Some Talk Radio Gossip

 Posted by at 12:22 pm
Oct 222016

During this very exciting and dramatic Presidential campaign, I have found myself listening to talk radio more than I was previously. During the 1980s talk radio was at its height. And then it declined throughout the ’90s (along with the rest of the society, alas). It seemed to have gotten a little more interesting since the 2000s, but mainly it’s conservative ranting with mostly conservative callers. There are some conservatives such as Mike Gallagher and Michael Medved who have good discussions with non-conservative callers.

During the ’80s, Jerry Williams was not only the top talk radio personality in Boston but his show was #1 in all of Boston radio, for years. On that station, WRKO, there were also David Brudnoy who later went to WBZ, Gene Burns, and Janet Jeghelian. My how WRKO has declined since then, with Howie Carr (Jerry Williams’s replacement in the afternoons) and Jeff Kuhner. The new morning show, however, with Kim and V.B., is pretty good.

Jerry Williams was an old-fashioned left-liberal who was very critical of Reagan during the first half of the ’80s, but became more of a “populist” during  the second half of the ’80s in his harsh criticism of a fellow left-liberal, then-Gov. Michael Dukakis. Jerry was critical of Dukakis’s mandatory-everything including the seat belt law, as well as the Dukakis state regime’s constant raising of taxes, fees and fines, and having state police troopers hiding behind every possible bush, behind every possible corner, to catch hapless motorists to collect even more loot for the state.

Jerry was someone who felt protective of the little guy, whether it was the an innocent civilian murdered by police in a brawl at a tavern, or the lower- or middle class worker who is being taxed to death by the state. Some people thought that he had become more “conservative” (whatever that means anymore) in later years, but no, he said he was still an old-fashioned union liberal. I really believe that if he were around today (he died in 2003 at age 79), Jerry Williams would see right through Donald Trump, the authoritarian police statist. Jerry was very critical of police in general, and was extremely anti-war as well. I doubt that he would support Hillary, though.

During his tenure on WRKO Jerry frequently had on his show tax-cutting guru Barbara Anderson, who died earlier this year. In this column from 3 years ago, Barbara expresses her similar disappointment in what talk radio has become, including her criticism of Jeff Kuhner. (Even Roger Ebert predicted the demise of talk radio as early as 1968, because of Jerry’s then station, Chicago’s WBBM, changing formats.)

Jeff Kuhner, by the way, is very supportive of and enthusiastic for Donald Trump, along with Howie Carr and Michael Savage. Their nationalism, anti-immigration views and other policy outrages are based solely on emotion and not rational thought, unfortunately. I can’t believe that Carr is still on at the same time after all these years (22 years), despite his medical issues and somewhat disturbed sense of humor. Kuhner and Carr don’t tend to yell too much, but Michael Savage sure does. (Can you imagine if Savage and Mark Levin were to co-host a show? It would be all yelling, all the time.)

With the decline of talk radio has been the decline of society, as I mentioned, and also the decline of critical thinking, the decline of challenging assumptions and the status quo, and the rise in authoritarianism and collectivism, as can be seen from the aforementioned Kuhner, Carr, and Savage. Popular now are “Reality TV,” “Dancing with the stars,” Twitter and Facebook and other State-controlled social media, and Faux News cable stuff. People are zombies now, on the Left and among the conservatives, too.

During those old days of talk radio, most of it was local, although there were a few national talk radio personalities before the Rush Limbaugh-Sean Hannity crowd came along, such as Larry King. Now much of talk radio is national, and most of those guys themselves are conservative Big Government nationalists (despite their “small government” rhetoric). Throughout the country, there is huge division now between the Democrat/left-liberal progressives and the conservatives, Republicans and religious types. Perhaps it’s because of a lack of localism and much of the media is national and centralized, I don’t know.

Laura Ingraham is now closely involved in the Trump campaign, supposedly. I haven’t heard her radio show in several years, thank God, because she hasn’t been on a station in this area for a while. But she was quite irritating, quite frankly. Apparently, she has some issues. Sean Hannity is similar to Ingraham, and he also is a shill for Trump (along with Kuhner, Carr and Savage).

And Hugh Hewitt is extremely annoying, and he’s even worse now first thing in the morning. Which is why I’ve been listening more to Kim and V.B. Ever since Hewitt said on his show back in 2006 that he donated $500 to Deval Patrick for Governor, just because Patrick was a college buddy of his, and despite Patrick’s being a far-left loony-tunes, I haven’t really taken Hewitt seriously. Hewitt is also a warmongering neocon with a B.A. in “Government” (Ouch!) who worked closely with Richard Nixon. What’s not to like there?

And Hewitt had recently called for Donald Trump to drop out of the Presidential race, just because of Trump’s perverted talk caught on tape, but NOT because Trump is an anti-free market crony socialist ignoramus who wants single payer nationalized health care and who opposes free trade and civil liberties. Oh, well.

Dennis Prager is also annoying because of his authoritarian preachiness and constantly pointing out that “the Left is destroying America,” even though plenty of people on “the right” have also participated in such destruction, such as the two Bush Presidents. And Reagan as well, as I noted recently. While Prager cries that the Never Trumpers are in denial of how “the Left will further destroy America under a President Hillary,” Prager and his ilk are also in denial of how Trump is just as much a leftist, a long-time Democrat and donor to Democrat hacks, of how the “New York values”-minded Trump supports transgender bathroom intrusions, and will probably sign whatever new LGBT “civil rights” legislation comes to his desk as President, if elected. In denial that Trump is equally bad and equally dangerous as Hillary Clinton.

And Michael Medved is one of those who encourages disagreements from callers, like Jerry Williams used to do. He certainly provides an interesting discussion, which is why I listen to him a lot more than Sean Hannity and Howie Carr. However, occasionally Medved doesn’t sound totally rational, such as during the 2007-08 Presidential campaign when he was discussing candidates with Hugh Hewitt, and they were chortling and giggling how the Republican nominee should be someone with “experience,” and what they were saying sounded like they were referring to John McCain. Yes, that John McCain. Yech.

And Medved’s personality occasionally becomes fingernails-against-the-chalkboard, you know what I mean? For instance, when the discussion is about taxation, such as the New York Times‘ recent article about Trump’s questionable tax filings (if any), the “conservative” Medved turns all egalitarian and goes off on this “everyone has to pay his fair share,” and so on. What I clearly hear from him there is the politics of envy, like a leftist. And I know I heard him talk that way at least twice now.

Another example of annoying, while I really like hearing Medved’s criticisms of Donald Trump, lately he has been nearly shilling for Hillary, to the point of dishonesty, in my view. Medved rarely yells, but just the other day, in fact (I think it was Thursday), he was yelling at Sharon from Louisville, with Medved saying that it was “sick” to suggest that Hillary Clinton should be “locked up.” Medved was grilling Sharon from Louisville, interrogating her on what exactly Hillary should be charged with, stating that FBI Director James Comey’s decisions were final. Ugh.

And several times now I have heard Medved say some particular thing, and a few days later when a caller points out that he said such and such, he denies it and says, “I did NOT say that,” and so on. And he’s done that at least a couple times now. So either he’s extremely forgetful, or just dishonest. In fact, during that 2007-08 campaign Medved smeared Ron Paul by saying that Dr. Paul had appeared on the Alex Jones Show, and after playing a tape of Jones ranting and sounding like a snarling and snorting madman, while Medved didn’t actually say that that was Ron Paul, it came very close to sounding like he was saying that was Ron Paul. It was extremely dishonest, in my view. I’ll bet that other people who were Ron Paul supporters also heard that, and that the Ron Paul campaign contacted Medved after that, because just days or a week later Dr. Paul was on Medved’s show, and I hadn’t heard him on that show prior to that.

But, I still listen to Medved because he does have interesting discussions, albeit annoying at times.

And Rush Limbaugh? I’m glad he is very tech savvy and discusses those things on his show. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if he is another one of those iPhone zombies who spends a lot of time with his little electronic gadgets. Well, at least he doesn’t need Viagra to play with his iPhone. (Or does he?)

But I do wish we could go back to earlier times, so I can hear Jerry Williams again, along with Gene Burns and David Brudnoy, of course.

Oct 212016

It is unfortunate that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was ousted from his job for defying last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, he should have seriously considered the Alabama Senate’s vote to eliminate a licensing requirement for marriage altogether.

Should conservatives continue to support government controls such as licensing to promote a particular social agenda?

The truth is, when conservatives rely on the government for the purpose of social influences, they are relying on force, compulsion and coercion.

In contrast, a preferable way to promote one’s social or cultural customs is the voluntary way. Persuasion. For example, use the church, talk radio, public speeches, TV, and so forth as non-coercive ways to get the word out.

In the conservatives’ promotion of traditional marriage, they have attempted to use the legal force of government to impose restrictions on private property and private contracts as a means of banning same-sex marriage in society. The Defense of Marriage Act and California’s 2008 Proposition 8 are but two examples.

Now, I’m all for traditional marriage, but I think that the democratic process of using the powers of government to control these matters is now being exploited by activists on the other side to try to force acceptance of same-sex marriage by those who do not want to accept it.

Avoidable situations include, as I referred to just recently, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who was unnecessarily thrown in jail for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But if she didn’t want to perform all the duties her employer (Rowan County government) required, she could have just resigned.

Frankly, workers do not have a right to pick and choose what job tasks to do and what not to do, because they don’t own their jobs, the employers do. However, in this case, the employer is the government (or the public) and Davis’s job is an elective public office. Davis has an obligation by law to perform her duties as assigned. A private employer would have just fired her (or sued her for breach of contract).

But why have conservatives or traditionalists allowed government bureaucrats to usurp control over marriage, via licensing requirements, away from the people in the first place?

What moral authority do bureaucrats have to decide who may marry and who may not, or the terms of marriage contracts?

None. Marriage used to be a private matter until activists and the control freaks of progressivism decided to get involved. Because of the emergence of collectivism over the past century, just about every aspect of an individual’s life is everybody else’s business, so it seems now.

In my view, let the people decide for themselves to be married or not, and let those who want to establish a marriage contract do so, as long as no theft, fraud or coercion is involved.

After all, aren’t all human beings endowed by their creator, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It shouldn’t be up to a bureaucrat to decide just who is worthy of such rights, in marriage or any other aspect of life, any more than it should be up to a bureaucrat to decide how parents may educate their kids.

As with “civil rights” laws, conservative support of government controls of marriage and licensing has also been self-defeating.

And that governmental control over marriage, by the way, has also been an instrument for activists and their government cohorts to control private wealth and finances, via taxation, fees (more taxes, called “fees”), and so on.

All these are further reasons to restore private property rights in the people’s private contracts and earnings, their persons and property, their careers, their families and marriages, and the education of their children as well.

Oct 202016

I don’t want to seem redundant, but some important ideas need to be reiterated, especially when it’s hard to get through to some people who are conditioned all their lives with so much cognitive dissonance. So I wanted to get this out there. I’ll be doing a post on talk radio shortly, but these issues here take precedence.

As I wrote in a recent post, many Americans are collectivistic in their support of U.S. government atrocities such as Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq and so on. While one problem is their collectivism, another problem is their gullibility in believing the propagandistic crap that government bureaucrats spoon-feed them, as repeated word for word by the bureaucrats’ lapdog apparatchiks in the mainstream media.

In a related post, Michael Rozeff asserts that many Americans don’t like the idea of defeat. He writes, “Americans will not look history in the face because it means accepting American defeat. They will fight on and on in war after war or support their government’s fights because they want to turn defeats into victories.”

As I see it, the cognitive dissonance includes many Americans’ inability to understand the cause and effect of our government’s starting wars, invading other countries, murdering innocents, and the blowback against us that such terrible central planning policies cause.

But a lot of people are very authoritarian-minded, and they don’t like it when others question the authority and judgment of their rulers. We heard the reactions of talk radio people and others to Colin Kaepernick not standing for the National Anthem, and to Gary Johnson seeing a moral equivalence between the U.S. military bombing, murdering innocent civilians and the Syrian regime bombing and murdering innocent civilians (or ISIS murdering innocent civilians, quite frankly).

Of course there is moral equivalence between any individual or group who kills an innocent human being. If you believe otherwise, then you believe in moral relativism. Yes, it’s that simple. So, one ought not believe those who say that “we had to drop an atom bomb on a city of innocent civilians to save the lives of U.S. soldiers,” as such people are engaged in rationalization. They are rationalizing the murders of innocent human beings. They are relativists.

But some people are offended and personally insulted by the idea of anyone questioning their rulers’ judgments, including the judgments of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, there are sheeple who get on their knees for the military (and government police), because of being conditioned to unthinkingly and unquestioningly idolize and worship authority, especially the armed authority of the government rulers.

And there are plenty of regime apparatchiks in the government who have authority themselves but use it to give official approval of government criminality. Some of the worst of these regime apparatchiks are the judges. Such judges include the notorious contortionist U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who bent over backwards twice now to rubber-stamp ObamaCare, and plenty of judges who have rubber-stamped the FBI, local police and other “authorities” who have violated the rights and lives of innocent people.

Another example: When testifying before Congress FBI Director James Comey listed one item after another as to why Hillary Clinton should be indicted for her email server recklessness, but he concluded in Orwellian fashion by saying that he doesn’t recommend that she be indicted. In fact, FBI agents are now calling him a corrupt buffoon and saying that he obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. Comey, in fact, has a long relationship with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Crony Comey, you might say.

Another regime judge, FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, rubber-stamped CIA secrecy in its drone-murder program. In a 2011 ruling, she wrote, according to Politico:

At first blush, there is force to Plaintiffs’ argument that a ‘targeted-killing program is not an intelligence program’ in the most strict and traditional sense …  [But:] The Court has no reason to second-guess the CIA as to which programs that may or may not be of interest implicate the gathering of intelligence.

And then in 2014, Judge Collyer threw out a lawsuit against Obama’s drone-murder program, writing that such a lawsuit “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning deliberation.”

In other words, just as we shouldn’t “second-guess the CIA,” we also shouldn’t second-guess the military. Isn’t the point of having three branches of government so that we can, or must, second-guess the government, including its military? But, as Jacob Hornberger pointed out yesterday, the U.S. military runs things, not the President. Therefore the judicial deference to the unquestionable judgment of the military or the CIA.

But God forbid we should second-guess the CIA, given how just about everyone in the CIA and FBI is “corrupt,” according to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou. He was the one who exposed the CIA torture program. And for that the CIA and FBI persecuted and jailed him, and not the torturers themselves. (Hmm, did Hugh Hewitt ever interview John Kiriakou? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.)

The truth is, the torture was initially to justify George W. Bush’s planned 2003 Iraq War, not to protect us from terrorism.

You see, many authoritarians believe what bureaucrats tell them about “national security” and that the detainees at Guantanamo are “terrorists,” even though no evidence has been shown against the detainees and they certainly haven’t been convicted of anything. The authoritarians who worship at the alter of government authority are scoffing and snickering at my noting that here. They know those detainees are “terrorists,” because the rulers said so.

And God forbid we should second-guess the U.S. military. Those bureaucrats are beyond reproach. Like during the Vietnam War, when the military bureaucrats of the Pentacon knew as early as 1967 that the war would be unwinnable, yet they proceeded to send U.S. troops to their deaths for no good reason anyway — for ego, for power, and for financial enrichment. Even after the Pentagon Papers were published and the American people knew how treasonously the Johnson and Nixon administrations were acting in their sending people off to their deaths for no good reason, the sheeple believed in their government anyway, and they still didn’t want to second-guess the military.

Even now there are Americans who still defend the U.S. government’s actions in Vietnam in the 1960s and ’70s, either because they are ignorant, indoctrinated with misinformation and propaganda, and/or they just obediently believe what bureaucrats tell them. They don’t like it when such a policy is criticized! Especially when you point out that young Americans were sent to their deaths for no good reason. We must sweep the truth under the rug. For some people, the thought of their own government acting treasonously and criminally in such an extensive and murderous way is unthinkable.

And then there was Iraq from 1990 and continuing. We shouldn’t have second-guessed George H.W. Bush’s judgment in starting a war against Iraq back then. We shouldn’t have second-guessed his son’s starting a new war on Iraq 12 years later. In Bush the Younger’s war, the U.S. military involved itself in chemical atrocities, and as they invaded and occupied Iraq (and not the other way around), besides shooting at and bombing and murdering innocents, their criminality also involved going house to house to search for and confiscate firearms from the Iraqi people.

Can you imagine a foreign regime invading here and doing that to the people of Texas or Pennsylvania? I’m sure the moral relativists say that it’s okay for our military to violate foreigners’ right to keep and bear arms, but we certainly can’t allow it the other way around.

The right to keep and bear arms is part of the general right of human beings to self-defense. Such a right is an inherent human right that preexists the formation of any government, and that right applies to all human beings, in America, Iraq, or wherever.

But, we shouldn’t question the judgment of our high and mighty military or whichever commander-in-chief happens to be in charge, according to the obedient authoritarians.

We certainly shouldn’t question the judgment of the military when its bureaucrats impose gun-free zones on U.S. bases, which have enabled lunatics like Nidal Hassoon to shoot up the people there who have been disarmed and can’t shoot back. Nope. Don’t second-guess those brilliant bureaucrats.

And we shouldn’t question the judgment of the Navy bureaucrats who will require all sailors to get transgender education. And the Pentacon will now cover transgender sex-reassignment surgery for all active duty troops. Yay! (Did Klinger on M*A*S*H ever think of this?) And these bureaucrats, whose judgment we should always trust and never question, have come out with their new sex change handbook.

As Laurence Vance writes, “You will be paying for all this nonsense. What red-blooded American man would want to join today’s military? What Christian would want to join?”

Well, I’m sure the authoritarians who love and worship the military will try very hard to look the other way regarding those things.

Oct 202016

A new transgender protection law just went into effect in Massachusetts, and already a question will appear on the 2018 ballot to repeal it.

And four churches are preparing a lawsuit against Attorney General Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Additionally, there have been many same-sex couples who have sued bakers who didn’t want to bake a cake for the couple’s wedding, photographers who didn’t want to photograph it, and florists who didn’t want to provide flowers.

Some lawsuits claim to involve hurt feelings, but given the huge number of illicit lawsuits and threats against those who have a moral conscience and act defiantly against the activists, one can very well make the case that the activists have been intentionally using the laws and courts to push the homosexual agenda beyond just acceptance or preventing discrimination.

The Orwellian Massachusetts law will apply to places of religious worship, and, according to Conservative Review, the law states that “’all entities subject to the law’ are encouraged to ‘use names, pronouns, and gender-related terms’ that coincide with a person’s imagined gender, and ‘prohibit derogatory comments or jokes about transgender persons from employees, clients, vendors, and any others, and promptly investigate and discipline persons who engage in discriminatory conduct’.”

So this is what conservatives’ own acceptance of progressive “civil rights” laws has come to.

The bottom line is that conservatives need to return to a principled support for private property and private property rights, and freedom of association and freedom of non-association. And this requires a direct and explicit call for a change in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent legislation to only address government-run functions and public property, and to exempt all private property from such laws.

Unfortunately many people are afraid to speak out against certain invasive and immoral laws for fear of being labeled “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and so on. And now decent people are afraid of being sued.

While a church has more to do with voluntary charity and usually isn’t a for-profit business, it is nevertheless private property. Churches are not publicly owned, they are not government-owned.

That means that all individuals involved, the ministers and workers, the church-goers, and so on, have freedom of speech as guided by their own prayers, thoughts, consciences and conversations, and under the authority of the proprietors or owners of that church, NOT the authority of any government agency, legislator or bureaucrat.

Regarding the business side of “public accommodations,” the progressives and statists for a century have been treating private business as not-truly privately owned, but as publicly-owned or even government-owned mainly out of the very negative emotions of envy and covetousness. The “civil rights” laws have merely been extensions of New Deal and Great Society usurpations and takings, in my view.

Morally, if you own a business that you built from your own labor and capital, or that you acquired from your own wealth or inherited, then that business is not any less private property just because the business is a commercial enterprise and involves profits.

Within such principles, the individual owns one’s own life, person and labor, and justly acquired property, and has a right to make use of one’s person and property as one sees fit, as long as one is peaceful. And that’s the moral way for a society to be.

So in the examples of LGBT activists suing bakers and other businesspeople, the choice is this: Either the baker owns his own business and has the ultimate right to decide on and control all aspects of the business, including what customers he will serve or not serve by his own choice; or a couple may use the force of government and the law to compel the baker to serve them.

Those are the two choices. And it doesn’t matter what reasons the baker has for refusal, by the way. As Laurence Vance pointed out, if the law is to punish someone’s reasons for refusing to associate or do business with others, then we are talking about thought crimes here. Not good.

And the principle involved is not so much “religious liberty,” but private property rights and freedom of association. An atheist baker has the same right to refuse service to a Christian couple, if the atheist baker opposes Christianity. That is because his business is privately owned and he is the ultimate owner.

People don’t have the right to force others to associate with or do extra labor to serve them, period.

A related issue involved Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. There was absolutely no good reason for her to be thrown in jail for her refusal.

However, if Davis were a private businessperson or service provider, such as a minister or priest working in a church, she would have every right in the world to pick and choose which couples to marry or not, and for any reason. That’s not exactly what the “civil rights” laws say, but many laws on the books are unjust laws — laws which force involuntary associations on people and which violate an individual’s sense of moral scruples as well as private property rights.

In other words, individual ministers, rabbis, priests or marriage officiants should have the freedom to discriminate which people to marry or not to marry, and for any reason.

“Civil rights” laws and other governmental intrusions have been used by the progressives to force acceptance of what many people view as unacceptable, by law. So conservative support of such laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been quite self-defeating.

While one purpose of civil rights laws is to force involuntary associations and acceptance of unacceptable lifestyles, another motivation of the progressives has been to punish successful entrepreneurs via monetary losses through the courts. This motivation of envy, covetousness and hatred of the profit motive runs deep within the soul of most progressives. (Most?) Perhaps I mean within the being of progressives because one wonders whether many of them are deficient of an actual soul.

The progressives seem to have been using just about every aspect of everyday life to act out and impose their emotional envy and resentment toward those who are productive, successful and living an honest life, and who have a particular point of view that’s contrary to the LGBT lobby’s propaganda.

Many people of a moral conscience who believe in freedom and private property rights are attempting to defend their rights in court, such as those religious groups in Massachusetts now. States can also make use of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and nullification to fight federal diktats.

But I think that people may very well have to use a good offense as a defense against activist aggressors against them. For example, if a same-sex couple sues you for refusal of service, you can immediately sue them for emotional distress, or press criminal charges of extortion and harassment against them. And that could also apply to a transgender person who sues someone in a church for “discrimination” because he was referred to as “he” rather than as his preferred “she.”

Oct 182016

We are all sick of Hollery, but we’re going to have to get used to it. And yes, the system is “rigged,” in that the Clintons have a Machine built up for over 25 years now, in all 50 states. Early voting is going on right now — not good. “Vote early, and often,” and all that sort of thing.

And also, we have seen from the WikiLeaks email dumps, Democrat operatives such as Debbie Wackerjob Schultz have been cahooting to lock Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. Hillary gets debate questions from media people in advance of debates. The DNC and Clinton campaign incite riots at Trump rallies. There are now Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s revealing emails, the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s telling her supporters one thing and telling the banksters something else.

Various news media hacks have been cahooting and colluding with the Clinton campaign to slant not just the news but the whole campaign for Hillary. Here is WND with an article on Hillary supporters “embedded” in the news media. Among other sad displays, Glenn Thrush asks Podesta for approval of his Politico stories. How sick is that? Here is the Columbia Journalism Review with an article on journalists wasting their money on the Hillary campaign. CNN fires Dr. Drew Pinsky for his expressing concern over Hillary’s “1950s” medical care. Clinton campaign workers and media hacks shame an NBC reporter for covering Hillary’s coughing fit. (Hmm, which coughing fit was that one?)

But the media bias is nothing new. As I wrote in a previous post, in 2008 there were the “Journolists,” the Washington-Establishment news reporters and editors who consciously chose not to report on any news or facts that could damage Obama’s chances for the White House. That included biased debate questions during the Obama vs. Hillary debates, and smearing conservatives and Tea Partiers (“Call them racists.”). Some of the “Journolists” included Spencer Ackerman and Ezra Klein, and, according to the Daily Caller, reporters from such media outlets as “Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic.”

And here is the Observer with an article on extreme media and entertainment favoritism toward Clinton including Howard Stern, of all people. The Observer writes about the denial by the exposed Hillary sycophants in the media:

Ignoring a tidal wave of Wikileaks documents that show instance after instance of media collusion with the Clinton campaign, Politico on Monday morning declared that “Trump takes media-bias myth to new heights.” The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan agreed, telling CNN “There is no sort of little group called ‘the media’ that gets together and decides to do terrible things to Donald Trump.” Nevertheless, the recent Wikileaks dump has forced even some serious liberal critics, such as Glenn Greenwald, to assert that the profession has damaged its credibility in ways that will outlive this gruesome election.

And here is my list of articles by Glenn Greenwald showing media bias, mainly biased toward the glorification of all-powerful government in general as well as for Obama in particular.

Well, as I have written in articles before, news “journalists” shill for the State, and The New York Times, CBS and Fox, et al. — They’re ALL part of the Regime.

But as far as the election being “rigged,” it isn’t just the media and campaign hacks who are trying to sway the election in favor of Hillary. It’s the voters themselves. As I wrote in this post, many Independents went into open Republican primaries to vote for the weakest Republican because they wanted Hillary to win in the general, and perhaps many Democrats re-registered to vote in Republican primaries as well.

In fact, among the many emails leaked by WikiLeaks, one showed how Democrats were worried about candidates such as a Rand Paul making it to the general election, and were promoting someone such as Donald Trump who would be like a “pied piper” candidate. And he is. (But so is Hitlery, truth be told.)

But, there is also the possibility that Trump himself has been running to intentionally lose the general election on behalf of Hillary. I’ve mentioned this before, but there are many True Believers who refuse to accept even the possibility of that sort of thing.

On August 8, 2015, I wrote,

I like the fact that Donald Trump has been throwing a wrench into the system, but I think that Justin Raimondo is probably correct, that The Donald really is there as a straw, to throw a wrench just into the GOP, and on behalf of The Hillary. It is good that Trump stands against political correctness as he told Megyn Kelly, but he really does have a history of making rude personal comments to women. Even if Rosie O’Donnell is herself rude and ghastly, Trump should at least have some class and keep certain thoughts to himself. And why does he have to say out loud that he thinks a woman wanting to breast-feed her baby is “disgusting”? Can’t he keep such opinions to himself?

Raimondo apparently doesn’t think that now, as he has been promoting Trump (with some reservations, of course). Raimondo is big on “America First” with his tweets, which allegedly reflects Donald Trump’s campaign. However, Trump’s policies and rhetoric show that he is not about “America First” as much as he is about “Government First.” Trump wants to expand the size and power of the fedgov by trillions, and he wants to expand the police state. In contrast — and I know I am quite alone on this these days — I personally am in favor of “Freedom First.” (Alas, some people think that I am actually treasonous for thinking “Freedom First, not America First,” but that’s the way people are now in Authoritarian Soviet Amerika. Oh, well.)

But could Trump be a straw candidate or stalking horse for Hillary? It’s not entirely out of the question. Was it just a Freudian slip when, in this interview (a little after 11:00) Trump said he wanted to “beat the Republicans”? Just askin’.

And just one final note. People have been criticizing Trump for his sniffing at debates. I suspect that it might be a sign of his contempt for either Hillary or others he is dealing with. In a blog post in September of 2015, I wrote:

… in an interview with the author of a new biography on him, Trump is quoted, stating: “For the most part, you can’t respect people because most people aren’t worthy of respect.” And it sounds like that isn’t even taken out of context, because how could you do that? I think that one statement tells us about what Donald Trump really thinks of other people. (Not much.) And there really are sheeple out there who think that that kind of contemptuous attitude is okay. They want their President to have that attitude and think that way about them! They want their rulers to walk all over them and treat them like dirt. I know I do.

Oct 162016

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby makes some very good points in his criticism of the compromising of moral principles by the “religious right” in Christians, evangelicals, or conservatives’ supporting of Donald Trump in this Presidential campaign. While Bill Bennett had previously written that there are moral absolutes that ought not be compromised in favor of supporting political candidates or causes, now he has changed his tune and is compromising his principles, according to Jacoby.

But Jacoby does cite a group of religious Christians among the younger crowd who can give us some hope. Liberty University students have formed Liberty United Against Trump, and they “want nothing to do with him.” Good for them.

But, Trump and Bennett aside, I think the conservative movement had dropped adherence to moral principles decades and decades ago, either for political reasons, or maybe out of ignorance and an indoctrinated deference to the government and governmental authority.

For instance, on talk radio the emotional reaction was intense and harsh to Gary Johnson’s assertion of moral equivalence between Syrian civilians killed by supporters of Bashar al-Assad and civilians killed by U.S. forces such as in their bombing of a civilian hospital. Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt were especially furious at Johnson for telling the truth.

God forbid that we here in “exceptional” America should believe in the Golden Rule: Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you, and Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.

To some people who think like collectivists, targeting and killing innocent human beings is justified when the victims are on “the other side,” such as Japanese and Germans during World War II, or Iraqis, Afghans, etc. more recently. But if Afghan or Syrian jets came over and bombed U.S. hospitals, why, that would be a war crime! The rationalization of U.S. military targeting and killing innocent non-combatants including children in Tokyo, Dresden, and Hiroshima is a rationalization of mass murder, in my view. “Collateral damage” is the mantra of the moral relativists, sad to say.

But that is how collectivists think, when they rationalize intentionally killing innocent children (or adults). As though a little child has some responsibility for what his ruling regime and its military are doing. As though any individual has any guilt or responsibility for what anyone else has done. Morally, it is just plain wrong to assign guilt to an innocent person, and it is evil to target and harm an innocent person, period.

And people also defend President George H.W. Bush’s starting a war of aggression on Iraq in 1991, a country that was of no threat to us. Already those who defend such aggressions are scoffing at my bringing that up. I can hear them tut-tutting me. Well that is because they are conditioned to believe the propaganda that the government dishes out, and they are also conditioned through 12-16 years of government-controlled schooling to always “pledge allegiance” to the government. “Our government, right or wrong” is the saying for many people.

The hostilities started by Bush and the U.S. military in 1991 included the intentional bombing of Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment facilities which caused the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water. This intentional and sadistic scheme was reinforced by the U.S. forces and UN sanctions and no-fly zones which prevented the importing of construction materials to rebuild, and which prevented the importing of medical supplies to treat the sick. And the sanctions and no-fly zones were continued by President Bill Clinton as encouraged by his wife, You-Know-Who. By the mid-1990s there were at least 500,000 deaths in Iraq caused by disease, by cholera, typhoid, and starvation and much higher infant mortality rates, and according to U.S. Air Force Col. John Warden it was intentional.

Now, there are probably many people who are saying, “Our government and military did NOT do those things. They wouldn’t do those things.” And that is because many people are ignorant of history, even of current events, and/or they are in denial: they know about what our government did but they rationalize such actions, out of an obedient deference to the government.

So the Clinton bombings continued throughout the ’90s as well as sanctions, and by the year 2000 the death toll was even higher. Those bombings and Clinton bombings in other areas elicited warnings from Ron Paul throughout the 1990s that the U.S. might very well be the target of attacks within our territory. But Ron Paul is “crazy,” as Howie Carr would say, or an “old fool,” as I heard Dennis Prager say during the 2008 campaign.

But outside of people such as Ron Paul who actually have a moral conscience, we don’t hear very much from the alleged proponents of “moral values” against starting wars and targeting civilian populations, or being consistent regarding the Golden Rule. Listen to the boos from the audience directed at Ron Paul when he calls for a Golden Rule in U.S. foreign policy. Those are boos from the true believers who worship the military like a god. The Iraq fiasco was repeated by the 2nd George Bush, who started the unnecessary Afghanistan war as well. Many propagandized and bamboozled people still believe that Afghanistan and Iraq played a role in 9/11.

And then there’s the abortion issue. I can’t believe the number of conservatives I heard criticizing Donald Trump (of all people!) when he said that the woman having an abortion should also be punished as well as the abortionist. Whatever happened to “personal responsibility”? Unless she’s being made to go get an abortion against her will, the young girl or lady is definitely responsible for what she’d doing. I don’t know if she should be thrown in jail, but if killing an innocent unborn human being is an act of murder then she should be punished in some way. Many conservatives also defend abortion as justifiable when the woman was a victim of rape or incest. So, killing an innocent unborn human being is okay just because the father committed an act of violence? The baby is responsible for that? But I digress.

My theory as to why many people will defend immoral criminal actions by their own government and military including starting wars of aggression, is to do with a combination of a collectivist mindset and a long-conditioned reverence for the government, and an exaltation of it, like a god. For instance, when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem, the conservatives on the radio were outraged. Why, that’s insulting. It’s “offenseive” (like they were being triggered by Kaepernick’s microaggression against them, the precious cupcakes).

You see, when collectivists see that one mere individual is not going along with the rest of the crowd in honor of “our side’s song,” they take it personally, because of their own individual psyches having merged into the collective, and the State. So this is the same kind of mindset that approves of government mass murder of innocents, like in Hiroshima, even cheers it on. Because it’s “our side” committing the atrocities. Only condemn the other side‘s atrocities against innocents.

As O’Brien stated to Wilson in George Orwell’s 1984,

“The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual…. Alone — free — the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal….”

The “Party” also being the State. So it’s not just an obedient deference to government by the authoritarians and nationalists, but a merging of themselves into that ruling regime as well into the collective population. We can’t have Colin Kaepernick acting in “civil disobedience” to a national song.

Yes, he can do that if he feels strongly enough about his principles, even if his reason of America being “racist” is erroneous and itself a collectivist conclusion. But for those who don’t stand for the National Anthem (a terrible song musically and lyrically, by the way, as it glorifies war) because they protest their government’s immoral policies and its wars, they have a better point.

So another problem with the nationalists and authoritarians is that they believe what government propagandists tell them. They agree with Donald Trump and believe that torturing innocents is justified as an end-justifies-the-means kind of rationalization. However, as in the case of Guantanamo, they really believe that the ones being tortured are “terrorists,” because the government said so, even though not one of the detainees was ever brought to trial let alone convicted of any crimes, and in most cases the government had no evidence against them. But, as I wrote in this post, over 80% of the Guantanamo detainees were apprehended mainly in Afghanistan by local villagers because they were paid bounties by the CIA and military, and senior intelligence analysts had said that one-third to one-half of the detainees were “mistakes” and “had no connection to terrorism whatsoever.” But the nationalists won’t believe that because they believe government bureaucrats (and their sycophantic media stenographers who obediently repeat what bureaucrats tell them, word for word) who say that the detainees are “dangerous terrorists” etc., etc. That is what we get in this banana republic of government propaganda and moral relativism.

In recent months, thanks to the depressing Donald Trump campaign, conservatives have been expressing concern over the decline of the conservative movement. But it is nothing new. The decline coincides with the decline in morality and decency in America. Not that conservatives caused that decline, as the main culprits are the progressives. But conservatives do have some responsibility in accepting the progressives socialist schemes. They need to reject progressivism once and for all. And that includes not supporting the socialist ignoramus Donald Trump or the rigged elections that will crown Hillary as the new Queen of Soviet Amerika.

Anyway, in a speech at a recent Mises Circle event, Lew Rockwell noted that the decline of the conservative movement has been coinciding with the rise of the libertarian movement. “Nobody can figure out what constitutes a ‘true conservative’,” noted Rockwell, who is certainly one who can be referred to as “Mr. Libertarian” (if he doesn’t mind my calling him that).

Rockwell states that after World War II conservatives “bought foreign interventionism hook, line, and sinker.” They still do. I wish that those who say they believe in morality and decency wouldn’t be so gullible and naive when it comes to their believing what government bureaucrats tell them. It is probably better to assume that just about everything that comes out of a bureaucrat’s mouth is a lie.

Oct 112016

I just wanted to make some further comments on my previous post on Donald Trump’s bragging about trying to have sex with married women and talking in a vulgar manner about it. I am not condoning that kind of talk, and certainly not that kind of behavior that Trump was claiming to have been doing.

However, all these phony media people, talk radio personalities and so forth are so full of it. They never hear that kind of talk in locker rooms, etc. What bull. I have heard that kind of talk in middle school, high school, college, and after. And it isn’t strictly limited to locker rooms (and obviously some locker rooms are without that kind of talk, like in a church). It really has to do with when males get together, especially in private areas. I’ll bet that MOST show-biz celebrity and politician males talk like that — and worse! — in private. And I appreciate Linda Schrock Taylor’s comments (and sarcasm) on that kind of male-bonding trash talk.

And by the way, given that the recent example is an off-mic recording of Trump, who had that private conversation in the private area with the implication that it was a private conversation, should he consider having this Billy Carter Billy Bush person charged with wiretapping or invasion of privacy, etc.? In many states, recording another person in a conversation without his consent is illegal.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Trump has actually acted toward women in that way, and it’s probably that he’s just “all talk,” etc. Although it might be true what his first wife Ivana alleged against him, as far as rape is concerned. But it might not be true. And I hope it isn’t true what is now being alleged that Trump allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl.

In any case, he’s a loathsome degenerate as I’ve been saying. Either way, whether it’s Hillary Rotten Clinton (who has her own case of the potty mouth herself) or Donald Rotten Trump in November, we’re all screwed.

Oct 082016

(UPDATE: Some slight corrections made since I wrote this originally.)

As everyone already knows, I am no supporter of Donald Trump. I loathe and detest Trump. However, I can’t believe all the people feigning being “offended” at the revelation of his vulgar comments on a tour bus or wherever it was, back in 2005. He was talking to someone in a bragging way about trying to “move on” some woman, and didn’t know a mic was on and recording the conversation. Jeepers, guys say things like that ALL THE TIME! (No, not me.) When guys like Trump get together, they talk trashy, like in a locker room, etc. And for all we know, it is very likely that he was just making it all up what he was saying to that other person. Many of them just make things up and lie like a rug about their experiences. I can’t believe that the Trump supporters such as Hugh Hewitt are trying to tell Trump to drop out of the race because of THIS! After all the other rude comments Trump has made and tweeted? Like this is any worse? (Perhaps Hugh Hewitt can drop out of talk radio. I can’t stand him.) So anyway, these sleazebag showbiz celebrities and political celebrities are all the same, in my view.

Oct 042016

The Property and Freedom Society held its annual conference at Bodrum, Turkey, last month.

The group met regardless of any possible concerns following the June Istanbul terrorist attack and the July coup d’état attempt planned and orchestrated by the regime, and notwithstanding the growing authoritarian and oppressive dictatorial rule of Turkish President Recep Tayyyip Erdoğan. And the Property and Freedom Society participants traveled to Turkey and had their conference regardless of the Western news media’s propaganda campaign against tourism in Turkey.

Founded by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and established in Turkey in 2006, The Property and Freedom Society states its principles thus:

The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to discriminate against—anyone in one’s personal and business relations—and unconditional free trade. It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of “outcome” or “opportunity,” and it has an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians. As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: “What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. … There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government.” (“Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan,” 1946))

As culturally conservative libertarians, we are convinced that the process of de-civilization has again reached a crisis point and that it is our moral and intellectual duty to once again undertake a serious effort to rebuild a free, prosperous, and moral society. It is our emphatic belief that an approach embracing intransigent political radicalism is, in the long run, the surest path to our cherished goal of a regime of totally unfettered individual liberty and private property. In thus seeking a fresh and radical new beginning, we are heeding the old but frequently forgotten advice of Friedrich Hayek’s: “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty…, which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote. … Unless we can make the philosophical foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.”

I will post here the videos of lectures as posted on the PFS website. Thanks to Stephan Kinsella for posting those videos and the articles of commentary by conference participants, from which I will include some quotes.

Following the PFS conference, Tim Haffner wrote, “Despite the political instability stemming from a recent failed military coup and terrorist attacks at the Istanbul airport, through which most participants would travel, a core group gathered … to engage in the uncompromising radical scholarship the society has offered since its inception.

“It is rather fitting that political violence would wean away all but the most dedicated libertarian thinkers from a conference dedicated to highlighting the folly of political authority, bureaucratic security provision, and the dysfunctions inherent to government intervention in what most consider basic services.”

Keir Martland wrote that the Property and Freedom Society conference is “the only conference worth attending.” The “format is leisurely,” … “the surroundings are beautiful, inside and out,” … “the speeches are of an insanely good standard,” and “the conversation is some of the most stimulating you will have all year.”

And Walter Block wrote, “Please take a peek at all the speakers. I want to single out only two. First, the man himself, Hans. I summarize his speech (explaining his argumentation ethics and defending it against critics) in three words: Johan Sebastian Bach, my favorite composer. As usual, Hans was simply scintillating. Like Bach, his arguments were organized, brilliant, inexorable. The other speaker I’d like to mention is Keir Martland. He is only 18 years old, but more than held his own in this august company. He reminded me of a very young Roy Childs, who was my teacher at the Freedom School in Colorado when he was only 17 years old. Both Keir (now) and Roy (then) were just out of diapers a few months before I met them, and both were world class scholars of very tender years. I expect great things from this young man.

“A word about Turkey, at least the Istanbul and Bodrum Airports, and Bodrum, the town on the south west Mediterranean coast of the country. The airports were cleaner than any in the U.S. Bodrum’s streets and highways were less potholed than many places in the U.S., and far cleaner. There was no crime that I could see. I felt far safer there than in the U.S. People warned me about going to this country; my life would be in danger. They hate Jews. They hate Americans. I’d be attacked. I’d be put in jail. Nonsense. No, nonsense on stilts. The place reminded me of Vancouver, Canada, and Acapulco, Mexico. Very safe world-class tourist attractions.”


Here is Hans-Hermann Hoppe with initial words about the conference and introducing the first speakers:


Here is Olivier Richard on “Free and Compulsory Education”:

Here is Rahim Taghizadegan on “The Rise and Fall of the University”:

Here is Keir Martland, asking, “How Glorious Was the ‘Glorious Revolution’?”:


Here is Sean Gabb in “Margaret Thatcher — Hero or Villain?”


Here is Daniel Model on “The Hardship of Doing Business (in Switzerland)”:


Here is Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple) on “Bogus Illnesses and Their Enablers”:


Here is Heiner Rindermann on “Cognitive and Cultural ‘Entertainment’ of Europe by Immigration”:


(There are a few more videos, and I will add them when they become available.)

Update: The remaining videos are now available, and here they are:

Here is Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof on “The Many Fathers of World War 2”:


Here is Norman Stone on “Politics and Religion”:


Here is Hans-Hermann Hoppe on “The Ethics of Argumentation”:

You can read Dr. Hoppe’s speech here, with notes.


Here is Walter Block on “‘Market Failure’ — Fact or Fiction?”:


Here is David Dürr on “How to Take the State to Court”:


And here is Doug Casey on “Prospecting the World’s Regions”:


Oct 022016

I had made several references to Gary Johnson as possibly lowering his IQ over the past ten years since his use of “medical marijuana” following a terrible accent he had. You would think that someone who was the 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for President and who was intending on getting that party’s nomination again in 2016 would brush up on what libertarianism is and understanding its principles. However, not only has he not done that, but he has been trashing the principles of libertarianism and freedom and free markets.

Regarding marijuana and IQ, this article explains a possible linkage between pot smoking and lowered IQ. (There is also a linkage between pot smoking and testicular cancer, and lung cancer as well.)

But I am now getting the sense that Gary Goofball was always like that. Or it might be that he has been a pothead for many years, maybe long before his 2005 accident. According to this New York Times article, he has been a pothead since high school.

His personality is just really goofy, and he is also an opportunist who exploits ways to get attention. In 2012 the Republicans and the media wouldn’t pay any attention to him, so he went to the LP. And now, he takes his “experience as a governor,” such as it is, and manipulates the hapless suckers of the LP convention to nominate him.

So I found this 1998 goobernatorial debate in New Mexico in which he was running for reelection. He seemed really “relaxed” during that debate, like either he was high or had been drinking. Now, I’m not saying he was high or drinking, just that that’s my perception. And it seems to me that while he seems to know what he’s talking about, in some way, he nevertheless makes these weird statements and gestures as well (that can remind one of his sticking his tongue out as he did just recently in an interview, or saying he’s having “an Aleppo moment,” etc., etc.). A little after 22:00 the Democrat opponent is making some points about something, and then Gary Goofball makes a noise like a “wrong answer” buzzer, and then the opponent is saying something like “this is like a high school debate… but this is serious business” and when he’s saying that, Gary is mimicking his gestures, like a goofball would. It really cracked me up.

Oct 022016

It seems that there was some negative feedback in the comments to my article yesterday on American Thinker. So I will respond to some of them here.

“Angel” is the first comment who has gotten from other readers, so far, 35 thumbs up.

Hmmm. Angel writes, “It’s sad that Mr. Lazarowitz is supporting Hillary Clinton.”

Huh? I’m supporting Hillary? Well, I’m supporting Hillary getting indicted and, one hopes, tried and convicted and sent to jail. Not only should she be indicted for specific violations involving her email server secrecy but the Clinton Foundation corruption and criminality is much more egregious. Especially with the Saudis that we now have reason to believe were involved in the carrying out and/or funding of the 9/11 attacks. If Hillary has been acting treasonously against the people of the United State then that’s much more serious. And as I wrote before, Hillary Clinton’s corruption, dishonesty and criminal loathsomeness goes back to Watergate.

“Angel” also writes: “I’m sorry, but I have paid all of my life into social security and medicare against my will. I want my money back! I’m not going to let the government keep it to satisfy Mr. Lazarowitz and his fantasy about ‘principles’.”

Sorry to disappoint you, Angel, but you will not get your money back. Congress spent it and squandered it away in real time as the gubmint took it from you. The money you receive or will be receiving in Social Security is from what is currently right now being taken from other people’s paychecks or other income. It is a welfare-state, redistribution-of-wealth scheme. And that’s the truth, as Edith Ann would say.

And “Space Cowboy” writes, “That’s incorrect, conservatives don’t accept regressive government, fake conservatives accept regressive government. Indeed, the current Republican Party is a party comprised of primarily fake conservatives.”

No, it is indeed correct to say that conservatives accept (progressive) government. I know, Space Cowboy uses “regressive” in reference to “progressive,” because the progressives are regressive, which is true. But conservatives accept the current apparatus of central planning, wealth confiscation and redistribution. And with the exception of Ron Paul, they don’t propose to abolish those immoral schemes, only to “reform” them. But immoral and society-destroying schemes such as those are just criminal rackets. And they have to be given the heave-ho as part of restoring not only freedom but a moral society.

And by the way, “conservative” Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Education and Energy departments, but he didn’t do it. He expanded those bureaucracies, and he added the “drug czar” and expanded the drug war police state. And after cutting taxes in 1981 he then went on to raise taxes in 1982 and continued to do so throughout his administration. Reagan signed the very first $1 trillion budget. Remember that? When he waved that phone-book-sized thing in the air and whined? But he signed it anyway. Not a “conservative” there. A real conservative would have thrown it back to Congress and told them to cut out the pork, and would have stuck to his promise to eliminate whole agencies, bureaucracies, and all those three-letter dirty word commissions.

Back to the comments. Then “Country Boy” goes on to state: “He’s for Gary Johnson.” I assume he’s referring to me. Well, all you have to do is look at this blog, especially my most recent post on Gary Johnson, and you would know that I’m not for Gary Johnson. (Well, I’m for Gary Johnson dropping out of the race, stop insulting libertarians, and going back to New Mexico, quite frankly.)

“Deathwish” writes, “Our progressive government is evil so don’t vote for Trump? Hillary and Bill have spent their entire lives on the public dole furthering the confiscation of people’s money and Hillary is promising to take even more, so vote for Hillary? I will vote for Trump and take my chances.

There is little difference between Trump and Hillary. They are both socialists. Trump is a reality TV star who is good at fooling people. As I wrote in this article, Trump loves Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. He wants to expand Medicaid for a Medicaid-for-all scheme in which “the government will take care of everyone” and “the government’s going to pay for it.” In interviews with Scott Pelley and Anderson Cooper, when it is pointed out that what he is describing is “single payer,” Trump says it’s not called “single payer,” “It’s called heart,” he says. And, “You have to have a lot of compassion,” he says to Michael Savage. You see, it’s all based on emotion with these socialists. Trump is not only not a conservative, but he is just another faux capitalist, a crony-capitalist as well. How could a real capitalist be a socialist? A real capitalist wants free markets. Not Trump.

He’s also fine with the transgender bathroom mixing stuff. Trump has “New York values,” and his socialism mixed with his authoritarianism is a bad mix. He will be just as much the PC President as will Hillary Clinton, mark my words. A President Trump would be just as dangerous to our liberty and prosperity as a President Hillary would be.

And finally, John Hopson writes: “Btw Lazarowitz, millions of Americans have resisted the income tax, refusing to file a return or pay a tax on their individual productive labor. If you had the courage of your blithering bullshiiite, you’d be one of them. But, you’re not one of them are you Lazarowitz? I perceive you to be a moral and physical coward hurling insults at Trump from the cheap seats in the peanut gallery.”

Of course I’m not one of them, and I haven’t done anything illegal, unethical or dishonest. And I’m not “hurling insults” at Trump, I merely point out facts about his own statements and policy positions. I believe that such accurately summed-up views should be communicated to the people, because we know the media only concentrate on Trump’s name-calling, his gaffes, etc., i.e. superficial things that don’t mean anything. And there’s nothing “cowardly” about my writing honest assessments of these corrupt characters who rule or want to rule over us. This is exactly why we have the First Amendment, to protect our communications and our expressions, and especially to protect our criticisms of people with power. And regarding Trump, with his admiration of Putin, someone who jails (or has murdered) journalists, we need to be just as wary of Trump as we should be of Hillary. They are both equally dangerous.

But my article was not about Donald Trump, as only two paragraphs referred to him. The article was about conservatives accepting the criminal socialist apparatus of government that the progressives put into place and remains for a century now. Not good.