Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

How to Prevent High Crime Rates from Immigrants?

John Lott, the “More Guns Less Crime” guy, and his Crime Prevention Research Center have a new study which concludes that in Arizona unauthorized immigrants “are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.” And that “after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.”

The study refers to “undocumented” immigrants, but I refer to “unauthorized” because I think that’s more accurate. They are immigrants whose entrance into U.S. territory does not have the permission of central planners in Washington. (But they might nevertheless have documentation.)

Some of the reasons for the higher crime rates of the groups mentioned above include America’s socialist policies in immigration, Americans’ dependence on central planners in Washington to “protect” them in its attempted controls of territorial defense and controls over the movements of millions of people. And the other socialist and fascist policies of drug controls and welfare redistributionism.

If the government in Washington would undo its corrupt police-state controls over drugs, a.k.a. “The War on Drugs,” then the terrible effect that is having on other countries in South and Central America might get a lot better. It would eliminate the black market in drugs and all the violent “drug lords” and gangs associated with it from which many immigrants come to the U.S. to escape.

Getting rid of the welfare state would remove another incentive for the “undesirables,” as the anti-foreigner bunch would refer to them. Let’s re-privatize charity. Government is not a legitimate apparatus for charity, by stealing earnings from the workers and producers to redistribute them to others. Let private organizations and charities, churches, businesses and individuals run their own organizations to help the needy including immigrants.

But also, get the government out of the immigration controls business. As Jacob Hornberger noted recently, central planning controls don’t work and they never will, even in immigration. What does work is freedom, and free markets.

Let private individuals, churches, organizations and businesses take in immigrants and take responsibility for them. The private people would be obligated to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions in taking in, housing or employing immigrants. Monopolist government bureaucrats who have usurped those endeavors and assumed that authority are not responsible for their decisions on immigration and they are never held accountable, such as with Washington’s central planners or with government-run “sanctuary cities” and towns.

Another issue that is relevant, given the conservatives and nationalists’ panic and hysteria over the immigration issue, is the right of the people already in the territory and who are peaceful people to actually protect themselves from either immigrant criminals or U.S. citizen criminals who do not respect the persons or property of others. That means there should be no government intrusions into the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The conservatives are terrible on this issue, because they are little dependent babies who love and worship government police to protect them from criminals. While they would never admit to this because they probably don’t realize it, the damn conservatives believe that we really don’t have a “right” to keep and bear arms, but a privilege granted to us by government authorities. The conservatives also believe very strongly in the welfare state and all the rest.

Some of the Latest Articles

As a follow-up to my earlier post in regards to “hate speech,” censorship, and the absurd mentality pervading the colleges and public schools, there is a recent column on WND by Patrice Lewis on the latest stupid parenting advice: not allowing kids to have a “best friend.” According to an expert psychologist, such a relationship would be “exclusionary.” It gives some kids an “unfair advantage” over others.

Another older suggestion by a professor that Ms. Lewis brings up is the idea of parents not reading stories to their kids because it disadvantages other children whose parents don’t read to the kids. So, the mentality is that rather than encouraging parents who don’t read to their children to read to their children, instead encourage parents to not read to their children. In other words, don’t encourage more reading, don’t encourage more stories for kids to learn from, or more educational techniques — instead bring everyone else down to the level of those who are either intellectually lazy, too busy to interact with their kids, or perhaps too incapable of reading coherently. And rather than having some (or most) people who are “advantaged,” make more people or everybody disadvantaged.

That is the mentality of the people on some people in economics as well. Rather than encourage or help to bring poor people up from being poor, instead bring more wealthy people down by stealing from them (i.e. “tax” them) for a better, more “level playing field” and all that crap.

Of course, those who advocate the idiocy of stealing from people (rather than enabling or freeing people to become more prosperous) are usually the same people who love and worship the State and its god-like powers.

The Mises Institute recently published an excerpt from Albert Jay Nock’s book, Jefferson, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle. Nock was not a big fan of the State, that’s for sure. (In his book, The Myth of a Guilty Nation, Nock shows that the extreme war propaganda during World War I was false, just as the propaganda was with the Vietnam War, and the two Bush Presidents’ two Iraq wars, as well as all this propaganda regarding North Korea and Iran. In a recent column, Justin Raimondo wrote that the Korean “crisis” is completely phony. Hmm, was the recent “false alert” in Hawaii that caused a lot of panic a “false flag”? Who knows?)

For more truth-telling (and not propaganda, like the propaganda we’ve been getting from Washington), Laurence Vance says that Donald Trump’s tax-reform bill, now law, is a welfare-expanding tax-reform law. The propagandists in Washington lie about international relations and situations to get into wars illicitly, and they lie and propagandize about more ways to take money from the people in order to create or expand more government programs to increase dependency on government and expand their own powers and breed more welfare voters to keep themselves in power. Dr. Vance also had a recent article describing the difference between free-market middlemen and government middlemen. (Or perhaps that should be “middlepersons” in PC speak?)

Speaking of government’s intrusions in the economy, Doug french wrote recently about insider trading laws: ruining lives and markets. Governments certainly don’t understand free exchange and property rights. Michael Rozeff had a post recently on the problems with Haiti and property rights. And Daniel Fernández Méndez’s article addressed the real relationship between capitalism and the environment.

I wish the people advocating that parents not read to their kids, those who want to ban “best friends,” and everyone who thinks only in terms of race and that there is such a thing as “white privilege” would read the above articles. They would see that there is government privilege. And it has got to go.

False Alert of Incoming Ballistic Missile in Hawaii Causes Panic

This weekend, cell phones across the islands of Hawaii received a false alert warning of an incoming ballistic missile. The alert was initiated by a state worker who “pushed the wrong button.” The false alert caused panic with people frantically trying to reach loved ones to say goodbye. Some parents even tried to place their kids in sewer drains.

Hawaii U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard stated that it took her only 12 minutes after the alert was issued to confirm with “authorities” that it was a false alert and there was no incoming missile. Yet, it took “authorities” 38 minutes to issue a false alarm message.

So, it was a government worker who caused the mistake in the first place, by “pushing the wrong button” (Was he high? Drunk? Too much Xanax or Adderall? Was he texting while “pushing the wrong button”?), and it was government “authorities” who took 38 minutes to finally let people know they weren’t going to be disintegrated by a nuclear blast. (Not that “government worker” means anything.)

This reminded me of the time that another government worker, President Ronald Reagan, was about to do his weekly radio address, on August 11, 1984. When asked to do a sound check prior to his address, he decided to clown around, and, he stated, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Now, after that occurred, I remember listening to a radio talk show in which the host clearly said that the mic was live, or that Reagan was told it was just a sound check but that it was actually live on the air. However, everything on the Internet now is saying it was not live on the air.

But as people found out later, news of Reagan’s joke wasn’t just on our own biased newscasts but actually caused alarm in other countries. For instance, Politico noted recently that, “TASS, the official Soviet news agency, solemnly declared that ‘the USSR condemns this unprecedented and hostile attack by the U.S. president’.”

The Russians (then known as the Soviets) actually did go on a “Red Alert.” As NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw and reporter Marvin Kalb told the story a few months later in October, 1984:

Yes, the Inmates Really Are Running the Asylum

Here is a “trigger warning”: This is another one of those rare posts in which I will just say what needs to be said, and if you don’t like it, tough noogies, as Frank Burns would say. If you are a young millennial or a “snowflake,” beware. So here is what I have to say.

Rush Limbaugh was recently discussing the “net neutrality” issue and the dishonesty of the pro-net neutrality activists. The activists and their followers on the left were distraught over FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s decision to dump so-called “net neutrality,” removing regulations imposed in 2015 by the Obama regime. Activists have been going over to Pai’s home to harass him and his family over this one decision.

Prior to 2015 there were no “net neutrality” regulations. The Internet was a place largely free of government controls. That is why the Internet has flourished as it has.

The activists say the regulations were necessary to make ISPs, broadband and other Internet services more “equal” for the masses. Nope. What it really does is prevent those providers from providing more choices, which ultimately would make services more affordable for some people. But what the control freaks don’t understand is that government regulations cause distortions and generally cause prices to go up. In the auto industry, healthcare, new homes, and with the Internet as well.

Limbaugh cited a column by Jonah Goldberg who discussed the activists’ harassment of Ajit Pai. Goldberg couldn’t understand why this one issue is so important to, mainly, the people on the left, to the point that people would go to the home of an FCC chairman, harass his family and refer to him as a “pedophile,” a “dirty, sneaky Indian,” and threaten to kill him.

So, it’s not really about “equality” or “affordability,” but taking control away from Internet providers and consumers, and the government usurping that control. Rush Limbaugh correctly compared net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine, in which the controllers on the left wanted to censor conservatives on talk radio, for instance, by mandating that those programs also provide a “balanced” point of view.

What, the biased CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, ESPN, New York Times and most local newspapers, Comedy Central, HBO — all THAT’S not enough for you on the left? No, they want to force non-leftist outlets to have to provide space and time for more of their point of view, and ultimately they want to outright censor conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and any critics of the regime.

The bottom line is that “net neutrality” is all about control of speech and expression — it’s about censorship.

But when the Internet was free of government controls prior to 2015 (and now), THAT was “neutrality”! Internet users had freedom of expression and freedom of choice in their usage of the Internet.

So with this Orwellian “neutrality” stuff the activists really want to censor the Internet, mainly conservative or libertarian websites such as American Thinker, Daily Caller and Breitbart,, and … me.

This censorship stuff is all over the place now. Twitter has been censoring conservatives and Trump supporters in its “extreme social justice warrior climate” as admitted by insiders, and Twitter is actually sharing Donald Trump’s private messages with the DOJ without warrants. (I disagree with just about all of Trump’s policies, but I will still call a spade a spade, and so I will call a stasi a “stasi.”)

Not that Trump is an actual conservative. But the snowflake SJWs and Trump-haters act solely on emotion and are easily provoked by Trump’s bombastic personality, just as the conservatives and nationalists are emotional with their anti-immigration “Build the Wall!” idiocy. It’s ALL emotional. No rationality or thinking involved with any of these people.

Just look at the recent decision by the so-called Committee to Protect Journalists to give Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” award. They did this at the end of their article in which they gave awards to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as “Most Thin-Skinned” and “Most Outrageous Use of Terror Laws Against the Press,” and to Chinese President Xi Jinping as “Tightest Grip on Media,” and Myanmar State Counselor and de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi as “Biggest Backslider in Press Freedom.”

But no, after all those tyrants and fascists, it’s Donald Trump who is given the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom,” even though he hasn’t had journalists arrested or otherwise censoring media despite his constantly threatening to do so.

As opposed to President Barack Obama. According to the same “Committee to Protect Journalists” (sic), Obama really did have journalists arrested, such as James Risen of the New York Times, and then naming James Rosen of Fox News a “criminal co-conspirator” under the so-called Espionage Act simply for doing his job as a reporter. And what happened to Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone? Those were under the Obama Regime.

Democrats favor civil liberties? Don’t. Make. Me. Laugh.

You see, ideologues on the left hear Trump’s rhetoric that’s threatening or “triggering,” and they respond more to that. Just as the college snowflakes accuse the people they want to silence of “hate speech.” To them, “hate speech”= violence.

The college kids shout down conservative or libertarian speakers they disagree with, or pressure their administrations to cancel or ban certain speakers as “too divisive, triggering, offensive,” etc.

But do we ever see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers, like when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University? Or conservatives and libertarians going to the homes of Obama administration bureaucrats to harass their families because of their policies? Nope.

And all the people in the media so outraged over Donald Trump referring to certain countries as “s***holes” regarding the immigration issue. The newscasts and talk shows are now obsessed with that. They think Trump’s “racist” language is “offensive.” Meanwhile, the goofballs at NPR and other outlets couldn’t wait to repeat the whole word in their newscasts. If Trump had said the “F-word,” they would have said that word, too, without bleeping it.

You see, the people on the left and the triggered college snowflakes LOVE to offend people themselves. Just look at the videos of the traumatized students’ protests, of how they hate Trump and how they yell about “white privilege” and all that with their constant expletives, not caring in the least who THEY offend. Extremely narcissistic, just like The Donald. In fact, many of these young schmucks intentionally direct their expletive-ridden verbal venom at their professors and speakers, and other students who are just minding their own business.

And a lot of the ideas of these misfits are irrational and just plain bizarre.

Schools banning “best friends” because that’s “exclusionary”? Learning math in college perpetuates discrimination against minorities and promotes “white privilege”? Academic rigor and scientific knowledge are “gendered, raced, and colonizing”?

Well, no, minority students should be expected to study and learn the same damn things that white students learn, and should be expected to put the bong down and study to get better grades, dammit, just as the white students should be expected to do.

So the people in the media and entertainment who are saying they are “offended” by Trump are just a bunch of liars, in my view. They’re really feigning feeling offended because they just hate Trump. And many of the college snowflakes are not really “triggered” either — they just like to shoot their mouths off and shout down someone they believe is the “enemy,” such as Milo or Ann Coulter. Most of the snowflakes are FOS, and the extremist Antifa wing of these leftist imbeciles are not as offended as they are thrilled to have an excuse to act like marauders, vandals, thugs and degenerates.

And the ones who aren’t just FOS are really making themselves and each other anxious and hysterical intentionally, thanks to a hysterical society of fear and irrationality, especially since 9/11.

No wonder they want to use government force to shove their crap down other people’s throats. How can any rational, decent human being take these punks seriously?

More on the Criminals of Our Beloved Government

Roger Roots, who has been directly involved in the BLM vs. Cliven Bundy-rancher case, gives this summary of the trials involving the Bundys. Roots describes how the BLM goons killed the Bundys’ cattle and destroyed their cattle ranching apparatus, the brutal mob-style tactics used by the government marauders against the Bundys, the FBI misconduct (like that’s a new thing?) and the sham kangaroo trials the feds have put the Bundys through.

And former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has this latest assessment of the FBI hand behind the “Russia-Gate” case.

Government Goons’ Illegal Surveillance on Innocent People

Today the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on two bills to address surveillance of Americans’ data: a bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash that is supported by liberal and conservative groups such as the ACLU and Freedom Works, and a bill sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes that is supported by the “intelligence” community. The liberal and conservative groups oppose the Nunes bill because it contains restrictions on government’s intrusions that are “so narrow and allow so many exceptions that they’re virtually meaningless,” according to USA Today. Nothing new there.

All these procedures of bureaucratic prying into innocent people’s lives are criminal, and the early Americans attempted to prevent such criminality when the Anti-Federalists insisted that an Amendment be added to the new Constitution that would protect the people from such criminal intrusions: the Fourth Amendment.

Commenting on this issue, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about these surveillance procedures, known as the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA, in which the government purportedly tries to “protect Americans” from foreign aggressors or terrorists. The Judge wrote,

The Fourth Amendment — which guarantees privacy in our persons, houses, papers and effects — permits the government to invade that privacy only when a judge has signed a warrant that authorizes surveillance, a search or a seizure. And judges may only issue warrants when they have found probable cause to believe that the government surveillance or invasion of the target’s privacy will produce evidence of criminal behavior. The Fourth Amendment further requires that the judicial warrant describe specifically the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

All these requirements are in the amendment so as to prevent any court from issuing general warrants. Before the Constitution, general warrants were issued by British courts that met in secret in London. They were not issued based on probable cause of crime but issued based on the government’s wish to invade the privacy of all Americans living in the Colonies to find the more rebellious among them. This was the king and Parliament’s version of protecting national security.

General warrants did not describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. They authorized the bearer — usually a British soldier physically located in the Colonies — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found.

FISA did not interfere with the standard understanding or use of the Fourth Amendment by the government and the courts. But it did add another way for the government to invade privacy when its wish is to surveil people for national security purposes — a return to general warrants — as opposed to solely gathering evidence of crimes.

The FISA-created procedure, enacted in defiance of the Fourth Amendment — which makes no distinction between government evidence gathering and government intelligence gathering — permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.

The Judge also noted in his article that Donald Trump and his campaign were illegally surveilled by Obama apparatchiks with the misuse of FISA warrants. So why would Trump support this?

At first this morning Donald Trump seemed to question the legitimacy of the FISA, when he tweeted, “‘House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.’ This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?”

However, in a subsequent tweet (after his national security state goons psy-opped him, I assume), Trump wrote, “With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!”

Now, why he needs to bring Don Adams into this, I don’t know. But the truth is, all this surveillance state stuff, this police state stuff especially since 9/11 is real totalitarian phony-baloney stuff. Don’t believe what the morons and knuckle-draggers of the national security state have been saying in their propaganda. They’re full of it.

I say, if the feds need to illegally pry into the people’s private lives, then all this surveillance stuff should be a two-way street. There needs to be a database or databases operated in the private sector in which the American people can access all emails, texts, phone calls, Internet usage — everything — of these government bureaucrats of the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and ALL the other agencies and departments. Oh, they’ll say, “but a lot of the information is classified, it’s TOP SECRET,” and all that crap. So what. What difference does it make? If the government can keep track of us, then we should keep track of them! (And mostly, this is the kind of crap the people would be seeing, if they had such access.)

The truth is, it doesn’t matter how much illegal, intrusive surveillance powers the idiots in Congress give to the criminals of the FBI, CIA, NSA et al., because as long as our own government continues to cause foreigners to want to attack us, this terrorism crap will never end.

The truth is, what’s been causing the terrorism especially since the end of the Cold War has been the U.S. government’s wars that the U.S. government and its military have been starting, their invasions, bombings, occupations of foreign lands which have been doing nothing but provoking foreigners. As I have said before, and I’ll say it again: We wouldn’t have had a 9/11 had the U.S. government not been invading, occupying, and bombing foreigners prior to that point.

Psychologically, in my view, their starting wars against foreigners and stoking terrorism gives the power-hungry warmongers a sick sense of purpose — it makes them feel important. After they start their wars and incite reactions from their targeted victims, the warmongers get to say how much they are protecting the rest of us from those awful foreigners, and how much we need them. (Really, it is actually how much they need their power trips satisfied and how much they need to parasite off the labor of the workers and producers of America. And THAT’S the truth!)

And the domestic police state is for our own good as well, the illegal, criminal surveillance and prying into people’s private lives, the TSA groping, molesting and raping innocent grandmas and babies at the airports, and the DHS, FBI, NSA — the whole thing’s a racket, folks. But, if you’re a gullible sheeple and believe the propaganda, and prefer to believe the lies coming out of Washington, knock yourself out.

And, oh, the DEA with this barbaric and uncivilized “attorney” general Jeff Sessions drooling to put potheads in jail, and also his encouraging the local police departments to steal money from innocent people without suspicion or even charging them with anything. They’re literally criminals. But they do have their obedient defenders, especially on conservative talk radio.

I don’t think that the Salem Radio talk show personalities understand any of this. They and the other ditto-heads on the radio don’t seem to understand anything that America is all about, quite frankly.

Michael Wolff vs. Trump; Steve Bannon; and Oprah

There’s this new book that I have no intention of buying or reading by a Michael Wolff — I had never heard of him until now — in which he is trashing Donald Trump. And I heard the author interviewed on Meet the Press in a rebroadcast on Bloomberg Radio. The way he answered questions made him seem somewhat deceptive or deceitful. My conclusion on Wolff is that he has an anti-Trump agenda and is just out to smear Trump. Not that Trump himself merely opening his mouth (or his Twitter account) is enough to be his own worst enemy, mind you.

And this Steve Bannon guy who was quoted, or misquoted, in the book as criticizing Trump and the Trump family. Does Bannon look a little like Archie Bunker? He sure thinks like him. One problem with Bannon (besides looking like a slob and in need of a shave) is this “economic nationalism” ideology of his. What that means is national socialism. He is yet another conservative who doesn’t believe in freedom, the actual freedom of the so-called American founders, that requires respect for private property rights, voluntary exchange, individual liberty and self-determination. (Huh? What are those things? ask the clueless brainwashed millennials. But I digress.)

No, these so-called economic nationalists advocate not freedom but government. Government Central Planning is what they believe in, not freedom. They believe that central planners in Washington should dictate the terms of contracts in trades and commercial transactions, should “protect” American businesses by imposing tariffs i.e. taxes on their own fellow Americans including American businessmen whose economic freedom in purchasing the best capital goods at the lowest prices is violated by these very Government Central Planners in Washington. Go figure. (In fact, just yesterday Donald Boudreaux had a post on just that kind of cognitive dissonance.)

And these economic nationalists — i.e. national socialists — believe that Government Central Planners in Washington could ever control the movements of millions of people. Guess what? They can’t. Their government immigration controls will never work.

So one thing with many conservatives today is their cognitive dissonance. I’ve been writing about that for years now. For example, many of them are collectivists. After all, nationalism is a form of collectivism, certainly not individualism. So they are just plain anti-immigration, or anti-foreigner, regardless of what they say about “legal vs. illegal” and all that. Nope. And I hear the talk radio ditto-heads comparing “illegals” with criminals breaking into “our” home, and “they are invaders,” and so on.

Yet, these same conservatives have been supporting a U.S. military invading and occupying foreign lands, with one irrational excuse after another, for years now. So these conservatives, nationalists, and True Believers in American Exceptionalism nevertheless support actual invaders, and trespassers i.e. occupiers on foreign territories. Meanwhile, the immigrants they want to lock out are not invaders. My grandparents were not “invaders.”

Will Oprah run for President? Should she run for President? Well, if she promises to close all U.S. foreign military bases and bring all U.S. military personnel back to the U.S. where they belong, then maybe I’ll consider supporting her candidacy. The “troops” don’t belong over there in foreign countries that are not U.S. territories. In fact, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to have its apparatus (military or otherwise) on territories that are not U.S. territories. And militarily invading other countries that were of no threat to us is criminal! How can any decent person support that?

I’ll support Oprah if she openly acknowledges that government taxation and confiscation of private wealth or property is theft. Any transaction that is involuntary and involves coercion is theft or extortion, and is immoral, and criminal, and must end!

And if Oprah promises to pardon and release from jails any and all people who have been abducted by armed and badged goons of the State and falsely imprisoned even though such victims had not harmed anyone else’s person or property, then maybe I’ll consider supporting Oprah’s candidacy. And that includes people accused of committing “victimless crimes,” regarding drugs, gun possession, driving-related “offenses” or whatever. And that also includes those who have unwittingly violated any kind of arbitrary rule or diktat imposed by bureaucratic government apparatchiks in the absence of any voluntary contract. She should also promise to have arrested and prosecuted for abduction and false imprisonment and harassment any government enforcer whose enforcement of such victimless “crimes” actually violates the lives, liberty or property of the enforcers’ victims. Then maybe I’ll endorse and support Oprah’s candidacy.

I personally haven’t violated any laws, by the way, because there is no one in charge right now who would save me from the violent ravages of the State. Certainly not Donald Trump. In fact, he is on the side of all the criminals of the State and their goon enforcers, certainly not on the side of innocent people. But then, he is just like most other politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers or other criminals.

And that is what I have to say about all that.

Some Enlightening Articles on the Bumbling Bureaucrats’ Idiocy

Stuck inside because of global warming snowstorm blizzards or extreme deep freeze caused by global warming? Need something good to read? Try these items:

James Bovard writes about the Cliven Bundy-FBI debacle and why the feds need to be leashed, and Why Ruby Ridge still matters.

Christopher Preble says the “Cotton Doctrine” is more wars, less security. (Yes, ignoramus warmonger Tom Cotton is just right to head the CIA.)

Justin Raimondo on the Iranian rebellion: everybody’s wrong. And John Feffer says that Trump and the neocons are exploiting the Iran protest movement they know nothing about.

And James Risen writes about his life as a New York Times reporter in the shadow of the war on terror.

Washington, DC (District of Craziness)

This article by Norman Solomon discusses the social media hysteria over “Russian interference” in the 2016 election, and cites a Washington Post article admitting there’s very little evidence (i.e. no evidence) of Russia interfering or manipulating in the election in any way.

And Paul Manafort is suing special counsel Robert Mueller with the accusation that Mueller is going outside his authority in investigating the Russia-Russia-Russia fake news fiasco.

Meanwhile, Page Six has an inside source claiming that the grand jury indicting Manafort consists of possible Trump haters.

“The grand jury room looks like a Bernie Sanders rally,” my source said. “Maybe they found these jurors in central casting, or at a Black Lives Matter rally in Berkeley [Calif.]”

Of the 20 jurors, 11 are African-Americans and two were wearing “peace T-shirts,” the witness said. “There was only one white male in the room, and he was a prosecutor.”

What could go wrong?

Manafort is also suing deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Well, how about the crooked neanderthal AG himself, Jeff Sessions, who is not concerned with “Justice,” but rather with going after people involved with marijuana — “States’ rights” be damned. You see, the reason that bureaucrats in Washington go after “illegal drugs” is because those drugs compete with the bureaucrats’ precious booze drugs. Never mind the fact that drunken boozers cause a lot of accidents and deaths on the roads, get diseases such as liver cancer or Alzheimer’s, and that boozing drunks break up marriages and families. But the Washington drunks gotta have their booze! So they go after potheads (and political opponents). So brave.


Government Is Not a “Necessary Evil.”

Well, after my post of two days ago on government buffoonery and conservative authoritarianism, already yesterday I heard both Dennis Prager and Michael Medved on the radio saying more annoying things, more finger-nails-against-the-chalk-board stuff. It’s bad enough we have this constant 0-10° (F) temps outside and now another snowstorm tomorrow. But what are my choices on the radio, a conservative, another conservative, and loony-leftists on the NPR stations.

Dennis Prager was going on about how evil communism is, and the evil things that communists did throughout the 20th century. But these authoritarian conservatives rarely if ever bring up the evil crimes committed by the U.S. government, the communists statists in Washington. Who the hell starts wars against other countries that were of no threat to us, as our government has been doing?

George H.W. Bush started a war against Iraq in 1991, bombed and destroyed Iraq’s civilian water treatment centers and imposed sanctions to prevent repairs intentionally to cause the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water which caused diseases and hundreds of thousands of deaths.  That’s not evil?

And then his son George W. Bush started two wars of aggression against two countries, Iraq a second time, and Afghanistan, neither of which was any threat to the U.S., and neither of which was involved in 9/11 (which wouldn’t have happened had the first Bush President not started his war in 1991 and imposed those murderous sanctions which Clinton continued throughout the 1990s!).

But many people obediently rationalize such aggressions on behalf of their beloved belligerent rulers. The double standard of the True Believers in American Exceptionalism is amazing. I guess you really have to be brainwashed to accept this notion that it’s morally acceptable for the U.S. government to invade, bomb and occupy foreign territories but it wouldn’t be morally acceptable for foreign regimes to do the same to America.

The True Believers in American Exceptionalism including the aforementioned conservatives believe in group identity politics, in my view. Just like those on the Left who live their lives based on group identities, race, gender, etc. A I have said before, nationalism is a form of collectivism, and it is destructive, and immoral.

This collectivist nationalism stuff is why we have the “Build the Wall!” useful idiots, on talk radio and other commentators like that floozie Ann Coulter who are obsessed with seeing Americans all as one collective and wanting to lock out the foreigners, as they lump all foreigners with the actual criminal ones. Collectivists who do not understand the ideas of individualism, private property and free markets see foreigners who are in the U.S. territory without a bureaucrat’s permission as “criminals.” Real advocates of free-market capitalism don’t build government walls, they don’t use the armed power of government to lock out workers, producers and consumers. No, real advocates of free markets are traders, and want to expand their trading associations and contracts, not limit them.

If there is a government wall on the border, with armed guards and Ann’s beloved snipers, get ready for future administrations who will use the wall to keep the people in, not out. That’s what I mean by “useful idiot.”

And also yesterday, I heard Michael Medved on the radio discussing the announced retirement of government fossil Orrin Hatch, who might be replaced by the power-hungry Willard Romney. And Medved was saying that people shouldn’t be cynical about politics and that wannabe parasites like Romney shouldn’t be criticized or laughed at.

Politics is a noble endeavor, according to the statist Medved. Honestly, these Salem Radio talk show personalities are perfect examples of the “most dangerous superstition,” as Larken Rose would put it.

Sorry, the truth is that politics is inherently dishonest, immoral and leads to evil and destruction. And worse, Medved and many of today’s conservatives are intellectuals, i.e. apologists for the State and its evil destruction.

According to Franz Oppenheimer in his book The State, there are two main ways of acquiring wealth, the political and the economic. The economic means is the way of voluntary exchange, by trading peacefully via voluntary contracts. The other way that today’s statists and intellectuals favor, the political means, is the way of coercion, the way of confiscation of the property and wealth of others, the way of the State. This is why today’s conservatives defend the income tax, and don’t call for its outright repeal.

As Murray Rothbard pointed out:

The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.

And it is the State, or more precisely its “leaders” and its dupes and hired guns, who criminally start wars and cause death and destruction and blowback, as well as subjugates and enslaves its own people. If you want to oppose immorality and evil, then you would have to criticize, not idolize, the State. Especially the evil U.S. government.

The Latest Examples of Statism, Government Buffoonery, and Liberal and Conservative Authoritarianism

There have been many recent examples of U.S. government buffoonery and nationalist authoritarianism (or authoritarian nationalism, if you prefer). While I don’t have all day now, I’ll try to cover some of the important developments recently.

Activist Post has an article by Rachel Blevins on how the mainstream media and the FBI have pushed another fake terror attack even when their patsy resisted. There are still many people who refuse to believe that the FBI would deliberately pick some young mentally deficient Muslim or convert, motivate him to commit “jihad,” set him up with materials to entrap him in order to thwart the FBI’s own FBI-concocted plot. “Why, the FBI wouldn’t do that, we trust the FBI to do the right thing,” say the True Believers. Even after years and years now of the FBI concocting their own plots to thwart and many articles and books written about all that, there are still people who don’t know about what the bureaucrats in Washington are doing. Or if they do hear about it they don’t believe it, because, being submissive obedient sheeple like the Salem Radio talk show hosts and other dittoheads, they have a blind faith in the gubmint bureaucracy that rules over them.

Related to all that, Glenn Greenwald has this article about the Israeli regime requesting Facebook to delete accounts the regime decides are causing “incitement,” when really most of the account holders are merely Palestinian activists who are attempting to inform one another on the various crimes taking place there, as well as in some cases people merely criticizing the regime. And the double standard! Greenwald writes: “As Al Jazeera reported last year, ‘Inflammatory speech posted in the Hebrew language … has attracted much less attention from the Israeli authorities and Facebook.’ One study found that “122,000 users directly called for violence with words like ‘murder,’ ‘kill,’ or ‘burn.’ Arabs were the No. 1 recipients of hateful comments.’ Yet there appears to be little effort by Facebook to censor any of that.”

I have heard some people assert that criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” And, speaking of Salem Radio nudniks, while writing that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, Dennis Prager has stated that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Hmm, I don’t see much of a difference. I am critical of Zionism and Israel because I am not a collectivist. During the 20th Century, if people needed a “safe haven,” they could’ve come to the U.S. (If only FDR didn’t turn the Jews away and make them go back to the concentration camps, that is.) There was no practical need to fabricate a new artificial country in the Middle East. I am also not a Bible believer which Prager is, and the current state of Israel is based mainly on the Bible, and not on practicality, and certainly not based on morality. Prager goes on about “morality” constantly on his radio show, yet he supports immoral policies, like invading Iraq, and has said that the U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War was a good thing, because “communism is bad.” (And now we have a united communist North and South Vietnam. And because of the U.S. military’s involvement, many innocent civilians were murdered, as well as 58,000 Americans dead. But I digress.)

No, criticism of Israel is generally not referring to the whole state of Israel, but its regime and its military. The Israeli government deserves to be criticized when it wages war on the million people of Gaza, it bombs civilian homes and schools, and imposes a blockade which prevents Gazans from getting outside Gaza just to get medical treatment in Israel, and when the regime enables so-called settlers to seize lands away from Palestinians. So, if I criticize Israel, it is not because I am an “anti-Semite,” or a “self-hating Jew,” but because I am anti-militarism, anti-police state, anti-socialism and anti-central planning. The same thing applies to my criticism of Washington, by the way.

There is another thing with the Salem Radio talk hosts and other dittoheads, in their politically correct siding with the “protesters” in Iran. That is because they hate the Iranian regime and blame them as the “#1 sate sponsor of terror,” even though these conservatives rarely if ever criticize the Saudi regime, which actually IS the #1 state sponsor of terror! You see, because of their blind faith in central planning and in a militaristic and covetous approach to international relations, many people don’t understand that it was the CIA who imposed a coup in Iran in 1953 (and for oil, of course) and propped up the Shah and his SAVAK police state, which tyrannized and thus radicalized many in Iran leading up to the Revolution of 1979 and rule by the Ayatollahs since then. That probably wouldn’t have happened had the CIA not imposed a coup and forced a totalitarian police state on the Iranians. But the True Believers in central planning love their CIA, their FBI and all the rest.

Speaking of being Against Central Planning, Walter Block has this new article on what to do with North Korea. Stop all the “war games” (i.e. provocations), take all U.S. troops out of South Korea (and, I would add, out of Japan and all the other areas out there, including removing all U.S. ships from the entire region), encourage talks and reunion between North and South, unilateral free trade between the U.S. and North Korea. I’m not sure about appointing Dennis Rodman as ambassador, but whatever.

Sadly, many of today’s conservatives and authoritarian nationalists act in the same way as they criticize the Left and the college snowflakes of acting, with hysteria, with chicken-little-ish running around in circles being afraid of all the monsters, like Iran and North Korea. That’s because they believe the propaganda being spoon-fed to them by their beloved bureaucrats of the regime in Washington, like the college snowflakes believe all the propaganda about “triggering,” “microaggressions,” and racists, etc.

So the American militarists who thrive on having an enemy “over there,” no matter who it is, will not approve of any kind of diplomacy or acting morally. They don’t see the U.S. government and military’s actions outside the U.S. for the past century as immoral. Many people are raised with an authoritarian mentality, in addition to blindly worshiping their rulers in Washington. They really believe that America is “divinely inspired,” and the U.S. regime in Washington may do whatever it wants outside the U.S., including starting wars of aggression and bombing other countries, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who are murdered by the regime. (Noam Chomsky recently discussed “why the world hates America,” listing one immoral and criminal act of militaristic aggression after another committed by the U.S. regime in Washington.) But, as Lawrence Wittner discusses, the “Merchants of Death” continue to survive and prosper. Collectivism, socialism, and central planning, folks, that’s what militarists stand for, really.

Related to all this, Laurence Vance writes about the “So what?” Christians. He writes:

I have written many times about Christian jihadists, Old Testament Christians, Christian armchair warriors, theological schizophrenics, Christian Coalition moralists, nuclear Christians, Janus Christians, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, pro-lifers for mass murder, Red-State Christian fascists, bloodthirsty Christian conservatives, beam Christians, nuclear Christians, Christian Coalition moralists, double-minded Christians, Christian warmongers, God and country Christian bumpkins, sniper theologians, Christian military idolaters, conservative Christian militarists, and members of the Christian axis of evil.

The So what? Christian, when presented with some negative assertion about the U.S. government, the U.S. military, U.S. wars, or U.S. foreign policy, instead of inquiring as to its validity, doing some research, or spending more than three seconds thinking about it, dismisses it with “So what?,” usually followed by some ridiculous statement.

Here are some examples.

The U.S. military has bombed Afghan wedding parties: So what? The bride and groom were going to produce potential terrorists.

The U.S. military has killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan: So what? They are just collateral damage.

And he lists many more examples of the “So what?” Christian moral relativists. But sadly, many of the So what? moral relativists also consist of Jews, atheists and people of other non-Christian beliefs. (e.g. Salem Radio dittoheads Dennis Prager and Michael Medved who I have heard rationalize many, many immoral U.S. government policies. Yech.). I’ll bet that they don’t view themselves as moral relativists, yet they are exactly that.

Speaking of authoritarians, Justin Raimondo’s recent article discusses the “liberal” version of the aforementioned authoritarian American militarist conservatives, in the “liberals” own acts of domestic witch hunting. And Charles Burris adds some further comments on that, with many links to follow. Both give a good historical perspective on the witch-hunters of the Left.

The Salem Radio hosts and dittoheads don’t realize just how close to the Left they really are in their collectivist ideology and authoritarianism, but that is why I’m here, to point that out. (Also, Ron Paul discusses the relationship between political immorality and personal immorality.)

Speaking of the Left and their crusades, the lawsuit of over $100,000 by the lesbian couple was upheld by a court as the bureaucrats of the court show that they stand with extortion as a means to punish others who exercise their right to freedom of thought and conscience, and upheld by a court to further empower activists to enslave others to serve them involuntarily. The lettered imbeciles of the appeals court wrote that bakers who refused to bake a cake for the lesbians caused “emotional harm” to the lesbians in the bakers’ quoting the Bible! Well, ignorant robed “judges,” how about the “emotional harm” done to the bakers in the lesbian activists’ crusade in dragging innocent people through the courts in order to extort money from them as well as causing the closing down of their business, even though said lesbian couple was nevertheless able to find another baker right away who would bake a stupid cake for them! Talk about criminally narcissistic! If someone does that to you, and they go to police and courts, it might be a good idea to fight back by insisting that they immediately be arrested and criminally charged with extortion, harassment and theft.

Is Bitcoin All It’s Cracked Up to Be?

There are a lot of people now who are using Bitcoin and promoting it as the greatest thing since wholesome sliced bread. Some see it as a savior and are getting a little too cultish with it. But others merely see Bitcoin or other digital currencies just as a practical alternative to cash or credit cards to make purchases or to invest.

Well, I’m skeptical. But if you want to put some of your money in Bitcoin, and pay for things that way or receive payments that way, that is up to you.

Back in 2013, Ron Paul had this to say about Bitcoin, as reported by Zero Hedge:

“To tell you the truth, it’s little bit too complicated. If I can’t put it in my pocket, I have some reservations about that. But it has been designed in the free market. If it is a means of exchange, it would not ever be illegal. You shouldn’t regulate it in the free market, but I do not think it fits the definition of money, which has been around for 6000 years.

“People want to see something they can know what it is, they can define it, touch it and put in their pocket. If you do not have a computer and someone running the computer and calculations, you don’t have it. I am not a big supporter of that, but I am not opposed to it. I admit, I do not fully understand what is going on with it.”

But more recently, as points out, Dr. Paul has now done ads promoting a “digital currency IRA” with Coin IRA, a subsidiary of Goldco. In the ad, Dr. Paul says, “As a firm believer in currency competition, I’m excited to see the options that Bitcoin opens up.”

Well, I support currency competition, too, but I’m a bit more skeptical of investing with “digital” currencies. It just doesn’t make sense to me to put retirement funds into a “virtual” currency. It is not real like some actual item that is a means of exchange but would at least be backed by something of actual value such as gold or silver. And I am just skeptical of something that is known as a “virtual” currency. I don’t want to put something that I have that’s of value into something that’s only “virtual.” It just doesn’t make sense to me. But then, the “dollar” is not backed by anything, so it actually has no real value either.

And a lot of people are excited about Bitcoin because it is a “decentralized” currency. But for something that is known to be “decentralized,” there is a centralized aspect that I don’t like, I mean the centralization of electricity provision. This “e currency” relies on computer networks and on the Internet, which rely on electricity and the electrical power grid. If there is a power failure, especially large-scale, what then?

If you have money (in dollars) in the bank, and the banking system collapses, and there are “bank runs,” the bankster fraudsters won’t give you your own money. But you can have actual physical money such as dollars or gold coins stored away for such emergencies. However, if you just have digital currencies you’re screwed when there is a major electrical failure.  And I don’t have that much wealth or that much of an income to begin with. I’m probably being overly simplistic, or pessimistic here.

Back in 2013, Robert Wenzel asked some (mainly libertarian) economists whether Bitcoin is money. Most of them said either “not yet” or that it could be money if it were generally accepted (among the population) as money or as a means of exchange. The most interesting answer, I thought, came from George Reisman, author of The Government Against the Economy. In his response to Robert Wenzel, Dr. Reisman stated,

In order for bitcoins to someday become money, a reliable exchange value would have to come into existence for them. This could be achieved if some important country became willing to redeem bitcoins on demand in exchange for its own currency, and do so for some time, or provide a sufficient fund of its own currency to make this possible by others. In that case the money character of that currency mighty be transferred to bitcoins, Such a process took place in 1924, when a new German Mark was introduced on a foundation of dollars and gold, following the destruction of the previous Mark in the hyperinflation of 1923. Perhaps today, if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, say, combined their resources to support the value of bitcoins for a few years, a similar result might be achieved, but even that is doubtful, because even their resources are probably not sufficient, and, of course, they would have no possible motive to do this.

Otherwise, a process would have to take place similar to that which enabled gold and silver to emerge as money, namely, first, the existence of an exchange value based on use as a commodity, and then an additional and wider exchange value based on use as a store of exchange value. When enough people wanted to acquire gold or silver as a store of value, even those not interested in doing so, became willing to accept gold or silver because they knew that a substantial number of people were ready to accept it from them.

And some people believe that Bitcoin is beneficial because Bitcoin transactions are anonymous. Well, think again. According to, “Because every transaction exists on a public blockchain ledger, an enterprising organization – say like the NSA or IRS – could conceivably implement blockchain analysis tools to track down Bitcoin fund transfers around the globe.” And the article points out that the IRS already has software contracts now with blockchain analytics firms to find tax evaders, money launderers and drugs dealers. After all, that is why the Founders wrote a Constitution, isn’t it? (Sorry.)

And in a more recent article which is very informative and well worth your time, Brandon Smith at says that “the virtual economy is the end of freedom.” He makes some very good points that should be considered.

Smith notes that “true money requires intrinsic value. Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. They are conjured from nothing by programmers, they are ‘mined’ in a virtual mine created from nothing, and they have no unique aspects that make them rare or tangibly useful. They are an easily replicated digital product. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency. And for those that argue that ‘math gives crypto intrinsic value,’ I’m sorry to break it to them, but the math is free.

“In fact, for those that are not already aware, Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 hash function, created by none other than the National Security Agency (NSA) and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).”

And Smith goes on:

Ask yourself this: Why is it that central banks around the world (including the BIS and IMF) are investing in Bitcoin and other crytpocurrencies while developing their own crypto systems based on a similar framework? Could it be that THIS infusion of capital and infrastructure from major banks is the most likely explanation for the incredible spike in the bitcoin market?  Why is it that globalist banking conglomerates like Goldman Sachs lavish blockchain technology with praise in their white papers? And, why are central bankers like Ben Bernanke speaking in favor of crypto at major cryptocurrency conferences if crypto is such a threat to central bank control?

Answer — because it is not a threat.  They benefit from a cashless system, and liberty champions are helping to give it to them.

Above all else, the virtual economy breeds weakness in society. It encourages a lack of tangible production. Instead of true producers, entrepreneurs and inventors, we have people scrambling to sell real world property in order to buy computing rigs capable of “mining” coins that do not really exist. That is to say, we may one day soon be faced with millions of citizens expending their labor and energy in order to obtain digital nothings programmed into existence and given artificial scarcity (for now).

In my view, there does not seem to be any kind of escape from the tentacles of the centralized regime in Washington which consists of extremely invasive and intrusive, power-hungry madmen (and women). It is yet another reason why not only do the people need to decentralize their energy production including the electrical grid, but to decentralize the entire territory now known as the USSA.