Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

The American Cultural Decline with Narcissistic Gropers and Abusers

It is nice to see all the loathsome degenerates having to resign from their high positions in media, politics and show-biz based on their treating others badly. It is mostly if not 99% men behaving badly toward women. And it has a lot to do with men in positions of power and authority abusing their positions to get their way with mostly females and mainly subordinates.

But was it always this way? I think in some cases it was, such as with the “older boss chasing the young secretary around the desk” and all that. But I don’t think that such bosses or associates were as extremely disrespectful, invasive and violating as we’re hearing about with Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Matt Lauer, et al. Those monsters or criminals are results of our society’s decline, its cultivation of sickos and pervs in the mainstream.

As Walter Williams wrote this week in his column,

For over a half-century, the nation’s liberals — along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals and the courts — have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many in today’s generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral, right or wrong, is a matter of convenience…

Society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions and moral values. Customs, traditions and moral values are those important thou-shalt-nots, such as thou shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and shalt not cheat. They also include respect for parents, teachers and others in authority [well, most parents, and some teachers, quite frankly], plus those courtesies one might read in Emily Post’s rules of etiquette. These behavioral norms — mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience, trial and error, and looking at what works and what doesn’t.

The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching.

Now, there seems to be an absence of due process and “innocent until proven guilty” in some of the cases we are hearing about. But in many cases there are either multiple complainers and/or admissions of guilt by the accused.

After complaints of “sexual misconduct” have been made against PBS show host Tavis Smiley, the public TV network has suspended him, following which Smiley said, “I have never groped, inappropriately exposed myself or coerced any colleague in the workplace ever in my 30-year career … If having a consensual relationship with a colleague years ago is the stuff that leads to this kind of public humiliation and personal destruction, heaven help us.” According to the Washington Post, “Smiley alleged that investigators refused to look at certain documentation, refused to interview any of his current staff members, refused to give him the name of any of his accusers, and ‘refused to give me any semblance of due process’.”

So, given in more recent years how there have been cases of false accusations against innocent people, such as the Duke Lacrosse and UVA false accusation cases, but other cases in which the accused have admitted to their abuses or crimes, who knows what to believe these days. While Smiley denies that he has done anything worthy of his being suspended or terminated from PBS, there are others who deny accusations despite the validity of accusers and witnesses’ accounts (such as the conductor James Levine as I wrote about here).

Another recent alleged workplace groper/creepy sex-talker has been NPR show host Tom Ashbrook of On Point, who has also been suspended from his show based on complaints by staff at his station, WBUR. According to WBUR, “Tirades directed at young women in the studio. Name calling and belittling critiques of show ideas during meetings. ‘Creepy’ sex talk, hugs and back or neck rubs after a dressing down. That’s the pattern of alleged abuse described by 11 mostly young women and men who filed a multi-page document outlining their complaints…”

Now, just what is it with these guys? They do not seem to have a sense of boundaries, of physical boundaries that is, a sense of respect for their co-workers, a sense of decency. I mean if one actually had a sense of decency one would not engage in “creepy sex talk” (except perhaps when with the guys at the bar or something). In the old days, as Walter Williams was pointing out above, it was widely assumed that you just don’t do or say certain things at the workplace or with women in general as well. But things have changed now, it seems.

But this thing with guys having to touch the women like an object — in psychology that’s known as narcissistic cathexis. “I see that thing or person, and I desire the thing or person, I want to touch … ” (And want to do more than touch, including lick, eat, etc. just like a baby who has to put desired things in his mouth.) Given the narcissistic aspects of all this, these people are narcissists in that their desires are to them the center of everything else around. In some cases they project their own selfish desires, like desire to touch a female, onto that other female, like assuming that such desires or feelings were reciprocal, as we read about with Charlie Rose at CBS.

It seems that our society has developed with the encouragement of that kind of narcissism and covetousness. The culture includes widespread acceptance of these behaviors, until enough people have the courage to make the abusive, invasive or sick behaviors public and make public accusations against the pervs. For example, the folks high up at NBC supposedly knew for years that Matt Lauer acted in the extremely disturbed and sick manner that he did at the workplace there, but they did nothing about it until now. I guess ratings and revenue were more important to them?

And conductor James Levine who for years it was known or rumored that he had sexual liaisons with teenage boys, like the orchestra managements were aware of it, but they looked the other way, apparently. The ticket sales for concerts were the priority?

And at WBUR/NPR with Tom Ashbrook, “At least three former producers say they screamed back at Ashbrook or told him to stop berating a colleague. Five current or former producers say they met with station managers multiple times, dating back at least five years, to raise concerns about Ashbrook.

“In one case a producer says he was told to write Ashbrook a letter. In another, a manager allegedly coached the employee on ways to ‘stand up to Tom’. Some producers say managers promised to take action, but the former employees say there was no evidence of change. Four producers say they were either told or led to believe that their jobs could be at risk if they pursued a complaint.”

So there is a case in which management seemed to be covering for the alleged abuser. Not good.

And former President George H.W. Bush, the older geezer one, who has now been accused by at least 8 women of touching and groping them inappropriately and invasively at photo-ops. According to the Daily Mail, they “say Bush touched their buttocks as they stood next to him to take photos. All three states have laws against touching someone without their consent.

“The women’s stories broadly follow the same outline: Bush patted them below the waist as they stood next to him to take photos, sometimes with a joke about his favorite magician or writer being named ‘David Cop-a-Feel’.”

So in my view, there seems to be a pattern here with males of certain mentalities or ideologies, taking extra liberties at the expense of females’ personal boundaries and their dignity. Either the male gropers (or in some cases outright assaulters and rapists) have ideologies of covetousness, such as supporting government taxation-theft of the wealth of others and redistribution of wealth schemes, like many of the aforementioned Left-biased “news journalists” or political hacks and celebrity big-shots. Or, like George H.W. Bush the neocon war criminal, they believe in “American exceptionalism,” U.S. government dominance all over the world and the power to invade and occupy foreign lands and steal the resources of the foreigners and kill them with impunity as both Bush Presidents (and Obama and Trump now) have done.

I think the decline of American civilization and culture really began at some point after the Revolution and was cemented by the “Civil War,” in which the people decided to abandon respect for boundaries, individual liberty and peace.

U.S. Government Interventionism and Wars Provoke More Violence: NYC Bombing

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, U.S. Government Interventionism and Wars Provoke More Violence: NYC Bombing

December 12, 2017

Another terrorist bombing, an “amateurish” pipe bombing/attempted suicide bombing, in New York City on Monday morning, in which no deaths occurred but three were injured as well as the suspect.

So, will this latest Islamic extremist turn out to be yet another FBI patsy? The FBI finds some mentally deficient young Muslim male, radicalizes him and motivates him to want to commit jihad, provides him with weapons and materials and then sets him up in the FBI’s own concocted entrapment scheme. (See Glenn Greenwald and Trevor Aaronson on this. And Matt Agorist’s essay on recordings that reveal FBI urging a Muslim patsy to carry out a mass shooting to “defend Islam.”)

Or perhaps the latest NYC bomber’s being influenced by ISIS propaganda on the Internet will be used as a new excuse for the control freaks in Washington to impose further intrusions and spying on the Internet? Who knows?

But once again, this week’s New York City terrorist bomber has said just about the same thing that most of the past terrorists have said. According to the New York Post:

Akayed Ullah, 27, who is from Bangladesh and was living in Brooklyn, told authorities he was trying to exact vengeance for decades of violence against Muslims in Gaza, Syria and Iraq, saying in sum and substance from his hospital bed: “They’ve been bombing [my people] and I wanted to do damage here,” sources said.

The truth is, most of the terrorists have been on record stating that their motivation for violence is retaliatory.

As Sheldon Richman pointed out in 2011,

The Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board Task Force came to this conclusion in 2004 when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked it to evaluate the Bush administration’s war policies. The report is worth quoting at length:

“American efforts have not only failed [to separate the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists]: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states….

“[Since 9/11] American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims….”

Richard Reid, the would-be shoe-bomber, told his sentencing judge, “Your government has killed two million children in Iraq…. Your government has sponsored the rape and torture of Muslims in the prisons of Egypt and Turkey and Syria and Jordan with their money and with their weapons.”

Glenn Greenwald wrote further in 2016:

Beyond such studies, those who have sought to bring violence to Western cities have made explicitly clear that they were doing so out of fury and a sense of helplessness over Western violence that continuously kills innocent Muslims. “The drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody,” Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, told his sentencing judge when she expressed bafflement over how he could try to kill innocent people. And then there’s just common sense about human nature: If you spend years bombing, invading, occupying, and imposing tyranny on other people, some of them will want to bring violence back to you.

In July 2016 Greenwald also discussed another previous terrorist attack:

Eleven years ago today, three suicide bombers attacked the London subway and a bus and killed 51 people. Almost immediately, it was obvious that retaliation for Britain’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a major motive for the attackers.

Two of them said exactly that in videotapes they left behind: The attacks “will continue and pick up strengths till you pull your soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. … Until we feel security, you will be targets.” Then, less than a year later, a secret report from British military and intelligence chiefs concluded that “the war in Iraq contributed to the radicalization of the July 7 London bombers and is likely to continue to provoke extremism among British Muslims.” The secret report, leaked to The Observer, added: “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalization of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the U.K. as legitimate.”

And as I wrote in July 2016, regarding attacks in France:

The blogosphere and twitterverse are exploding with reactions to the latest terror attack in France, the truck that drove through a big crowd of people attending Bastille Day festivities and killed 84 people and injured many more … It looks like such a “state of emergency” not only didn’t stop the November 2015 Paris stadium and concert hall attacks that killed 130 and injured many others, but it didn’t stop this new truck-driving attack … the November Paris attacks were in retaliation against France’s military bombings in Syria and Iraq.

The U.S. government and other Western governments’ own terror attacks on the Muslim world continue to this day.

See U.S. airstrike kills family of eight, U.S. drone strike kills three civilians and four “suspects,” US admits Syria airstrike that killed 46 but denies targeting mosque, Panic spreads in Iraq, Syria as record numbers of civilians are reported killed in U.S. strikesU.S. airstrikes kill at least 43 civilians in Syria’s RaqqaU.S. military airstrikes kill many more civilians in just 48 hours, and U.S. military battles Syrian rebels armed by CIA.

Western government violence and drones target weddings, funerals, rescuers, and civilian hospitals.

So how do the warmongers in Washington think their victims in other countries will react to their government violence?

Does President Donald Trump even know that most of the victims of the drone bombings that he continues to authorize are innocent civilians? (And President Barack Obama’s drone strikes killed innocent civilians 90% of the time, according to documents released by an intelligence source.) In less than two months as President, Trump’s CIA and military drone strikes had already gone up 432%.

“Will we ever learn?”

In 1991 President George H.W. Bush started a war of aggression on Iraq, bombed Iraq’s civilian water and sewage treatment centers and imposed sanctions to prevent them from rebuilding, which forced the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. These acts of criminal aggression by the U.S. government against civilians, in addition to the U.S. military occupations in the Middle East, led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks which some people had warned would be such aggressions’ likely outcome.

Prior to all that, during the 1950s the CIA imposed a coup on Iran to replace the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with the U.S. puppet Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The CIA propped up the Shah’s totalitarian police state, SAVAK, from the 1950s up to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that included the extremists’ taking of American hostages.

Would we have such Islamic extremism coming out of Iran all these years had the CIA not committed such crimes and atrocities against that other country?

These interventionist foreign policies, of starting wars against other countries that were of no threat to us, imposing coups and regime change, propping up police states, and committing criminal invasions, occupations and bombings, inevitably cause blowback, including the most recent bombing in New York City.

But it seems that most people have been so propagandized especially since 9/11 to only look at mainly the Islamic extremism itself, but refuse to consider the natural outcomes of interventionist foreign policies, criminal wars of aggression, and U.S. government support for foreign totalitarian police states.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2017

More News and Commentary

Laurence Vance says it is time to shut it down (the government, that is).

James Bovard on American taxpayers’ funding Afghan child rape.

Ron Paul asks, Is North Korea really a “state sponsor of terrorism”?

Glenn Greenwald details how the imbeciles at CNN unwittingly and carelessly aired a “fake news” story without checking its sources or the actual information they were disseminating, and how CBS and MSNBC followed CNN’s lead. I suspect that someone, claiming to be an independent source but probably a Trump sympathizer, sent CNN the email with the “fake news” to show how CNN broadcasts “fake news.” Like, a “gotcha thing”?

That was after Brian Ross was suspended by ABC News without pay for four weeks for his false “fake news” story about Donald Trump asking Mike Flynn to communicate with the Russians while Trump was still a candidate, even though that actually happened after Trump won the election. Apparently, that fake news caused the Dow to fall over 350 points, which caused Trump to encourage those who lost money on that day to sue ABC.

What else is “fake”? That Mike Flynn actually did anything wrong. David Stockman details how the FBI committed a “blatant entrapment exercise with malice aforethought.” The FBI questioned Flynn based on his identity being unconstitutionally unmasked in recordings made of talks between him and the Russian ambassador, talks which uncovered no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoings or “collusions” of any kind. The FBI had no reason to interview him in the first place, but they did so to get him to make statements which contradicted his precious statements on those recordings. It is a classic entrapment case. The real criminals here are the FBI. And it was probably for political reasons, with the possible intention of taking down the newly elected President that they don’t like!

As Sheldon Richman observed, the FBI is not your friend.

Jacob Hornberger on the mainstream media’s deference to authority in the JFK assassination. (Besides being purveyors of “fake news,” the media are also government stenographers, live in fear of the bureaucrats, and are spineless, obedient sheeple, in my view.) And Hornberger asks, What good are domestic military bases?

Zero Hedge with an article on FBI focusing on the leaker of the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting, rather than focusing on whether the meeting was an attempt to undermine the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Wendy McElroy discusses civil liberties and central banks.

Scott Shackford with an article about the DOJ using the Bernie Madoff case to justify “asset forfeiture” (a.k.a. government theft of private property).

Don Boudreaux has some thoughts on the right not to contract (e.g. the gay wedding cake case), and says that trade restrictions restrict Americans’ freedom to “maximize the values of their incomes.”

Jeff Tucker says, goodbye Net Neutrality, hello competition.

Thomas DiLorenzo on the causes of the “Civil War” in the words of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.

Gareth Porter on the debunked narrative of the “al Qaeda-Iran alliance.”

Washington’s Blog has an article on Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who says that the U.S. military planned a first nuclear strike on cities of over 25,000 people in Russia and China and gave low-level field commanders the power to push the button.

John Whitehead discusses the Amerikan police state regarding those dreaded traffic stops.

George Leef on freedom of contract.

Richard Ebeling on capitalism and the misunderstanding of monopoly.

Chris Martenson says that if the Saudi Arabia situation doesn’t worry you, you’re not paying attention.

Jenna Gallegos and Jean Peccoud say that DNA has gone digital – what can possibly go wrong?

JP Sottile on Amerika’s military-industrial addiction.

And Shikha Dalmia shows how the immigration crackdowns are bad for Americans.

Collectivist Crusaders Want Their Government Wall

Ann Coulter and Lou Dobbs were discussing the Trump agenda on Fox Business. And Miss Coulter stated that all of Trump’s destructive policies that she adores will be gone with the next President, except for the Great Wall that Trump will apparently build to keep out unwanted foreigners.

In the discussion, Coulter declares that “Only a wall is forever.”

First of all, does Coulter know that two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants (visitors without government permission) are those who have overstayed their visa, far outnumbering those who snuck through the border? How will a Government Wall keep the visa overstayers out?

I have already addressed the way these collectivists think on the issue of immigration, and their confusion between private property and public property. And forget those central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people — that’s just impossible. The schemes that we have now and what Ann Coulter is calling for are socialist schemes, and they do nothing but cause further problems.

Government walls on the borders are socialist government walls on the borders. They are certainly not capitalist, they are anti-capitalist, anti-free market intrusions. But the anti-immigration crowd seems to be blinded by an emotional distaste for “outsiders.” A collectivist group-identity obsession with a desire to prevent outsiders from entering the territory, at the expense of free markets and private property rights.

True free-market capitalists are for a genuinely free market, in which everyone has the freedom to buy and sell, trade on an open market, and the only government restrictions are those which enforce laws against stealing and defrauding.

Regarding the Great Trump Wall that Miss Coulter thinks will be “forever,” she is wrong about the forever part (see Berlin). But if there is going to be a Wall along the border to keep people out, we already know from history that such a wall will be used by future administrations to keep the people in.

What will Americans do when Trump’s Government Wall is used by President Hillary or Bernie to keep the people in? You don’t think they would do that? In the style of Fugitive Slave Laws, the U.S. government has already been doing that or attempting to do that bureaucratically, by stealing more from those Americans who want to leave and live outside the U.S., in the government’s attempt to try to keep them in the U.S.

Wait until there is a physical obstruction to the people’s freedom, with guards, snipers and tanks. Good luck with that, Ann.

Even President Ronald Reagan understood that a Government Wall is a bad idea and that Government Walls need to come down.

Government Walls have no place in a free society. They shouldn’t be built in the first place.

Talk Radio a Mixed Bag These Days

(Updated to include a paragraph that was inadvertently left out.)

I’ve been a news radio and talk radio listener for decades. Sadly, the quality of talk radio has declines over the years. I think it really reflects the general decline of our culture as well as the decline in education and intellectual inquiry.

For instance, on Salem Radio there is this new one, former Congressman Joe Walsh, who sounds a lot like Oliver North, but with a Fonzie aspect to his talking. Now, he’s really good on the freedom of speech issue. With the baker who doesn’t want to bake or design a cake for a lesbian couple. I’ll bet that many conservatives wouldn’t want to see the First Amendment as protecting the atheist baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a Christian couple. But Walsh indicated that he would be for that kind of freedom of speech and freedom of association. The issue is the control that business owners have over their own business that is their own property.

And Walsh has also been good on due process and presumption of innocence, such as with the accusations against celebrities and politicians of groping and other acts of intrusiveness. I’ve actually been impressed that there’s one “conservative” who gets these things.

But then Walsh goes off into loony land with the anti-immigration stuff, as well as the national security state worship and police worship. Oh, well. After speaking intelligently he then unfortunately turns simple-minded and neanderthal, “Build that Wall!!” and all that. But he also yells too much, like every other sentence is yelling, certainly a lot more than Michael Savage, the former winner of “Yelling Too Much on the Radio” contests.

And Dennis Prager, also on Salem Radio, that I’ve described as extremely authoritarian. For instance, Prager has said that to be moral or have morality you need to have faith in God or believe in God, and so on. Huh? I think that Prager’s idea of belief in God is an authoritarian one, a worship thing like with obedience. Well, I’ve been moral, certainly not immoral. I’ve never harmed anyone or violated anyone’s person or property. But I don’t exactly worship anyone or anything, and I’m not big on obedience.

On the belief in God thing, I do believe that we were created, but by whom I have no idea. I don’t believe in the kind of spiritual being that many people seem to believe in that I’ve heard as a common description of God. (And also, is “God” his first or last name? If it’s his first name, then isn’t a show of disrespect to refer to someone like that by his first name? Should he be “Mr. God”? Or Ms. God, quite frankly.) As far as God being a spiritual being and not a physical being, then how could he have created us and everything else as a spiritual being, without hands and arms? Are you saying that God created us and stuff on Earth by just his will? Like he has magical powers? I guess many people believe that God has magical powers, so we’re talking about more of a mythological figure, which is why it sounds a little too unbelievable to me. I do believe that we were created, but by actual physical beings. And I don’t know if they are particularly “good” beings (as opposed to “sadistic”), but who knows.

Another example of Prager’s extreme authoritarianism is his saying that children don’t or can’t have “wisdom.” He’s very contemptuous of children, in my view. On talk radio a long time ago, there was one talk host during the 1980s who told of his little girl who said something like, “Daddy, if you love me you’ll stop smoking.” And that’s what got him to stop smoking. So, the little kid was “wise” in that she could see that her daddy’s smoking could lead to an early death, and she didn’t want to deal with that.

I think that Prager thinks that children shouldn’t be taken seriously and they should just be obedient and do what they’re told. And not think for themselves. I guess he hasn’t read very much Alice Miller. That’s why many of those kids grow up to be obedient sheeple and believe what the gubmint tells them, and so on.

Do I agree with Prager on anything? I certainly agree with him on his anti-political correctness stuff, anti-college craziness, and anti-censorship, that’s for sure.

Speaking of obedient, authoritarian sheeple, also on Salem Radio there are Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved, two believers in the authoritarian State. Those two don’t seem to like it when people try to expose the corruption of the national security state. In fact, I heard Hewitt say there is no “deep state.” Medved has stated that he believes the “lone gunman” narrative, that Lee Harvey Oswald is the only one who shot JFK. Not sure what Hewitt thinks about that. (He probably agrees with Medved on that.) But interestingly, both Hewitt and Medved have spoken with quite egalitarian tones as well. I know I’ve heard both speak about the rich should pay their fair share in taxes, very “from each according to his means to each according to his needs” kind of rhetoric. They tend to tut-tut any suggestion that income taxation is theft and that it needs to be abolished. I wonder if there’s a relationship there, between the authoritarian State worship and egalitarianism. Hmm.

But I agree with Hewitt on his anti-bureaucracy stuff, such as with the EPA and FCC. However, he is not for totally abolishing the EPA, the FCC et al., just getting “the right people to be in charge of them,” etc. So, he’s not entirely anti-bureaucracy.

And then there are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, not on Salem Radio. I’ve been listening to them more recently because they are doing a good job in detailing the corruption in the Robert Mueller kangaroo “investigation” regarding “Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election,” and detailing how that not only wasn’t the case but that the Hillary Rotten campaign was the one that was in collusion with Russians to manipulate the election, and so on. So they are good with that stuff and being anti-ObamaCare. But then like Joe Walsh they go all collectivist and anti-private property with their anti-immigration stuff and “Build That Wall” crapola, as well as their worship of the U.S. military and whitewashing all the death and destruction overseas that such a belligerent hostile group has caused in the past 50 to 75 years.

Unfortunately, it seems that all of the above are bloodthirsty militarists who defend our government’s atrocities. Dennis Prager, who preaches morality, defends the wars, including the Vietnam War as I’ve heard him state several times now. 58,000 Americans dead for no good reason. He and others say that the war was to prevent the spread of communism. Because communism is a bad thing, Prager says. Well, Vietnam then became a united communist Vietnam, after 58,000 Americans dead, a million civilians over there, dead. And Iraq? The two George Bushes sent U.S. military to invade and bomb Iraq, impose sanctions, and invade Afghanistan and more. More millions dead, poisoned, crippled, their countries destroyed. And Trump’s CIA continues to bomb those areas with drones, targeting civilian wedding parties and funerals and rescuers, killing mostly innocent civilians. Not a peep from the Salem Radio personalities, the ones who preach morality.

But none of these people have anything on the Greats of talk radio of the old days, such as Jerry Williams. I still think that overall talk radio has declined in the past 20 years. There aren’t enough anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-State people in talk radio anymore.

Gay Wedding Cakes at the Supreme Court

Well, the “gay wedding cake issue” is in the news again, as the Supreme Bureaucrats have heard the case of the Colorado baker who for religious reasons refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

This “gay civil rights” and “transgender civil rights” stuff these days shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has obviously expanded beyond its intention, which was to outlaw “Jim Crow” laws and forbid governments, bureaucrats and government-run functions from discriminating against people based on race, religious beliefs, and sex.

Now “civil rights” means allowing people to enslave others to serve them, involuntarily. It is beyond mere trespassing and extortion.

The problem with that Civil Rights Act is that it didn’t just apply to government-run functions (such as schools, parks, city buses, etc.) and public property, but it also applied to private property as well, privately-owned property, whether businesses or functions otherwise known as “public accommodations.”

I can see why by 1964 the separation between public and private property had been blurred, given how the 1913 income tax allowed the federal government to seize private wealth and order the people to have to report their income, their wages and earnings to the bureaucrats. Such “private” property had thus become the property of the State by its own decree. After that point, anything is fair game now. Anyone can use the armed force of government to steal and plunder the income, earnings and savings of one’s neighbors, or live off the work and productivity of others without their voluntary consent.

And obviously the Social Security system which started in the 1930s and Medicare and Medicaid of the 1960s pretty much sealed that. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s usurpation of private property now known as “public accommodations,” anyone can sue anyone else for “refusal of service” (or refusal to allow trespass) for any reason. Anyone can forcibly compel private property owners to serve them, let them in or on their property, or associate with them, involuntarily.

And private property is private property, by the way. It is privately owned. And our bodies are our own private property, including the labor we expend. We have the right to decide how we arrange the products of our labor, whom to do business with, etc.

And also it doesn’t matter how big the property or business is, how much of an income the businesspeople have. Private property is no less privately owned (and thus no more publicly owned) the bigger it is or the larger the income the owners have.

And so the idea of freedom of thought and conscience or religious beliefs isn’t really relevant here. The baker and his legal team in the “gay wedding cake” case are using the wrong arguments.

Their arguments should be based on private property rights and freedom of association.

Either private property owners are the owners of their own private property, including their businesses, their homes, churches, schools, etc., or they share in ownership of those things with others, with the community, the government, and so on. It’s either one or the other.

So either A has a right to force B to do extra labor to serve A or associate with A involuntarily, or B has a right to not serve or associate with A for ANY reason.

Those are the two choices: freedom or compulsory association. There is no in-between, there is no “grey area.”

It doesn’t matter if someone is “racist,” anti-homosexual, anti-transgender, whatever. The prospective consumer can easily find someone else who will be of service. In most of these recent “civil rights” cases, the prospective customers who were turned away were easily able to find someone else to serve them. But, being social activists, they sued the bakers, photographers, florists, mainly to punish those people for their views, and extort money from them as well.

But regarding “civil rights,” when we go beyond the areas of race and religious belief, and into the areas of lifestyle choices, those who don’t want to associate with others, based on lifestyle differences, have a right to exercise their freedom of thought and conscience on their own private property. The business owner’s own business is one’s own private property, it is not owned or co-owned by the community or by the government.

For these reasons, it is necessary to either repeal the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964, or amend it to only apply to government-run functions or public property but not apply to private property.

On this current Supreme Court case, I don’t expect any renewed respect for private property rights. And if the Supreme Bureaucrats do rule in favor of the baker, it will be based on “religious liberty,” although there may still be a superficial mention of “private property” in some way. (Would they rule in favor of atheist bakers who refuse to serve a Christian couple? Many conservatives, including the ones on Salem Radio who don’t understand private property, would probably say no on that. Hey, “religious liberty” and all that. )

The rulers and their judicial bureaucrats know that if we restore private property rights, we will then have to go after all “civil rights” laws, all income tax-thefts imposed by governments and all programs of forced redistribution including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Abuse Victims Going Public: Now Hitting the Classical Music Business

Since my commentary on Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Al Franken, Bill Clinton et al., now we are hearing about the world-renowned opera and symphony conductor James Levine, with three adult males now coming forward to accuse Levine, 74, of sexual misconduct toward or with them when they were teenagers (and possibly pre-teens).

Now, I’ve been a classical music listener for decades and decades. Not particularly opera but definitely symphony orchestra music. Rumors of James Levine spending too much time with young male musicians including boys and of possible child molestation have been around for decades. So, I am not surprised to hear these most recent allegations.

The descriptions of the alleged sicko abuses are really gross.

According to this New York Post article, “The alleged victim said that Levine first fondled his penis when he was around 16 years old. He said the alleged encounter happened at the Deer Path Inn in Lake Forest, Ill., 10 miles from the Ravinia Festival…Levine would masturbate in the bed or in the bathroom, the alleged victim told police….In 1987, he said the alleged abuse escalated and Levine ‘put his finger in my anus,’ according to the report…’Levine was not a person you ever said no to,’ he told police.”

How disgusting! The police report was filed just last year.

The Metropolitan Opera of New York, of which Levine was music director for 40 years and associated with for 46 years, has suspended Levine and cancelled his scheduled appearances based on the allegations, according to the New York Times. The Times noted that the alleged violations go back to 1968, and named the first accuser who was not named in the Post article, and named the other two accusers. I am not naming the accusers here.

According to the Times, one accuser, “who played principal bass in the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra for more than three decades, said that Mr. Levine masturbated him that summer — and then coaxed him to reciprocate — when [he] was 17 at the Meadow Brook School of Music in Michigan. Mr. Levine, then 25, was a rising star on the summer program’s faculty. [Another accuser] said that Mr. Levine also masturbated him there that summer when [he] was 17 and a cello student — the first of many sexual encounters with Mr. Levine that have haunted him. And [the first accuser referred to in the Post article] who grew up in Illinois near the Ravinia Festival, where Mr. Levine was music director, said that he was sexually abused by Mr. Levine starting in the summer of 1986, when [he] was 16…”

According to the Times article the 66-year-old accuser said he decided to come forward because of all the news of famous people being accused of sexual misconduct.

While the rumors of James Levine’s alleged extra-musical divertimentos have been around for decades, the British music critic Norman Lebrecht has emphasized the importance of presumption of innocence for Levine on Lebrecht’s blog, “Slippedisc.com.” One commenter on that post pointed out Lebrecht’s 1997 book, Who Killed Classical Music?: Maestros, Managers, and Corporate Politics, in which Lebrecht wrote, “[James] Levine’s foes were murmerous, among them some board members who barely suppressed their outrage at extra-mural activities that, according to TIME magazine, involved ‘liaisons with people of every age and hue.’”

In another post, Lebrecht wrote, “A couple of decades back, when the Verbier Festival named James Levine as music director of its youth orchestra, I asked the festival’s founder, Martin Engstroem, if he shared the awareness in music circles that Levine had a predilection for teenaged boys. Engstroem replied that he had known Levine for years, and that precautions would be taken to safeguard orchestra members. No Verbier incident has ever come to light.”

But if those above descriptions by alleged victims mentioned above from the New York Times and New York Post are really true, I want to know exactly what the hell is going on with James Levine, for crissakes? Who the hell does those things, and with little boys or teenage boys (or girls)? Like with Bill Cosby, I mean, Cosby has admitted to drugging up women and then having sex with them, like while they’re unconscious? Who the hell would DO that? Wait a minute, now as I’m googling I’m learning that Cosby admitted to also doing those things with teenagers. Doh! What the hell is going on with these people?! They’re very sick people, in my view.

But in the Lebrecht posts on James Levine including in the comments, it is becoming clear that the people at the Metropolitan Opera and Boston Symphony Orchestra, and several other musical organizations Levine has been a part of, probably had knowledge of Levine’s alleged behaviors off stage, but they swept it all under the rug. It sounds very much like what we are now hearing about in the show-biz industry with Harvey Weinstein, in the TV news business with Matt Lauer et al., and in politics. Well, politics, the very nature of politics is dirtiness, corruption, invasiveness, criminality, etc. etc. I guess show-biz and news “journalism” is very much like politics. It’s all very sleazy, it seems.

With the Bill O’Reillys, the Charlie Roses, the Matt Lauers and the Harvey Weinsteins, and their abuses and assaults toward women, it seems as though some people are just extremely narcissistic and believe that their attractions toward others are automatically reciprocal. But with the child molesters (whether or not that includes James Levine, we’ll hear a denial or admission soon, I hope), there’s something really sick going on with those people, very disturbed people.

The behaviors of the womanizing degenerates are very “inappropriate,” whether on a date or (but especially) in the workplace. But when someone gets sexual or in an unclothed manner with a child (and when it’s a grown adult doing something with a teenager, I call that a “child” in relation to the grown adult), it is violating and invasive, and exploitative as well. The child molesters out there should know the kind of negative, haunting effects that go on for years within the victims, as noted by some of the victims in those articles above. Those violators are real criminals, in my view.

Have there always been this many degenerates among the general population, though?

UPDATE, 12/10/17: James Levine has issued the following statement of denial, according to the New York Times:

“As understandably troubling as the accusations noted in recent press accounts are, they are unfounded,” he said in a written statement. “As anyone who truly knows me will attest, I have not lived my life as an oppressor or an aggressor.”

Mr. Levine made it clear in his statement that he hopes to resume conducting.

“I have devoted my energies to the development, growth, and nurturing of music and musicians all over the world — particularly with the Metropolitan Opera where my work has been the lifeblood and passion of my artistic imagination,” he said in the statement. “My fervent hope is that in time people will come to understand the truth, and I will be able to continue my work with full concentration and inspiration.”

The Times continued:

“He is lying,” (one accuser) said of Mr. Levine’s statement in an email. “The examples of instigating sex with a minor, physical abuse using physical pain leading to break down crying, all happened. I will take a lie-detector test. Will he?”

(The accuser) said that he was a 17-year-old cello student at Meadow Brook when he was abused in Mr. Levine’s dorm room. He described numerous later incidents of abuse; he said that once Mr. Levine had pinched him painfully until he cried, and then continued pinching him, to wound him.

And (another accuser), 66, who played principal bass in the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra for more than three decades, stood by his account that Mr. Levine had abused him the summer before his senior year in high school, when he was 17.

“Sexual abuse at any age is inexcusable,” he said. “Further, belittling those of us who were abused as less than fully human is repugnant. I stand by the story.”

Your Tax Dollars At Work in USSA Amerika

In yesterday’s post I stated that if I were in Congress I wouldn’t vote for any tax bill, including a tax cut that was really a tax cut for everybody, period (with no special favors for this special interest or that special interest, etc.). But ANY tax bill that doesn’t repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS is a tax bill that endorses government stealing of private wealth, and promotes institutionalized theft. “Tax cut” bills are still theft bills. So, that’s my view on that.

And regarding the current legislative crap that was just passed by the Senate, the “Here’s Your Tax ‘Cut,’ Suckers!” bill (that the shyster Rethuglicans, the “Tea Partiers,” the “Conservative” Carcass in the House will make compromises with, of course), Robert Wenzel posts a list of some of the crony deals in the Senate’s tax bill. Yech.

And David Stockman has some more analysis on that. Stockman was the Reagan Administration’s budget director. He wrote: “Technically, you might call that a ‘tax cut’ because it does involve a tiny minus sign. But it is also undoubtedly the smallest, not the biggest, individual tax cut in history; and given the facts essayed above, it will not move the needle one single bit when it comes to the issue of growth, jobs and revenue reflows.”

And Stockman concludes: “At the end of the day, the GOP tax bill boils down to borrowing more than $1 trillion from the American public in order to pay higher dividends to wealthy private stockholders. And that’s a real con job.”

Speaking of con jobs and crony deals, I also wanted to follow-up on my recent post on Elizabeth Warren’s “Consumer Financial Protection” (sic) Bureaucracy. Just a few days ago, Rush Limbaugh was referring to the Bureau as a “money-laundering” racket for liberals and Democrats for their further shake-downs of the U.S. workers and producers. I’m glad Limbaugh provides transcripts of his show online.

Rush Limbaugh said, “What this organization did was launder money. It was nothing more than a money-laundering scheme. And it had another purpose. The fines that it levied for anti-consumer policies and anti-consumer behavior at these banks, what do you think they did with the money? The CFPB was a pass-through, and the fine money was given to Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, or take your pick of any left-wing activist group.

“This was an independent agency set up to be able to legally get money from the financial industry and then turn around and give it to left-wing activist groups. And that’s what they were doing with it. And that’s why they are so desperate to hold on to it.”

Now, does Limbaugh have actual proof of this?

So in my searching for info on that, I did manage to see in this Examiner article that CFPB executives and workers gave 593 donations to Democrooks to 1 donations to a Rethuglican. (When the truth is, neither Party deserves donations!)

And this Federalist article states that

The agency was then stacked with partisan ideologues and allowed to conceive its own arbitrary and wide-ranging rules to go after any practice it found “abusive,” “unfair,” or “deceptive.” The CFPB was sanctioned to “administer, enforce, and otherwise implement federal consumer financial laws, which includes the power to make rules, issue orders, and issue guidance” without any genuine due process. It could then mete out penalties of its choosing.

According to Paul Sperry of the New York Post, regarding the fight between former CFPB director Richard Cordray’s personal pick of Leandra English to be his temporary replacement and Trump’s pick of Mick Mulvaney, Sperry wrote:

So who’s funding this extraordinary legal battle with the White House? English’s lead attorney, Deepak Gupta, refuses to say.

All he’d disclose is that they had set up a “structure” similar to a “legal defense fund” to cover his fees, but he wouldn’t name any of the donors contributing to the fund.

Hmm. Anonymous donors. Mysterious funding. Shady network of outside groups…

Gupta worked directly under Warren, who was tapped by Obama to set up the CFPB in 2011 and who is now publicly backing English’s claim to control the bureau. Before founding his law firm in 2012, Gupta served as CFPB’s senior litigation counsel and senior counsel for enforcement strategy.

Gupta sits on the board of several left-wing groups. Warren worked directly with Americans for Financial Reform, a cabal of anti-Wall Street progressives, to help draft the legislation that created the CFPB.

The agency — whose apparatchiks have given nearly all donations to Democrats — forces financial institutions it prosecutes to donate to third-party community organizers. Penalties in such cases are deposited into the bureau’s now-$170 million-plus Civil Penalty Fund, which has, in turn, channeled almost $30 million to “consumer advocacy” groups.

Which groups? The agency won’t say. The fund has avoided independent audit.

This is the fiefdom Democrats are hypocritically protecting with their own dark money.

So I think we can connect the dots. And not only is it the Democrooks who love these huge thieving bureaucracies to shake down Americans to fund far-left social advocacy groups, but as we can see from the phony-baloney tax-“cut” bill, those damn Rethuglicans also love Big Government, just can’t let go of their own little fiefdoms and their powers to legally steal from innocent people and live high off the hog at the expense of the actual workers and producers of society.

I Don’t Support Current Tax “Reform” Proposals

I don’t support the tax “reform” bills that are going through the U.S. House and Senate right now. Some of the proposals remove the state and local tax deduction, and remove other deductions as well. Some middle-class taxpayers may be unfortunate to find themselves moved up to a higher tax bracket in the new 3- or 4-bracket scheme (whatever it is now), rather than moved down to the lower tax bracket, depending on what their income level is. Not only that, but the individual tax cuts will only be temporary, even though the corporate tax cuts are permanent, supposedly. And some people are saying “well how will we pay for the cuts because of the trillion-dollar deficit they will cause?” Nobody except for a few people in Washington is suggesting “cutting spending”! It’s all central planning scheming crap, as usual.

Now, if I were in Congress right now, I would not vote for these bills, or any tax proposals, even if they were permanent tax cuts across the board and without changing the brackets or removing deductions. I know, Laurence Vance and others say that any cuts in taxes or keeping deductions is a good thing.

However, what these tax cut bills are saying is: “We will keep the IRS and continue to take some of your income whether you agree to it or not. We will just take a little less from you — well, some of you, anyway — to make things a little easier for you. Temporarily. (Until we cause the whole economy to collapse like the Soviet Union while spending like drunken sailors in our enslavement of you, the ‘taxpayers’ and your hard labor to serve us, etc., etc., etc.”)

So these tax bills are continuing to empower the government to steal the people’s money, and continue to force the people to have to report their private financial, employment and business matters to the government (violating their 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights), information that bureaucrats have no authority to demand. And the stealing (which is the government demanding that you pay them a portion of your earnings involuntarily) is criminal. Generations of people have rationalized such criminality, especially since 1913.

So, if a tax bill proposes to abolish the income tax and the IRS and that’s it, then I would probably support that bill. “But how will we pay for all our important government programs?” Actually, most of what the federal government does in unconstitutional, because it is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and most of what the federal government does is also immoral and criminal. Everything from invading countries overseas that were of no threat to us and occupying and trespassing on foreign territories and bombing and murdering innocent people and causing blowback, to arresting innocent people for having or buying a government-disapproved plant, to funding baby-killing and all the rest.

If those who support all those things that government gets involved with think it’s all worthy then let them pay for it from their own pockets, voluntarily. Cutting off the Washington-Soviet parasites’ funding is the only way to restore a free society and avoid a full Soviet-like collapse.

What’s With All These Cases of Sexual Misconduct Now?

I thought that I was the only one who hadn’t witnessed or heard about any kind of abusive, coercive or intimidating, degrading or sexually harassing treatment of women by male workers at any place that I had every worked. But yesterday I heard Mike Gallagher on the radio asking the same thing. “Am I the only one who hasn’t been aware of any of this where I have ever worked? So I’m not alone.

(Okay, there was this one time during the 1980s when I worked in an office environment and while I was in the photocopy room the head maintenance guy was going into a small storage room across the hallway with one of the housekeepers, but she clearly wasn’t being coerced or anything. I don’t think that counts as far as the “harassment” that we’ve been hearing about. But other than that situation, I hadn’t heard of anything going on at any of those places. I’m in my mid-50s now.)

So is all this we’re hearing about with Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer, Al Franken, Roy Moore et al. a new thing? Well, we heard about Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his 1992 presidential campaign with Gennifer Flowers, and then subsequently Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and 50 or 100 more, I can’t remember how many now.

So I have a feeling that this kind of behavior is nothing new. Given that so many males are being outed now as extreme pervs, sexual assaulters and violators, and if all this has been going on since time immemorial, who else in the past actually acted this way toward others or toward co-workers? Walter Cronkite? I hope not! And did Jimmy Carter really only “commit adultery in his heart”? (Probably.)

These issues are just being aired out and taken seriously now. However, given the high profile cases of false accusation such as with the Duke LaCrosse case and the Rolling Stone magazine article on the UVA campus rape case and other cases, it is fair to ask if any of the current allegations against politicians, show-biz celebrities and journalists are false. Most of the accused such as Matt Lauer have admitted to their predatory behaviors, but some such as Roy Moore continue to deny it. They all have a right to due process, in my view.

But with the exception of the rare female teacher who seduces her teenage boy student, I have yet to hear about any female movie director, journalist or politician who has been accused by a male co-worker or underling of sexual misconduct.

So then is this sexual misconduct just a male thing? What about the perv stuff? Just plain sicko stuff? Variety states that,

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.

On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.

He would sometimes quiz female producers about who they’d slept with, offering to trade names. And he loved to engage in a crass quiz game with men and women in the office: “f—, marry, or kill,” in which he would identify the female co-hosts that he’d most like to sleep with.

Huh? And Lauer admitted to all that? What’s with that guy? So this is beyond just a “sexual misconduct” thing. It shows someone who is a deeply disturbed individual (if the above accounts are true). Who the hell would say those kinds of things to anyone? But, it appears so far that Lauer has not denied any of these things.

And regarding Charlie Rose, the Washington Post asserts,

Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.

To be fair, Charlie Rose responded to the allegations: “It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed…I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.”

Now, I think that that statement — “I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings…” — is not atypical of the kinds of narcissists we see in these fields of TV news, show-biz and politics. In those fields we are plagued with extremely narcissistic people, those who crave attention, love being filmed, admired and watched by others. So is Charlie Rose one of those narcissists who is so in love with himself that he just projects his “feelings” onto someone else, assuming that she feels the same way about him? But, if the allegations of his touching and groping them and prancing around naked in front of them are true, there is that sexual pervness going on as well, that might be a part of the typical narcissist’s personality.

Besides the narcissism problem, it is also a power issue. The so-called men use their power or authority to coerce women into sexual relationships or else they will lose their jobs or a promotion.

And notice how most of the accused in these current cases align themselves with Big Government, with supporting candidates or policies promoting the expansion of government power over the lives of others? They align themselves with the armed police power of government. They are not “liberals”! Government is power and control. Most of these guys are definitely not advocates of freedom and individual liberty, that’s for sure.

Perhaps these power-lusting people are more examples which show that the government power and controls they support are really predatory in nature, and go against the freedom and security of the people.

What Should Happen to the “Consumer Financial Protection” Bureau?

Now that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray has resigned, it is unclear as to who the new replacement director will be, either the one Cordray himself chose, Leandra English, or Donald Trump’s choice of Mick Mulvaney the current budget director. Both English and Mulvaney have emailed staff, with both of them signing the emails as “acting director,” according to the New York Times.

Why is there a “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”?

In its hysterical reaction to the 2008 financial crisis and following its extremely dishonest bailout of Wall Street, Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to, according to the law as quoted in Wikipedia, “promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail,’ to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.”

The law is known as the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” named after then-Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd (D-Countrywide) and then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-OneUnited, “Hot Bottom,” Moonbat City), and the law created, among many other intrusions, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a central planning replacement for something that was long ago much more efficient at stabilizing markets and finances, the free market.

You see, what caused the 2008 financial crisis in the first place, just as with the Great Depression, were government intrusions into the market, government programs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so on. Bureaucracies that should never have existed in the first place.

But it really should be called the Elizabeth Warren Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Elizabeth Warren Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Warren is the one who met with Obama in 2009 and 2010 many times in the first year of the Obama administration to organize the central planning atrocity, because she, like other wiser do-gooders, was concerned about people getting suckered into mortgages or credit cards without reading the fine print.

Warren was not concerned with getting at the underlying causes of the 2008 financial crisis, such as those government intrusions (e.g. “Community Reinvestment” Act) into the home-loan business and other financial matters, intrusions that already shouldn’t have existed.

In order to attempt to prevent further “instability” following the 2008 financial crisis, professional meddlers and moonbats formed this huge unaccountable bureaucracy, the CFPB, in which instead of concentrating on serving the consumers the regulated firms must please the regulators, the bureaucrats.

The truth is, none of these bureaucracies should exist, whether it’s these new ones from Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama, or the old ones from FDR, Wilson and LBJ. All these governmental intrusions need to be repealed, dismantled and thrown into the dustbin of history.

In 2015 then-Congressman Mulvaney had co-sponsored a bill to completely abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yay. Maybe he can try to do that again.

But, as long as the Bureau still exists, I’d like to see Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB prosecute one of the biggest financial fraudsters of our time, Barack Obama who knowingly lied when he told us “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

The truth is, most of the fraudsters of our time, including Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, Trump, Bush (as well as FDR and all the rest), have been government fraudsters!

The Military Today

According to this article in USA Today, “People with a history of ‘self-mutilation,’ bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy enacted in August, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.

“The decision to open Army recruiting to those with mental health conditions comes as the service faces the challenging goal of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers through September 2018. To meet last year’s goal of 69,000, the Army accepted more recruits who fared poorly on aptitude tests, increased the number of waivers granted for marijuana use and offered hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.

If you read further into the article, it only gets worse. I’m sure all those frothing militarists out there such as the Salem Radio talk show personalities are thrilled to hear those kinds of things about their beloved U.S. military. (Hmm, I’m beginning to refer to the “Salem Radio talk hosts” in the same way that Hugh Hewitt refers to those “Steelers fans,” and Rush Limbaugh says, “for those of you in Rio Linda…” I better watch my manners.)

And that reminds me, I heard Dennis Prager, another one of those Salem Talk hosts, say that the people on the left are “anti-America,” when in reality he and his ilk the neocons, they are the “anti-America” ones, because they are militarists and warmongers, warvangelicals, collectivists.

Militarism is the opposite of liberty, which was what America was founded upon.

As Jacob Hornberger pointed out in this article, many of the Founders including James Madison and Patrick Henry, were skeptical of even having a standing army. They knew from experience that a standing army would be used by the rulers to inflict tyranny on the people.

And, given all the times U.S. Presidents have sent the military into foreign lands for no good reason except to provoke foreigners and cause blowback, as Laurence Vance wrote in this article, “A military not strictly for defense of U.S. borders, shores, coasts, and skies is nothing more than the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.”

So given how authoritarian and obediently loyal the Salem Radio talk show personalities are to the U.S. National State and its Flag, I think they have no idea as to the real damage the U.S. military has wrought in their violence overseas, especially in the Middle East. Being obedient sheeple, they believe what the government and its national security state tell them, via the government’s spokespeople of CBS News, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Review and Weakly Standard. (And Rush and his dittoheads as well, quite frankly.)

Many people really believe that U.S. military are invading and occupying foreign territories to “defend our freedoms.” But the truth is, as Jacob Hornberger has noted in this other article as well, the troops are not defending our freedom. When people are invaders on other peoples’ lands and criminally destroying their homes and businesses, their schools and markets, how can those U.S. military invaders be said to be “defending our freedom”?

And as I pointed out in this article on martial law in Amerika, given the militarist, police-statist mindset that many have now in the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” if economic collapse and civil unrest occur here there is a good chance that the U.S. President and his minions, military commanders and governors will order “martial law,” i.e. turn the apparatus of war against their own people, which is the Constitutional definition of Treason.

Add to that, as the USA Today article above notes regarding the military’s admittance of depression sufferers and drug abusers, the lowering of academic standards for recruits (including training how to fabricate high school diplomas for drop-outs), and those soldiers who were admitted with violent criminal records. And we get soldiers who “just want to kill people at any cost,” as Spc. Adam Winfield observed which mirrored the disillusionment that Bowe Bergdahl felt when he was sent over to Afghanistan for no good reason. Some people (such as the Salem Radio folks and the Rush dittoheads) think that those guys are “traitors” for not showing blind loyalty to a corrupt government in Washington and its militarist criminality, but it’s really the opposite of that. The ones who sent those troops over there and who started these wars are the real traitors, in my view.

Another Salem Radio talk host, Michael Medved, recently wrote a book about the “American Miracle,” in which he really seems to believe that the USA is divinely inspired. Sadly, some people just live in a fantasy land of propaganda that whitewashes the U.S. government’s crimes over two centuries. And they naively believe the myths surrounding the legacy of Honest Abe Lincoln, the lies told about the U.S. military’s slaughter of tens of thousands in Japan, and so on.

And now we have hard-core militarists and warmongers in Washington at the controls, the generals McMaster, Kelly and Mattis. From them all the way down to the lowest-ranking enlisted men (and women, and transgenders, etc., etc.), we’re going to have a bumpy ride if there really is civil unrest and martial law in our future, with weirdos, misfits, psychopaths, degenerates, murderers, rapists, sexual assaulters, and depressed and suicidal maniacs confiscating private firearms, unlawfully detaining and falsely imprisoning innocent people, and who knows what else.

Eventually, the Anti-Federalists will be proven right. (Wait. They already have been proven right!)