Feb 092016

Robert Wenzel has another one of his back and forths with Walter Block on Wenzel’s questioning whether Block is really an “anarcho-capitalist,” and suggesting that he is really a limited government advocate. Block seems to believe that private property owners should have warning signs on their property if they have attack dogs on the property. It sounds as though he wants some sort of government agency or community authority to compel the property owner to have warning signs. Wenzel says the owner of the property should have complete control over the property because he owns it. If there are attack dogs but no warning signs, trespassers or visitors should take responsibility for their own decisions to enter someone else’s property. That’s my view as well.

One problem with many people is that they have a collectivist way of thinking. And this even applies to conservatives and libertarians, people who generally support private property rights, or think they do. Unfortunately, there are many people who, even though they support the property owner’s right to own and control one’s own private property, they still see the local zoning board as legitimate. They still see property taxes as legitimate. This is because these people — whether they will admit or not — see one’s own private property as ultimately owned by the community as a whole. And so the community has the ultimate say as to what the rules of the private property should be. No smoking. No 9-car garages. If you have attack dogs you must post warning signs.

But this is also with conservatives. I have been amazed when seeing local municipal government websites especially in conservative areas, with zoning boards and all the rest. However, Grafton, New Hampshire does not have zoning, as well as other similar towns up there. But they are quite alone.

I have mentioned this before, but the conservatives totally abandon any belief they think they have in private property rights when it comes to the immigration issue. Many of them are really nationalists, which is a combination of collectivism and authoritarianism. The true philosophy of the conservatives and nationalists is that the whole country is a collectively-owned territory, with individual parcels of property having a facade of private ownership but the “owners” must bend to the will of the collective, therefore they are not really the owners, the community is the owner as a collective.

If conservatives really advocated private property rights (and free markets as well),  they would favor anyone anywhere in the world having the freedom to exercise his right to sell his labor to anyone anywhere else in the world. The laborer is the initial owner (as a private property right) of his own labor until he sells it to the employer or customer for their agreed price or wage. The businessman’s private property right to run his own business and hire the ones he decides are the best qualified workers are his decision, ultimately. However, the anti-private property rights conservatives want to use the armed power of the State to overrule the individual businessman’s decisions and the individual worker’s right to sell one’s labor freely. Those particular conservatives support such trespasses and intrusions for different reasons, including economic protectionism, and because they see the idea of “citizenship” (government ownership of the individual) as having superiority over the ideas of natural rights (as Sheldon Richman discussed recently), the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Such conservative intruders will go on and on and on, with this or that argument, based on nationalism and in many ways ethnicism and racism, although they don’t seem to want to admit that. I see their behavior as coming from narcissism (which is what this “American Exceptionalism” is largely based on, in my view), and covetousness. Deep down, a lot of people are very resentful of others having an actual work ethic and skills to sell wiling buyers, and these anti-private property folks are resentful of business owners who have skills at running a business and serving the consumers. And by the resentful ones here I am not talking about liberals and progressives! Their grandiose, ultra-reactionary (and even communist!) solution to their worries about labor and employment freedom is to build a government wall. Totally eviscerate the entire concepts of private property and private property rights!

More News and Commentary

 Posted by at 10:52 am
Feb 082016

Becky Akers on what the government police have come to.

Lew Rockwell on the truth about politics.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe with the truth about today’s “intellectuals” and elites.

Ron Paul asks, Is Congress declaring war on ISIS, or on you?

Sheldon Richman advocates justice, not amnesty, for “illegal” immigrants.

Dan Sanchez says that peace is the keystone of liberty.

Justin Raimondo is pessimistic about the prospects for peace.

Vasko Kohlmayer on America’s myth of a peaceful nation.

WND with an article on violence and repression, possible “civil war” in Europe, and similar crackdowns on freedom of speech coming to America.

Jonathan Turley discusses dwindling freedom of speech and expression in Spain, and the Israeli Minister of Culture and Sport who wants to punish those who question Israel’s commitment to democracy.

John Cleese says, “I’m offended every day.”

Robert Wenzel asks, Has Walter Block left the world of anarcho-capitalism advocacy?

Walter Block responds to Robert Wenzel.

Laurence Vance discusses the Clinton-Sanders-Republican principles of taxation, and says that Donald Trump and today’s conservatives are peas in the same pod.

Economic Policy Journal on how Trump blew it on eminent domain at the New Hampshire debate.

Jacob Hornberger says that no one has a right to health care.

Philip Weiss on Bernie Sanders’s ethnically-cleansed Israeli kibbutz from the early 1960s.

Zaid Jilani says that while Marco Rubio is outraged by spying on Israel’s government, he’s OK with mass surveillance of Americans.

Thomas Knapp asks, Criminal consequences for Julian Assange’s unlawful imprisoners?

Dr. Mercola says that knowledge is the antidote for vaccine orthodoxy.

James Bovard discusses the failure of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Steven Horwitz on being political or apolitical.

Arun Kundnani on the Guantanamo in New York you’re not allowed to know about.

Hugo Turner reviews Doug Valentine’s book, The Phoenix Program.

Washington’s Blog says that Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, generals, spooks, Soldiers and police ADMIT to false flag terror.

And Jack Perry says, It’s midnight, America, do you know your kids are dying?

Feb 072016

At last night’s New Hampshire debate, Donald Trump said that he would bring back torture, and a “hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” He’s good at eliciting the emotions of those who believe what our government bureaucrats tell them, especially since 9/11, that certain people are “terrorists,” as opposed to “terrorism suspects.” Most neanderthals don’t understand the idea of presumption of innocence and due process. (Until President Hillary wants to imprison The Donald and other political opponents and use torture on them. She can just make stuff up about them –she’s good at making things up. Then the torture-apologists might change their minds about it, and about presumption of innocence as well.)

According to these numbers, the number of Gitmo prisoners since 2002 is 779, the number of those released is 670. They were released because there was no evidence against them, because they were innocent. But here are some more interesting numbers: The percentage of Gitmo prisoners captured by U.S. troops: 5%, and the percentage of prisoners who were paid bounties by CIA and coalition forces: 86%. Our government paid Afghan villagers and others to hand people over to our military and CIA, without charges, without suspicion. No wonder most who were taken to Gitmo were innocent, weren’t involved in any terrorism or criminality. They were tortured by criminals at Gitmo for no good reason, however. But the neanderthals who are fed propaganda day after day by the government and its media lapdogs believe that the detainees at Gitmo are “terrorists.”

As I wrote here,

Here is a summary of the U.S. Senate’s report on CIA torture, also referred to by the media as “harsh interrogation techniques,” of mostly innocent victims of U.S. government kidnappings overseas. You see, according to Andy Worthington, who cites former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, even those at the top including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were NOT “out of the loop” and KNEW that “the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent.” And senior intelligence analysts had already concluded long ago that one-third to one-half of Gitmo detainees were “mistakes” and “had no connection to terrorism whatsoever.” Several cases against detainees had been dismissed by judges based on the detainees giving false confessions, which is really the true purpose of this kind of sick torture regime. But the neanderthals Republicans are complaining how “unconscionable” the release of the CIA torture information is, NOT the torture itself of innocents. That is how Republicans (and Democrats, too) think (if you call it “thinking”). C’mon, Republicans, are you really that gullible?

Among the methods of torture, we now read in detail, include waterboardings which led to “convulsions” and “near-drowning,” detainees being forced to stand on broken legs (I wonder what/who broke them?), 180 hours in a row without sleep, freezing temperatures in which one suspect froze to death, etc., etc., etc.

What’s even more shameful, regarding various non-government-employed contractors who have been aiding and abetting these crimes, are that such contractors included medical doctors, nurses and psychologists, like a bunch of Doctors Mengele, in my view. And such “unethical” (ya think?) practices were continuing as of this November 2013 article.

Psychopaths, sadists and sickos. And these are the people who will be turned against USSA’s dissenters and Regime critics when societal collapse occurs and martial law is inflicted on us and Obama makes full use of the NDAA.

And as I wrote here,

And what about the judgment of a Bush Administration knowingly allowing innocent people to be brought to the Guantanamo prison, hundreds of innocent prisoners (including sick, elderly men and children) brought there by way of overzealous U.S. soldiers and Afghan villagers being paid bounties by the U.S. government? The government says that of the 620 Guantanamo prisoners released (out of nearly 800 captured), 107 were “confirmed of re-engaging” in terrorism. But the truth is, when you take innocent people who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda or terrorism, kidnap them and falsely imprison them for years without charges or evidence against them, and torture them, of course they might consider joining forces against you. So in other words, they (or at least most of them) were probably not “re-engaging,” as they hadn’t been involved in the first place.

It’s probably too much to ask of narcissistic neanderthals to understand the idea of presumption of innocence and due process. Perhaps using their brains rather than their primitive instincts of aggression and revenge would be a good start.

Feb 062016

Donald Trump is accusing Ted Cruz of election fraud, of winning Iowa based on the CNN rumor that Ben Carson dropped out of the race while the Iowa caucuses were still going on. I think the rumor was really encouraged by Cruz Iowa co-chair Rep. Steve King, who went with the CNN story, tweeting, “Carson looks like he is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope.” And “Skipping NH and SC is the equivalent of suspending. Too bad this information won’t get to all caucus goers.”

On Iowa caucus night, Carson said that his “opponents resorted to political tricks by tweeting, texting and telling precinct captains that I had suspended my campaign — in some cases asking caucus goers to change their votes,” which has certainly happened in the past, as I noted a few days ago.

“Dirty tricks” is what politics is all about, Dr. Carson. However, it was really stupid of Carson to just up and travel to Florida and decide to skip New Hampshire and South Carolina, quite frankly. That stupid decision is right up there with Jimmy Carter who conceded to Ronald Reagan on November 4th, 1980 before the polls closed on the west coast.

Nevertheless, the political world is not the world of good, charity and benevolence. The political world is the world of force, coercion, compulsion, theft, covetousness and criminality on a grand scale. Politics is a racket.

The caucuses engender that kind of fraud or manipulation more than primaries, in my view. In primaries you just enter the voting booth, close the curtain and pull the levers for the candidates you want. Or in some cases there are electronic screens or paper ballots.

The point of the primary is that the voter has privacy. No one knows how you have voted. If there must be elections, the privacy of the primary best protects the integrity of such an election.

With caucuses you have no such luck. In caucuses, you go to your precinct location, and the officials tell you, “Okay, the Clinton people gather over there and the Sanders people over there,” and so on.

In caucuses everyone knows who you’re supporting. Which for some people is a bit of an uncomfortable situation. For instance, someone might be in the minority who supports the candidate who wants to dismantle much of the unconstitutional tyrannical government apparatus as it exists today (such as Ron Paul). Meanwhile, the majority of the crowd might be for more Establishment candidates. That might be somewhat intimidating for those in the minority.

In caucuses there are more instances of pressure tactics toward those who may be on one side, who the activists and hacks want to woo over to their side. Besides outright fraud, as we saw in 2012 against the Ron Paul campaign caucus after caucus, I’ve heard of “strong-arm tactics,” intimidation and threats against people used at caucuses as though it were a union matter. Unions are known for that kind of behavior, as we have seen over the years.

And there was evidence of that during some of those 2009 Tea Party events, which we haven’t been hearing about for several years now. At one event, a black man who was selling “Don’t Tread On Me” flags and buttons was beaten by three men wearing S.E.I.U. shirts and sent to the hospital. What happened to all those Tea Party events? Have the Tea Partiers been intimidated into silence?

In some ways, presidential caucuses seem to have some similarities. Back in 2008, according to Newsmax, “the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.” It further notes:

Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in 12 other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.

“After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,” she said.

In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. “The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,” Long said.

In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their names were on the list of Obama supporters.

Sadly, in 2008 the mainstream media dared not cover Obama’s union-style intimidation tactics.

And now in 2016 it appears that Hillary’s campaign workers have taken the (alleged) Obama approach on behalf of Hillary to Bernie Sanders’s dismay as Sanders believes there were shenanigans in as many as 90 Iowa precincts this week.

In 2012 Ron Paul had experienced quite a lot of “shenanigans” against his campaign. Here is just one example from that linked article:

For the first time ever, the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location. After the caucus, results from 8 precincts (including those with colleges, in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote) went missing…In addition, GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts.

You see, that is the inherent nature of politics, in which the more dishonest activists crave those illegitimate government powers of coercion and force over others, and will do whatever they can to grab that power.

Now, as opposed to caucuses, the primaries do not seem to be very much better in terms of election integrity.  Some states allow open primaries, in which non-Republicans can vote in the Republican primary and non-Democrats can vote in the Democrat primary. That’s really dumb, in my view. This invites “party raiding,” when activists intentionally attempt to disrupt the opposing party’s nominating process. One example was Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in 2008, in which Limbaugh instructed his ditto-heads to go into Democrat primaries, if they could, to cause “chaos” in the Hillary vs. Obama primary fight.

But in 2012 I’m sure that many Democrats, liberal Independents and others who didn’t want a conservative to win the election, went into Republican primaries and voted to nominate the two-faced mealy-mouth Willard Romney. In 2008 Republicans got John “The Hero” McCain and in 1996 Republicans got Bob Dole, and so on. Did liberals and progressives play a role in all that?  It’s possible.

And some states have closed primaries, in which only Democrats can vote in Democrat primaries, and so on, which is how that should be to maintain legitimacy. And that should apply to the actual candidates, too. Only in dysfunctional Amerika can a non-registered-Democrat like Bernie Sanders run for the Democrat nomination for President!

We don’t get very much coverage of the alternative parties, other than the two Establishment parties of Big Government, war, surveillance, control and tyranny, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

Unfortunately, many people believe that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are a branch of the government.  But wait — the Republican and Democrat Parties actually have become a part of the government. There are many laws now that protect their “majority” status, and which restrict the smaller parties’ right to have equal access to the general election ballot. And the two major parties’ having become a part of the government does nothing but maintain and strengthen the statist quo, election after election after election.

But the other parties, such as Libertarian, Green, etc., are also statist parties. So what’s the point? There are no “freedom” parties. However, there are individuals (such as Ron Paul) who, if elected, have promised to dismantle much of the governmental apparatus that is tyrannical and unconstitutional, and criminal in nature, and promised to release non-criminal prisoners from the jails. We don’t have many candidates for office like that, if any actually exist now.

Should we even have political parties? In his Farewell Address in 1796, President George Washington stated,

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Have the post-George Washington future generations of Americans chosen despotism over freedom and self-governance? It sure looks that way. They even cheat their way to get there!

Since the Founding and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there is now a big and powerful centralized regime in Washington that reaches its tentacles all over the country, all over the world, and not for good. Conservatives love power just as much as progressives, the Republicans as much as the Democrats. And it is power for power’s sake with all those ghastly statists.

As Lew Rockwell wrote just recently, “The state … pits us against each other. If one of us wins a state favor, it comes at the expense of everyone else. For one group to be benefited, another must first be expropriated.” Rockwell contrasts the state and its coerciveness with the free market.

I think that for further understanding readers would appreciate Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s great book, Democracy the God That Failed, which clarifies exactly what democracy is as a system, and why and how “limited government” is impossible.

Feb 022016

The results of the Iowa caucuses are that Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump, and that Hillary and Bernie are still “tied,” although some are declaring Hillary the winner. On to New Hampshire. Prediction: Given all the cheating, Marco creeps up on Donald Trump (speaking of “creeps”).

Ben Carson accuses Ted Cruz campaign people of “dirty tricks.” Carson claims that the Cruz people spread apparent falsehoods about Carson having suspended (or ended) his campaign, thus fooling Carson supporters to abandon Carson and go to some other candidate. This is one of the common tactics of power-hungry political animals. In Peter Schiff’s 2010 run for U.S. Senate from Connecticut, at the state convention Schiff accused his opponent, the degenerate Linda McMahon, of lying about him dropping out of the race, in order to get his convention supporters to change their votes, which they did.

I am not surprised that Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump in Iowa, given that Cruz is a good and loud demagogue, invoking Biblical rhetoric directed at all the Bible-believing evangelical Christians there in Iowa. Cruz is a phony, certainly not as “Christian” as he claims to be. Anyone who labels immigrants “criminal aliens” for migrating to a new area without Cruz’s permission is not a “Christian.” Anyone who calls for “carpet bombing” whole areas and murdering innocent civilians (which is what you will do when you “carpet bomb” like a maniac) is not a “Christian.” Anyone who promotes starvation and disease against an entire civilian population, a.k.a. “sanctions” (on Iran) is not a “Christian.” And anyone who has an undergraduate degree in “Public Policy” (Doh!) from Princeton’s “Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs” is NOT a “Christian.” Okay, I’m only sort of kidding about that last one. (Yes, Cruz has an undergraduate degree in “Public Policy” (Doh!) from Princeton’s “Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.”)

Like Donald Trump, Ted Baxter Cruz is a shyster whose speaking talents involve appealing to the negative emotions of those who do not think clearly. They are both good at eliciting the generalized anger of collectivists and nationalists who do not really understand the kind of free society America was supposed to be. Trump is the dangerous secular loudmouth who wants to use the armed power of government to protect the financial interests of established firms and those workers who are “citizens” (those approved by the government). And Cruz is the dangerous religionist who wants to instill his own Biblical scriptures into the law that everyone must obey, including all those who do not believe as he does. They both want to build a government wall, you think that will only be used to keep people out? (Would you like to buy a bridge?)

So I am not surprised to hear Ben Carson, no gem of a guy by far, accusing Ted Cruz people of “dirty tricks.” These statist politicians are real power-seekers and power-grabbers. Despite his 6 malpractice lawsuits, I may actually go and vote for Dr. Carson.

I am glad to hear that Curly Fiorina, Chris NSA-kisser Christie, and Jeb! got such low numbers they will probably drop out this week. Please.

And what is this about the coin toss that seemed to favor Hillary, in which statistically it really couldn’t have happened. What’s going on with those cheating, lying Democrats? And this suspicious Marco Rubio-Micro$oft crap? What’s going on in Iowa? (Answer: Politics as usual.)

More Misc. Items

 Posted by at 1:44 pm
Jan 302016

Jacob Hornberger asks, Why do American Christians support coerced charity?

Laurence Vance says that Republican Medicaid wars miss the real issue.

Ron Paul says that Congress is writing the President a blank check for war.

Robert Wenzel on the nutjob anti-elephant poaching activists meeting in Kenya.

Cassandra Dixon comments on nonviolent resistance in the South Hebron Hills.

Jim Davies has a message for Muslims about religion.

Robert Johnson on Judaism: making a State out of a religion.

Matt McCaffrey discusses Ludwig von Mises on protectionism and immigration.

Andrew Napolitano on Hillary’s nightmare.

William Grigg has some comments on tyranny, defiance, and the death of LaVoy Finicum.

Gary Chartier says, Reject the Trump Tax.

Bill Sardi on the great cholesterol deception.

Doug Bandow says that America should stop reassuring Saudi Arabia.

Shane Smith says that Iran is guilty of “contempt of empire,” nothing more.

Paul Craig Roberts on Presidential crimes, then and now.

And Nick Ford discusses Ferguson and the government police.

Jan 282016

Besides the Democrats, Hillary and the communist “democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders, we have very childish sniveling morons on the Republican side, such as Trump who can’t face a smart lady such as Megyn Kelly, and so he runs and hides like a baby. Oh, she’s not treating me fairly! he cries. What is he, a little college cupcake, feeling triggered?

I know, some people are saying that Trump is right to boycott the debate based on Roger Ailes’s snide comments in their Fox press release. But the office of President is not the Boy Scouts, Donald. As Joan Rivers would say, “Grow up!”

And Glenn Beck formally endorsed Ted Cruz now. In a fit of irrationality, Beck tweeted, “The Presidency is not just a man, it is principles.” And, Beck tweeted, “I have prayed for the next George Washington — I believe I have found him (in Ted Cruz).” So this is really the Twilight Zone now.

“Principles”?  Like, let’s “carpet bomb” whole areas as Cruz wants to do, and kill innocent human beings? Good principles there. “The next George Washington”? (As Mr. Creosote might say, “Get me a bucket!”)

And there’s Cruz, who, like Trump, is good at manipulating the emotions of collectivists and nationalists and the evangelicals. But it seems that just about everyone hates Ted Cruz, going back to his college days. He’s “creepy” is the common theme.

My own problem with Cruz and Trump (as with ALL the other candidates) is their emotion-packed collectivist way of thinking. Cruz refers to “criminal aliens,” in reference to non-criminals who are fleeing tyranny, fleeing violent drug lords and child sex-traffickers. He would send children back to tyranny and sex-trafficking, based on petty bureaucratic “laws” concocted by central planners. That isn’t what a “good Christian” would do, which is what Cruz claims to be.

And both Trump and Cruz want to build a government wall that will eventually be used to keep the people in, not out. (Perhaps they already know that?) But the gullible emotion-driven sheeple hear “build a wall” and they love it!

Trump and Cruz dare not utter the real solutions to the problems of those dregs of other societies migrating to good ol’ USSA: abolishing the government-controlled welfare state and restoring private charity under freedom as we used to have; and restoring the right of the people to keep and bear arms and their right to shoot and kill intruders.

Unfortunately with authoritarian statists the priority for them is a heavily armed and empowered government (that might very well eventually be used against them, as James Madison observed), NOT an armed and empowered civilian population. They really don’t understand the 2nd Amendment, when you get right down to it.

Also Cruz on gay marriage: the State should control who gets married and who doesn’t. This is the issue in which conservative Christians really LOVE the State. Government-dependent conservatives want the State to determine who may have contracts, and the terms of those contracts, not the people themselves.

I think a lot of conservatives like the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence. Many talk radio personalities constantly cite it and those “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, they don’t genuinely understand that all human beings have such rights inherently, rights which preexist the formation of government. Such principles are based on the ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression, private property and voluntary association and contract rights.

There are “constitutionalists” and conservatives out there who say they believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all people have unalienable rights and that among them are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights which preexist the formation of any government. But do those inherent rights only apply to some people favored by the government? Or to ALL human beings? Apparently, the supporters of socialist government restrictions on labor, property, contracts, freedom of movement and so forth, seem to contradict themselves.

And it seems that Wm. F. Buckley’s Neocon Review crowd doesn’t like Donald Trump because he is not psychopathically warmongering enough for them. However, when I hear the delirious Trump-supporting talk radio crowd, yikes, and their sheeple callers. In Trump they are supporting a liberal Democrat who, besides his love for eminent domain, still defends nationalized health care and single payer because he thinks the government should take care of the people, who believes in “fair trade not free trade,” who supports ethanol mandates and subsidies, who supported bailing out Wall Street banks and nationalizing them, and who supported Obama’s shovel-ready stimulus package.

No, not Bernie Sanders, I’m talking about Trump!

So we can’t really say that Trump is a capitalist, because he doesn’t support free markets and the sanctity of private property. In a free market capitalist world, private property and voluntary contracts are important principles that can’t be compromised.

And by “fair trade not free trade” Trump means government-managed or government-controlled trade, the government’s coercive usurpation of authority over commerce and transactions away from the traders.

Authoritarians such as Trump hate the idea of free trade, that is, trade that is free of governmental intrusions or manipulation against the will of the traders, as they want to dictate who may trade with whom, what may be traded and what may not be traded, what entire countries ought to be excluded or included, and so on.

But we can go right to that Declaration of Independence as our reference to those “unalienable rights” to assert that people have a right to trade with others, their own fellow countrymen or foreigners, and it doesn’t matter who the traders are or where they are, as long as there is no coercion, theft or fraud involved. That’s the American way, no?

But statists and authoritarians don’t think that way.

“But none of that matters,” say the ignorant Trumpites, “Trump will shake things up! He knows how to run things and make deals!”

I’ve heard people suggest things like wanting Trump to “run the government like a business,” which is absurd. No you can’t run the government like a business because government isn’t a business, it’s government! It’s a monopoly with no bottom line, and which is funded involuntarily by the people over whom the bureaucrats rule. If an actual private business forced its customers to use its services and to fund it involuntarily, that would be called a criminal racket! So that’s an absurd suggestion.

No, sorry to burst your bubble, but Donald Trump will not “shake things up.” If he is so good at deal-making, he will make deals with Congress, he will agree to that dreaded “bipartisan consensus” that has already taken America down economically and morally. But most of all, as we have already seen from his statements and positions, like just about all politicians this crony socialist Trump will compromise the principles that made America great: freedom, private property, voluntary association and contract.

The one candidate for President who promoted the true moral principles of liberty that constitutionalists and conservatives had a chance to vote for was Ron Paul. Unfortunately Dr. Paul seemed to have been cheated out of the Republican nomination by the same Establishment people who will probably fight The Donald at the convention and hand the nomination over to Jeb!. (Hmm, the article which explains the 2012 cheating seems to have been pulled by TPTB — here it is on the Wayback Machine for those interested.)

In head-to-head match-ups, Dr. Paul would’ve beat Obama in 2012, unlike those neocon creeps who opposed him. But besides that, many of the voters were (and still are, alas) bamboozled by the post-9/11 propaganda to support wars of aggression and further provoking foreigners, and also bamboozled by this “American Exceptionalism” thing. Sadly, in 21st Century Amerika, narcissism is the way of the nationalists and collectivists, as much as the little flower college cupcakes of the Left.

So Donald Trump and others want to “make America great again.” I don’t.

“Greatness” is a subjective assessment. Some people think that a powerful government that bullies foreigners to submission is “greatness,” but it certainly isn’t moral greatness. I think that, given they are authoritarians, these people really want the government to be great. They love power. (Freedom and independence, not so much.)

So, I don’t want America to be “great.” I just want America to be free. Freedom is really what matters.

And there are people who want to “take our country back.” They want to “restore the Republic” and “take the Constitution back.”

I want our freedom back. Am I the only one?

And a lot of these candidates say they want to “get things done” when elected to high office. I don’t want them to do anything, I want them to undo things! Dismantle each and every bureaucracy, agency, law, ordinance, or otherwise criminal intrusion being imposed on the people by a bunch of parasite schmucks who presume themselves to be our betters. They are not our betters, they are schmucks, including those who want to assume such high offices.

The only candidates I could possibly vote for are those who promise (in writing, make it legally binding) to pardon and release to their freedom any and every victim of the State’s thousands and thousands of laws, restrictions and enslavements. Anyone who has been kidnapped and detained and unjustly prosecuted for disobeying unjust laws, in which the State’s victim had never violated anyone else’s person or property, initiated any aggression against anyone or committed any acts of theft or fraud. In these cases it is the government and its minions and enforcers who are the criminals!

People really have to decide what they really want in society. Power and authority, and enslavement?

Or freedom and independence.

Sadly, there is no one to vote for who promotes actual freedom. That’s just the way it is right now.

Jan 272016

In the People’s Republic of Newton, Massachusetts, they are considering starting school later in the morning, like as late as 9:00 am. “Based on science,” and so on, the young little shavers and shavettes are having a tough time getting going in the morning, and it’s affecting their concentration and grades. Aw.

So, let’s allow them to sleep later in the morning. Hmm, have they considered trying to be a little more disciplined? You know, like going to bed a little earlier? Like rather than 10 or 11 PM, how about 9 or 9:30?

And there are other factors that are interfering with the kids’ ability to get more sleep at night and concentrate during the day. Such as, in addition to the hours and hours of staring at a TV screen like we used to do when we were kids, they also spend hours and hours staring into their computer screens and their little gadgets, their iPhones and so on. In addition to all this they have been turned into zombies by all the chemicals being fed into them with prescription drugs and vaccines.

But instead of adjusting their behaviors and habits and being more disciplined, they will now be allowed to sleep later in the morning. Oh, that’ll help to condition them for a good 9-5 career, in which you have to be at the office before 9, and many cases it’s 8:30 or 8:00. Oh wait, let’s start the work day at 11:00 AM so we can get up later in the morning, so we can stay up later (and party). Yup.

And this Newton, Massachusetts is the one in which the new $200 million “Taj Mahal” high school was built.

And for what? Is it worth it, given the nonsense going on in government schools these days?

Well, things are different now in the USSA than they were when I was in school.

Today, victims of the government schools are indoctrinated with political correctness, and are being taught made-up definitions of words. Now the young think they are “bullied” or “triggered” by mere innocent words. The young are being indoctrinated to want to silence others who disagree with them. They want to repeal the First Amendment. They are being made to support jailing skeptics of global warming or climate change. They are also being misdiagnosed and mislabeled and poisoned with the aforementioned legal prescription drugs. They are being conditioned to stay dependent on mothers well past high school, even past college. They are being made to fear being on their own, making their own way in life. In other words, the young are being driven crazy by our schools and our crazy culture now. It’s nuts now.

When I was growing up, as a kid I could walk down the street and not be harassed, picked up and detained by a “concerned” policeman who doesn’t believe that a 6-year-old is safe walking down the street to his friend’s house. Nowadays, the sniveling sheeple have fabricated this myth that children are not safe going it alone, when in fact they are perfectly safe.

There are Nazi neighbors who now call the police if they see a child playing alone in his own front yard while his mother is inside. It is those dangerous neighbors who should be arrested and charged with endangerment, not the good parents who let their kids have some freedom.

And in the old days a child could have a lemonade stand and not be harassed by freedom-hating, America-hating “law” enforcers. Adults could own and operate a small business and not have to pay a tribute to the local commissar bureaucrats. And adults could withdraw any amount of their own money from their own bank account and not be arrested for it! But not in today’s socialist prison society of Amerika.

I think things went downhill when Jimmy Carter imposed the federal Department of Education on the people.

9/11 wasn’t helpful either, as I noted in this post.

Conclusion: Separation of education and State!

News and Commentary

 Posted by at 12:35 pm
Jan 252016

The Village Voice reruns a major 1979 exposé on Donald Trump (and Part 2) by Wayne Barrett. (Quote from current article describing the 1979 article it reprints: “Far from an independent capitalist, Barrett showed, Trump was a businessman who relied heavily on government largesse. ‘This is a guy whose wealth has been created by political connections,’ Barrett says today. And at the time the story was published, even Trump’s political connections came secondhand, through his father.”)

Signs of the Times with an article on Woodie Guthrie’s view of the Trumps Empire’s racist foundations.

Justin Raimondo analyzes the meaning of Trump.

Charles Burris discusses the Constitutional Convention big con.

Sheldon Richman on the Constitution revisited.

Laurence Vance discusses the truth about taxes.

William Grigg on the importance of a fully informed jury.

Don Boudreaux says the real problem is power itself, not who controls it.

Dahr Jamail with an article on the U.S. Navy using Americans as pawns in domestic war games.

Ron Paul on when peace breaks out with Iran…

Dan Sanchez discusses humiliation and herd-think.

John Whitehead on the right to tell the government to go to Hell.

Doug Casey asks, Why do we need government?

Anthony Wile interviews Brandon Smith on the advantages of barter and localism.

Mac Slavo on how the recent winter storm shows how quickly society can break down.

Washington’s Blog details the U.S. government’s history of propaganda against the American people.

Nick Giambruno asks, Are capital controls on the horizon in the U.S.?

Ron Unz asks, Will Harvard become free and fair?

Walter Block answers some libertarian questions.

Ryan McMaken discusses the un-PC Lego making toys girls like.

Bionic Mosquito on what some people were brought up to believe.

Brad says, Be your own social media.

And Bill Sardi asks, What happened to this year’s flu season?

More on Eminent Domain

 Posted by at 1:13 pm
Jan 242016

I wanted to add a little more to my post on eminent domain and Ted Cruz’s lack of understanding of it. In the clip of Jon Stewart pointing out Cruz’s hypocrisy, Cruz seems to be trying to say that as long as the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment is followed, such as the reasons why the government wants to steal someone’s rightfully owned property away from them, those reasons being for “public” use but not private use, then it’s okay.

As long as the Constitution is followed. No, unfortunately there are those who are statists and who just don’t understand the moral underpinnings of private property rights. It doesn’t matter what the government’s reasons are for stealing private property from someone, to give it to poor people, the needy, the general public, for use for roads or a pipeline, or to give it over to politically connected developers. If the owner of the property doesn’t want to sell it, or to give it to anyone, then it can’t be taken, morally. Taking something from others involuntarily is stealing. It is theft. It is robbery. And that’s what that is. And it’s immoral. Doesn’t matter what the Constitution says.

The idea of unalienable rights is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Statists on the left and right don’t seem to understand those rights. The Declaration should have mentioned property, but didn’t for some reason. If you buy property with your own money then you own it. 100%.

Jan 242016

Marco Rubio wants to “prosecute” the Oregon Wildlife Refuge occupiers, the Bundys and their mishpocheh. But, he said, don’t murder them (like the gubmint did at Waco), “We’re not going to treat them like an invading army from a foreign country.” Actually the “invaders” are the U.S. government which itself occupies a large chunk of territory it does not legitimately own. But I don’t expect Rubio, who wants the U.S. government to occupy lands all over the world, to actually understand any of that.

Here is Marco Stupido giving a prepared speech, and discovering that he misplaced the last page. He has to ask someone to hand him the last page so he can finish the speech. Most professionals have a better grasp on what they are speaking about and already understand their basic summary and conclusion, and would just “wing it” when losing their place in a speech. But no, Marco shows that like Barack Obama he needs either a teleprompter or his handlers nearby to help him. And worse, in this case Marco Stupido tells the whole world, “I left the last page of my speech. Does anybody have the last page?”