermann Hoppe to appear in Finland and who banned his books in Sweden might have some disagreements with me in this article. And if that were the case then one should question whether they really are students for “liberty.”
U.S. Air Force veteran Justin Pavoni states that Iraq will solve itself when we (presumably the U.S. government) leave it alone. Among other things, he writes:
The American presence in the Middle East is a recruiting tool for terrorism. Here’s an idea: if you want to drive the crazies crazy, station a bunch of troops in the Arabian Peninsula. That way, instead of one Osama Bin Laden, we can have 10,000. It is time we start realizing why there are no terrorists lined up to bomb Switzerland – they mind their own business.
That’s really it in a nutshell.
But warmongers such as John McCain want more war in Iraq. So really they don’t mind how such invasions and criminality only provokes foreigners to retaliate and want to act against Americans.
And as the warmongers want to engage in more provocations against foreigners and thus create more terrorists, they also want to further empower the NSA to terrorize the American people.
NSA whistleblower William Binney says that the NSA has a “totalitarian mentality,” and that the ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control. The U.K. Guardian quotes Binney as saying, “I call people who are covering up NSA crimes ‘traitors’.” Binney notes that the NSA claims the surveillance is about terrorism but it has stopped “zero” attacks.
So it’s not really about terrorism, as that is what these government bureaucrats are committing against the American people. It’s all about control. I think you’d have to be a real sicko and a control freak with delusions of grandeur to engage in that kind of gross criminality against your own fellow people.
Meanwhile, the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Trevor Timm writes that the U.S. Senate is becoming even more complicit in the NSA’s criminality against the American people.
Now it’s called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa), and it is a nightmare for civil liberties. Indeed, it’s unclear how this kind of law would even improve cybersecurity. The bill was marked up and modified by the Senate intelligence committee in complete secrecy this week, and only afterward was the public allowed to see many of the provisions passed under its name.
Cisa is what Senator Dianne Feinstein, the bill’s chief backer and the chair of the committee, calls an “information-sharing” law that’s supposed to help the government and tech and telecom companies better hand information back and forth to the government about “cyberthreat” data, such as malware. But in reality, it is written so broadly it would allow companies to hand over huge swaths of your data – including emails and other communications records – to the government with no legal process whatsoever. It would hand intelligence agencies another legal authority to potentially secretly re-interpret and exploit in private to carry out even more surveillance on the American public and citizens around the world.
While I will never endorse the use of marijuana (or other particular drugs including many prescription drugs) because I believe it has harmful chemicals including those that are carcinogenic, I nevertheless oppose any law that violates or even addresses an individual’s right to possess, use, buy or sell that or anything he wants as long as he is peaceful. If someone feels that marijuana helps him to get through a painful illness, then no one should interfere with his having it. But the criminal State’s drooling zeal in enforcing marijuana laws really seems to hit new lows of evil, barbaric proportions these days.
William Grigg has this post about the prosecution and persecution of yet another innocent human being who apparently hasn’t harmed anyone, but who had items related to marijuana in his home. The State’s victim here has a very painful form of cancer and supposedly he has some kind of formula that’s safe for him and helps him get by every day. But the State says he may not have that, based on no practical reason and nothing to do with protecting the persons and property of others, but based solely on some authoritarian decree in which the statist legislators declared, “Because I said so.”
But it gets worse. At the trial, the evil judge wouldn’t let the defendant (the State’s victim) tell the jurors about his medical condition, because, as Grigg quotes the judge, it is “not relevant to the facts of this case,” even though it clearly IS relevant to the facts of that case and that judge is either just totally retarded (which seems to be the case more and more these days with the employees of the neanderthal State), or just a total lying prick who will tell the jury anything no matter how false, on behalf of the power of the State to enforce its absurd, Orwellian decrees.
Also, Grigg notes that the jurors who actually convicted this torture victim are themselves “complicit” in the crime of sentencing this innocent cancer victim to further torture in a cage and for no good reason. If you are on a jury and you vote to convict someone of something as innocent as merely possessing or using a drug the State forbids, even though your victim has not harmed anyone, then you are certainly not a friend of liberty, but an accessory to the aiding and abetting of the actual crimes the State is committing against an innocent human being. Shame on those robot zombie jurors!