Jul 042015
 

Because already causing a small business to shut down was not enough, a selfish and narcissistic same-sex lesbian couple has now used the armed power of the State to legally steal from a bakery business’s Christian owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, in the form of suing them for $135,000 for the “emotional, mental, and physical suffering” that the lesbian couple had to endure during the whole ordeal that they caused! The Kleins didn’t want to bake the lesbian couple a cake for their wedding because the Kleins oppose same-sex marriage.

Which is their right to refuse in a free society, of course. But Amerika is no longer a free society, in which, in the name of “civil rights,” society has chosen to sacrifice freedom of contract, voluntary association and property rights to take a back seat to social activism and empowering such activists to shove their views and lifestyles down the throats of others.

Lesbian couple Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman could easily have found any number of bakeries in their area who would bake them a cake, but they chose to harass and persecute the Christian business owners to the point of shutting down their business. According to WND,

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman – $150,000 total – during a hearing on damages in March. Under the commissioner’s ruling, Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her “wife,” Laurel Bowman-Cryer, will collect $60,000. The couple testified in March to the emotional stress they attributed to their experience with Sweet Cakes, including the glare of media attention that followed.

Well, if you didn’t want “the glare of media attention” then what was the whole point of harassing some innocent couple who didn’t want to bake a cake for you? And it seems obvious that the priority for the lesbians was not to find a bakery who would bake them a cake, but to make an example out of the Christian couple and drag them through a stressful legal battle. Otherwise, the lesbian couple would have just gone to a different bakery. Most businesses are eager for your patronage, and they don’t care about your personal lifestyle. Don’t you know that?

Another issue I don’t hear discussed is that, because the Christian business owners did not want to serve the brides-to-be, the selfish brides-to-be used the armed power of the government to coerce or force the bakers to serve them, or punish them for not serving. In other words, to force the business owners to do extra labor to serve the lesbians’ needs, involuntarily.

Yes, I’m sure there are those readers out there who are snickering with contempt that I would actually suggest the concept of “involuntary servitude,” but that is exactly what it is. When you force others to do extra labor to serve you against their will and against their personal conscience, that is exactly what that is. You can rationalize it, make excuses, say “But they’re ‘haters,’ and ‘haters’ should not be allowed to refuse work and shouldn’t resist involuntary labor” (even though the Cristian couple do not seem to be motivated by “hate”). Here you are really saying that because of their attitude or mindset that you feel is the wrong attitude or mindset, therefore the business owners should be punished.

So the activists on the Left are against freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of conscience. And they believe in the use of aggression, coercion and theft to force their ways onto others. (Talk about “haters”! It is actually these social activists of the Left who are the intolerant ones!)

A possible remedy for the victims of this kind of activist aggression and intolerance is this. What the victims of these activists need to do is immediately take the aggressors to court as soon as the harassment begins. Upon hearing that they were being taken to court just for refusing to serve the lesbian couple, Mr. and Mrs. Klein should have counter-sued. In fact, it is my view that the lesbian couple was acting criminally, regardless of whatever “civil rights” laws were in place, and should have been charged with harassment, extortion and trespassing. Such a case should be brought to trial, and if the defense brings up the “civil rights” laws that the victim business owners supposedly were violating, the business owners’ counsel would make the case that such laws themselves are in violation of the rights of the business owners. If there were still any common sense left, the jury would use the concept of jury nullification to nullify such invasive “civil rights” laws (that are actually anti-“civil rights”!). And even if they didn’t do that, the jury could still find the lesbian activist defendants guilty of harassment and extortion, especially given the fact that they very easily could have found a different baker to serve them. Instead they used this Christian couple and that bakery as a political piñata with which to force the activists’ views and their lifestyle onto others.

The fact that the lesbian couple could very easily have found a different baker but instead chose to harass the Christian bakers, is enough information for me to convict the lesbians for extortion given the financial reward of $135,000 they were able to get the court to confiscate from the bakers to hand over to the activists.

I could make the same case, by the way, if the circumstances different, or were the other way around. For instance, an atheist couple owns a bakery and a Christian couple wants a cake for a wedding. The atheist business owners refuse to serve the Christian couple, and the Christian couple decided to harass and extort the atheist business owners with a lawsuit. The same circumstances I mentioned above should apply there, too. Or a lesbian couple who owned a business which refused to serve an opposite-sex couple’s wedding. Whatever. People do not have a “civil right” to force someone else to associate with them, to do business with them, trade with them, and so on.

Apparently, there have been quite a few cases now in the past several years in which same-sex couples are criminally harassing business owners who refuse to serve them. And the only real reason they are using such aggressions against innocent victims is for the sake of social activism, and NOT because they are in desperate need of a service, because in probably all cases they can easily find a different business who will serve them without any problem.

News and Commentary

 Posted by at 9:55 am
Jul 022015
 

Jim Davies on the recent same-sex marriage, ObamaCare, and confederate flag issues.

Glenn Greenwald reveals XKeyscore, the NSA’s Google for the world’s private communications.

Ryan McMaken on self-determination and secession.

Sheldon Richman discusses Antonin Scalia’s anti-Enlightenment anti-individualism.

William Grigg analyzes the LGBT lobby’s push to criminalize speech and freedom of association.

Bionic Mosquito writes about so-called libertarians supporting the recent Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision.

Walter Williams writes about the gun control activists’ irrational response to the South Carolina church shooting.

James Ostrowski discusses the robotic response to mass shootings.

Joe Wolverton says a secret court has revived NSA bulk surveillance.

Michael Tennant on the ObamaCare co-ops who lose money while their executives get rich.

Mac Slavo on the doomsday preppers getting ready for imminent collapse.

John Whitehead with an article on the emergence of Orwellian newspeak and the death of free speech.

Michael Krieger discusses the paranoiac fear that local police departments have of anti-government types and “right-wing extremists.”

Trevor Timm writes about the government’s use of Facebook and Google facial recognition technology.

Uri Avnery comments on possible Israeli war crimes.

Jacob Hornberger on the corrosive and destructive power of the dole.

Laurence Vance on Jeb Bush and discrimination.

Doug French says there’s no end in sight for higher education malinvestment.

Robert Murphy discusses selection bias in the social cost of carbon.

Murray Sabrin comments on the Supremes’ same-sex marriage decision.

Justin Raimondo on the foreign policy implications of the same-sex marriage decision.

Jack Balkwill asks, Have millions of deaths from America’s war on terror been concealed?

And Kurt Nimmo discusses the First Amendment Defense Act proposal in Congress as a response to the same-sex marriage decision.

Jun 302015
 

The Hollywood communists who profit from capitalism now want ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to remove domain name privacy of those who own domain names which are registered and whose information is obtained through “Whois” websites. Apparently the stasi of the Left want to make it easier to find out the personal details of website owners in order to sue them for “copyright” infringement, personal information of which is already obtainable via subpoena. The real reason is probably more sinister, and has to do — once again — with intimidating and shutting up those whose opinions “offend” the elites of the Left, many of whom are a part of communist Hollywood. Obviously, if someone opposes affirmative action or even wants to criticize feminist extremism, knowing that one’s website would require personal information to be displayed publicly on Whois, one would probably decide to not have a website in the first place. It’s all to do with suppression of speech and dissenting points of view, etc. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it,

The limited value of this change is manifestly outweighed by the risks to website owners who will suffer a higher risk of harassment, intimidation and identity theft. The ability to speak anonymously protects people with unpopular or marginalized opinions, allowing them to speak and be heard without fear of harm. It also protects whistleblowers who expose crime, waste, and corruption. That’s why EFF opposes the new proposal to roll back anonymity.

If you agree, there are many ways in which you can let ICANN know your views. Between now and July 7th, you can send your comments by email to comments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org. You can also support a petition that a coalition of companies and concerned individuals have established at savedomainprivacy.org, or use the phone and email tool of another coalition at respectourprivacy.com, both of which EFF supports.

Jun 282015
 

Why all the hysteria over “redefining marriage”? A marriage is a union of two or more units. And that’s it. There are some people who may be of a  possessive bent who feel that they own marriage and that it is only for heterosexual people. And there are a lot of “traditionalists” who believe that, because it has been traditional that only heterosexual people have married and that a marriage has consisted of only two people, a male and a female. But that does not justify legally restricting such a relationship or association only to those types. Some insecure people are expressing a visceral opposition to seeing same-sex marriages occur. It really bothers them, even though those same-sex relationships and contracts are as private as the opponents’ own private relationships and contracts. Why do those other people’s private personal arrangements bother the traditionalists so much? There used to be a phrase, “mind your own business,” and I think that applies here.

And also, where is the moral justification for requiring someone to get the State’s permission for one to marry? What business is it of the State, and its bureaucrats? What business is it of your neighbors? Do they own your life, or do you own your life? If the government owns your life, then of course it is morally justified to require you to seek its permission for you to marry. But if you own your own life, then it should be proper to have the freedom to marry whomever you want, as long as its mutually consensual and there’s no aggression or coercion involved. And some people ask, “Where in the Constitution is there a right to marry?” As I wrote in this article 3 years ago, the Ninth Amendment does state that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (And that is why, sadly, the Supreme Court, like the statists of both the right and the left, hate the Ninth Amendment!)

Jun 282015
 

Eric Margolis reveals the reasons for the decline in French restaurants.

Ilana Mercer on the Yankee supremacists trashing the South’s heroes.

Murray Polner asks, After 2016, what will they say about Obama’s foreign policy?

Sheldon Richman with the libertarian case for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Laurence Vance on the elusive just price.

Jill Vaglica investigates the Michael Hastings car crash.

Richard Ebeling on why government can’t manage society. Part I, and Part II.

Carl Watner’s review of Wendy McElroy’s book, The Art of Being Free.

Adam Dick says, If you want to get rid of “racist flags,” how about starting with the American flag?

Mikael Thalen on U.S. government’s supporting ISIS.

Jacob Hornberger on the national security state’s crisis racket.

Paul Hein on the surveillance vs. privacy debate.

Philip Giraldi says that the military and police have become two sides of the same coin.

And Justin Raimondo writes about the neoconservative pivot.

Jun 262015
 

The Supreme Court has approved Obama’s Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) and its subsidies by 6 to 3.

Premier Obama declared that “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” Well, not if Congress repeals it. It isn’t just a bad law that has wreaked havoc throughout the medical care industry and Americans’ health care and insurance matters, but it is a fascist-corporatist scheme written by insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, and being imposed by bureaucrats who know nothing about medical care or insurance.

In fact, Obama himself knowingly lied to the American people right at the beginning when he said if you like your health plan and your doctor you can keep them. Many people lost their plans, had been made to buy more expensive plans, and/or have been forced to change doctors. It is a scam. In fact, given that Obama has been a fraudster with this scheme, why isn’t Elizabeth Warren using the Dodd-Frank consumer protection law that she helped to concoct and prosecute Obama and his minions for fraud?

So this scheme of dictatorial control over your private medical matters is really a criminal scheme, a racket. People have a right to their privacy and a right to not be forced to reveal their health matters to bureaucrats. People have a right to keep their relationship with their doctors private!

The essence of this kind of medical care law (or what Obama really wants: “single payer“) is control. It is a sinister way for government shysters and control freaks to keep surveillance on the people, control their activities and daily habits, and weed out the “undesirables.” If you’re young or ignorant of history and don’t understand what I mean, read about the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany as well. So, if your doctor asks you personal questions that are not related to your medical circumstances, such as your political views, your religious views, your groups and affiliations, websites you visit, etc., don’t answer those questions. It’s none of their damn business!

And because of the controls and mandates now with ObamaCare, more good doctors will retire early and those who don’t like being slaves of the State will not even enter medical school in the first place. The quality of medical care has already been decreasing and the quality of the doctors will also go down, and not just as far as competence goes, but the quality of their character as well. The future doctors will have zero problem handing out the prescription drugs because many of them have been on drugs since childhood, such as Adderall and Zoloft. And we will have essentially doctors who will be extremely loyal government bureaucrats, and the authoritarian practitioners will be those who see no problem with turning a patient in to the government who might be a potential “terrorist,” i.e. opponent of the Regime, a dissident, believer in independence, individual liberty and self-defense, etc. I’m sure there are those who see such predictions as “right-wing conspiracy theory” and so on. My message to them is, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, as Stuart Smalley (D-Minn.) would say.  But this is what happens to societies when they turn to totalitarian government controls like ObamaCare.

But according to recent polls on ObamaCare, its approval rating has actually gone up, despite all the problems it has caused, to about 50-50, from what I have heard. That is because the vast majority of the people have a 2-second attention span and bad memories. The approvers probably aren’t among those who were recently laid off because of ObamaCare restrictions on employers, or who were moved from full time to part time because of employer “restructuring” due to the employer mandates regarding full time employees. The approvers also tend to uncritically believe what government bureaucrats tell them, and are ignorant of history and economics.

In 2012 when the Supreme Bureaucrats approved the fascist individual insurance mandate by 5 to 4, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often referred to as the “swing vote,” joined the conservative minority in dissent, and at that time stated that the majority’s decision “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.” At that time the dissenting justices urged to strike down the whole law.

So I wonder what caused Kennedy to go from thinking that the 2012 decision was “overreaching” and that the whole law should be struck down, to now his joining the majority in 2015, especially in yet another Orwellian and incoherently worded decision? Could it be blackmail? Wouldn’t surprise me. Also, we know that John Roberts has serious medical issues (and possible prescription drugs with side effects) that affect his judgment and his cognitive abilities. So besides being blackmailed a good explanation for Roberts’s incoherence would be his having had two seizures in the past, in 1993 and in 2007, which could be a sign of epilepsy. So given that there is no indication that he has had any seizures since 2007 it is a safe bet that Roberts has been taking anti-seizure medication, some common side-effects of which include fatigue, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, and confusion. However, if he hasn’t been taking those kinds of drugs, it may be that whatever it was that caused his two seizures over a 14-year period may have also caused his dysfunctional cognitive incoherence, confusion and idiocy.

Now, in his strong dissent this week, Justice Antonin Scalia noted the Orwellian aspect to the decision stating that “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” The decision was based on politics, not on law or the Constitution. This is yet another example that the Supreme Court is just as irrelevant in a fascist society as the Congress is. Either the President is going to get what he wants via executive edict, or he’s going to “encourage” (if you know what I mean) the Supreme Court to rubber stamp his orders.

Nope, words no longer have meaning when totalitarians are in control. The medical fascists and parasites are just as bad as the climate change fanatics. Those are the ones who label as “deniers” anyone who is skeptical of the majority consensus, equating the “deniers” with the “deniers” of the Nazi Holocaust and concentration camps. Don’t be surprised when the arguments over government health care will be between the “believers” and the “deniers.”

The environmental warming fanatics in the media just make passing references to the “deniers” like an assumed scientific fact now, because the “science” is settled. It’s “science,” “science,” “science,” yet there is no real science to back up these fanatics assertions, just as there’s no evidence to show that government controls over your medical matters could produce anything good, only bad results. But get into a discussion with one of those environmental fanatics and ask, “And what exactly is the ‘science’?” And they can’t answer that. They don’t know. Most of them don’t even read but get their information from Comedy Central. Much of the “science” is fraudulent and relies on computer models rather than actual evidence. And what’s with this obsession with “carbon” and mainly carbon dioxide, which is something plants and all vegetation requires to exist, something that we humans exhale naturally! Doh!

But the truth is, the main concern of the fanatics is not the environment but empowering the government and its wealth-confiscatory powers, its police powers and its control over the people.

But in this Orwellian collectivist prison words and facts no longer have any meaning. It doesn’t matter if actual empirical evidence doesn’t back up the warmists’ claims. They have the Truth, the Way and they’ve seen the Light. They don’t want to hear any arguments, or you’re dismissed as a “denier.” Their intolerance of diversity of ideas is now pathological, in my view. They are like an angry mob now, out to lynch the heretics, the “deniers” of the Truth, the Way, and the Light that they believe in with all the religious faith and zeal as those TV preachers. I’ve heard such passing references to the “deniers” like how absurd it would be to actually consider any anti-climate change discussion, such as from the subtly Locust Valley Lockjaw-talking Tom Ashbrook on WBUR and Bob Garfield on On the Media. I recently mentioned Margery Eagan on WGBH as the same way. I think that NPR is the new MSNBC now.

With these elitist snobs we will soon be hearing that when someone says “ObamaCare is fascism” and “People don’t have a right to force physicians to provide them with care,” they will say that’s “racist” and that such comments should be censored, much in the same way that the fanatics want to jail the climate change “deniers.” In the modern Amerikan fascism not only will private, non-insurance, non-government-controlled medical care facilities be banned and outlawed, but even discussing the evils of government usurpation of medicine will be censored. That is what we can predict with the new totalitarianism, as indicated by the intolerance of the government-everything fanatics.

And speaking of censorship, look at all the lunatics all across the country, taking down flags, monuments and other items which contain symbols or references to the past. Talk about nuts. This obsession with racism is another religion now, with emphasis on “slavery,” even though with this ObamaCare, the IRS and all the other controlling federal, state and local bureaucracies, tell me the American people aren’t all slaves now? Oh, sorry, that was probably a “racist” comment. Only black people own “slavery,” so we can’t use the word to describe what the government is doing to all of us.

And because of one lone wacko racist who murdered 9 innocent people at a church. “Oh, that makes me uncomfortable, because it reminds me of slavery.” Why don’t these “racism” obsessors ever protest what’s going on in Saudi Arabia, with the Regime’s beheading of its critics and of those who reject Islam? Because the racism religion is all about past white people enslaving black people, which hasn’t been the case for 150 years. But when we have a totalitarian government enslaving all the people, that’s okay. And that’s what the medical fascism true believers, the climate change zealots and the racism fanatics want now. Talk about going to hell in a handbasket.

Jun 242015
 

Symphony conductor Seiji Ozawa was interviewed in Switzerland recently, and, while he is not really someone who comments on political issues, the almost-80-year-old former Boston Symphony music director expressed a hope that the people of Japan will avoid any new wars.

Ozawa was referring to the ongoing conflict between Japan and China. The two countries have been engaged in testy disputes over supposedly uninhabited islands located in the East China Sea, probably because of apparent untapped oil reserves beneath those areas, a dispute which has now taken to the Internet. Japan seems to be more and more militarized against the Japanese people’s wishes. However, the real resolution to these disputes involves nothing for these governments, but involves the homestead principle, as Murray Rothbard discussed in his article, Confiscation and the Homestead Principle.

Ozawa, born in Manchukuo (also known as Manchuria and now part of China) to Japanese parents, said in the interview that Japan should set an example as a “country that does not wage war,” and that the older Japanese people need to educate the younger ones on the history of World War II. He also stated that not only the younger generation but politicians are ignorant about these past wars.

It’s the same here in America, only worse. America’s politicians start wars of aggression at the drop of a hat. Or they commit false flags or otherwise lie as an excuse to take the U.S. into other countries’ wars, such as Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin false flag to go to war in Vietnam. Most of the younger Americans don’t know about that, or about George H.W. Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq in 1991, for that matter.

Anyway, Seiji Ozawa rarely comments on political matters. In the 1980s actress Vanessa Redgrave sued the Boston Symphony Orchestra for breach of contract and for violation of her civil rights. When Ozawa was on the stand, he had to embarrassingly admit that he wasn’t aware of Redgrave’s political activism for the PLO (nor did he know who she was, for that matter). And he had also stated that music and politics shouldn’t mix, even though he had conducted a symphony concert on behalf of Musicians Against Nuclear Arms to support a congressional nuclear freeze amendment. (It didn’t pass.) And more recently in 2010 he wrote in program notes, “I personally do not care for political pieces,” which is why for those concerts he had selected Benjamin Britten’s War Requiem. (Not too political, eh Seiji?)

During his time with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Ozawa several times had to take lengthy absences because of exhaustion, tendinitis, and back troubles. In more recent years he has had to fight esophageal cancer, shingles, pneumonia, and more back trouble. He sure has taken a lickin’ but keeps on tickin’ (as John Cameron Swayze might say).

When I saw this video of Ozawa conducting Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 with the NHK Symphony Orchestra, apparently from last Fall, I couldn’t believe how lively and energetic his conducting is now, given his age and his recent medical history. In fact, he conducts with much more physical activity and acrobatics then I ever saw him do during the millions of Boston Symphony concerts I attended from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. It’s as though he has all the youth and vitality that he had when he was in his 20s (like when he appeared on What’s My Line, for instance). I’m verklempt.

Jun 242015
 

Yesterday Howie Carr interviewed former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu, who was also the Chief of Staff for former President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993. Sununu was discussing his new book on former President Bush, The Quiet Man: The Indispensable Presidency of George H.W. Bush.

“Indispensable”?!! With such a title, I thought I was going to toss my cookies! Yech!!

Well, although I didn’t hear the entire interview, at least I heard Carr ask Sununu some tough questions, regarding Bush’s breaking his “No new taxes” pledge and some of his domestic spending programs. Unlike the other day when Jim and Margery interviewed Sununu on WGBH, with their gushing over the elder Bush’s Anti-Private Property agenda, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act . (For the libertarian, free market responses to those issues, see Rockwell’s 1999 article on the ADA and Rothbard on Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.)

And then there were Jim and Margery saying what “courage” Bush had in breaking his no taxes pledge and then raising taxes. Oh, Bush’s tax hike took so much courage, to steal more from the workers and producers of society. By the way, to get an idea of Margery Eagan’s superior intelligence, when she wrote for the Boston Herald, she non-apologetically supported her hometown Brookline’s ban on styrofoam cups and plastic shopping bags. While the bag-banners have not backed up their claims with actual science, there is scientific evidence to show that paper shopping bags are more harmful to the environment than the plastic ones. But moonbat Margery “stopped listening to the climate change deniers after Hurricane Sandy all but shut down Manhattan.” That’ll do it.

And Bush’s pledge-breaking tax-thieving was to pay for his destructive and murderous war of aggression on Iraq in 1991, that also took a lot of “courage.” It was Bush’s war on Iraq and sanctions and no-fly zones that were an important impetus for the subsequent terrorism including 9/11 and the sham of a “war on terrorism” that isn’t even a war at all but a series of constant criminal acts and provocations committed by the U.S. government against foreigners, and crimes against Americans as well. On January 16, 1991, Bush the Elder famously claimed that “This will not be another Vietnam” (at about 6:50 into the video). But, thanks to his aggressions and those of his son George W. Bush (a.k.a. “Dubya”), it did turn out to be “another Vietnam,” but worse. Not only was there a 9/11 (that others warned would happen), but Iraq had then become a Sharia Law theocracy and there probably wouldn’t be an ISIS now if it weren’t for the elder Bush who got things rolling. “Indispensable”?  Yech!

Anyway, at the end of his interview of John Sununu, Howie Carr mentioned the name of the publisher of Sununu’s Bush book, Broadside Books, as “Broadway Books.”

Which is just as well, given that these warmongering, tax-thieving Republicans are nothing but song-and-dance phonies anyway.

republican-song-and-dance-2

Jun 232015
 

Don Boudreaux says that his son will never be a military conscript.

Robert Wenzel on Rand Paul’s outrageous plan for both a flat tax and a value added tax.

Lew Rockwell on Pope Francis’s recent encyclical, the Catholic church and the market.

David D’Amato says that libertarians are pro-market, not pro-business.

Jacob Hornberger comments on the Charleston church shooting and the national security state.

Richard Ebeling says that American progressives are Bismarck’s grandchildren.

Ryan McMaken on Pope Francis’s relentless pessimism.

Justin Raimondo asks, Who is a “terrorist”?

Charles Burris writes about the roots of the welfare-warfare state.

Radley Balko believes there’s no evidence of a new nationwide crime wave.

Jill Vaglica says that cooperating with the FBI will give you a longer jail sentence.

Sheldon Richman says that King John might envy Obama.

And Paul Joseph Watson on Google’s secret spying via computer microphones.

Jun 222015
 

I recently wrote two more articles on our thin-skinned culture, in which college students and professors get disciplined for uttering the slightest “offensive” language, labeled “sexist” or “racist,” and in which whole new phony concepts such as “microaggression” are made up to justify the thin-skinned ones’ intolerance and desire to control others.

However, the worst of the worst regarding who are the most thin-skinned? That’s the government bureaucrats and their enforcers and adjudicators, of course. The latest victims of such government intolerance of speech have been Reason magazine and 6 commenters to its website who made thoroughly constitutionally-protected vitriolic comments in reactions to Judge Katherine Forrest’s extremely vicious sentence for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. A life sentence for some guy involved with Internet drug sales, mainly having to do with his attitude of disobedience toward arbitrary bureaucratic drug-war diktats.

According to Reason, the government issued a subpoena to the libertarian journal to submit to bureaucrats those commenters’ user information, and the government imposed a gag order so that Reason could not discuss the subpoena with others or with readers. (Gag me with a spoon, that is)

So they want to go after innocent people who used colorful yet clearly non-threatening language criticizing a bad judge (as a means for the U.S. Gestapo to intimidate and silence critics in the future), and then attempt to keep it in the dark, through further intimidation.

Now, who is the one making the real threats here?

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch at Reason write:

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara subpoenaed all of the identifying information we had about the authors of such comments as, “Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.” And, “Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.” This last comment is a well-known Internet reference to the Coen brothers’ movie Fargo.

The subpoena also covered such obviously harmless comments as: “I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for that horrible woman,” and “I’d prefer a hellish place on Earth be reserved for her as well.”

The comments are hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary.

So they go on to describe their attempts to get the government to allow them to share the subpoena with the commenters so that the commenters could defend themselves against these government bureaucrats’ cowardly acts of intimidation.

Gillespie and Welch also noted:

Many of our regular commenters voluntarily display either personal website information or their email addresses. In fact, three of the six commenters subject to this very subpoena voluntarily displayed public links to personal blogs at Blogger as part of their comments, one of which further links to a Google+ page. Raising the question: How can the government view these so-called “threats” as so nefarious when people posted them in such a non-anonymous fashion?

(Because many government bureaucrats are retarded?)

And they conclude:

To live in a world where every stray, overheated Internet comment—however trollish and stupid it may be—can be interpreted as an actionable threat to be investigated by a federal grand jury is to live in a world where the government is telling the public and media to just shut up already. As we gather and publish more information on just how often this sort of thing happens, we pledge to always be on the side of more speech rather than less.

Now, I would have to say that I was extremely surprised at Judge Forrest’s ruling and her harsh words for Ross Ulbricht, given that in 2012 Forrest was the judge who struck down the indefinite detention of Americans provision in the government’s and Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

That was the case brought to court by journalist Chris Hedges and numerous others against Obama. The government shouldn’t have the power to have its military apprehend and detain people indefinitely, without charges, anyone deemed by a President, a military bureaucrats or soldier to be a terrorist, criminal or “combatant,” or anything. Accusers need to provide evidence against the accused and use that in a court of law if you want to imprison someone, whether there’s a war or not. So this kind of government empowerment is especially worrying, given that Obama and his ilk have stated that those who are critical of the government, “constitutionalists,” religious Christians, those who believe in individual liberty, and preppers and survivalists, are “threats” and “terrorists.”

In her 2012 decision striking down the threatening indefinite detention of Americans provision of the NDAA, Judge Forrest actually wrote, “The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of the First and Fifth Amendment rights.” Sadly, the government for whom she works disagrees with her when it comes to Internet commenters’ First Amendment rights in response to Forrest’s Silk Road decision.

Government prosecutors can be tyrannical when it comes to being the objects of criticism or mockery.

But regarding the NDAA indefinite detention case, here is how vicious government bureaucrats can be in their desire for power and control. After Judge Forrest struck down that NDAA indefinite detention provision, Obama had his administration flunkies run to another court to appeal that decision, which was then given a temporary stay by Obama-appointed Judge Raymond Lohier.

President “Hope and Change” desperately wants that power to imprison and silence those who harshly criticize the Dear Leader.

Then the all Obama-appointed three-judge appeals court panel, Lohier, Denny Chin and Christopher Droney extended the stay. And finally in July, 2013, a three-judge panel from the same appeals court struck down Judge Forrest’s ruling which had attempted to defend our First and Fifth Amendment rights especially. That appeals court panel consisted of Lohier (appointed by Obama), Lewis Kaplan (a Bill Clinton appointee) and Amalya Kearse (a Jimmy Carter appointee, cobwebs and all). So much for “right-wing Republicans” being against due process and freedom of speech!

The bureaucrats are becoming more and more thin-skinned and intolerant now. Eventually they will get away with hauling off to the dungeons those who dare investigate government’s shenanigans and war crimes, and those who openly criticize and mock the government as well as those who anonymously do so.

Jun 202015
 

With the exception of conservative talk radio, most of the discussions I’ve heard on this recent Charleston, South Carolina church shooting, in which Dylan Storm Roof killed 9 innocents, have centered on Roof’s racial ignorance and hatred, and on guns. The incident was yet another excuse for Obama and the gun control crowd to show how ignorant they are, how they argue on the basis of their own immediate emotional reactions to these stories without even thinking. For example, sensible people have pointed out that if others in the church had been armed, once it is clear that a psychopath is shooting people, the psychopath would immediately be shot, saving the rest of the 9 people from getting hurt. But, as I heard a fool on the news say just this morning, the emotional, unthinking reaction is that if people in the church were armed there would be a “shootout” and many more people would be killed. Only a fool would actually believe that, in my view.

The other more important factor, as this article today on LewRockwell.com pointed out (and this one and this one as well), is that most if not all of these recent mass shootings have involved shooters having been taking psychiatric drugs, or withdrawing from them. And those particular drugs have been mainly the SSRI antidepressants, which include Zoloft and Prozak. Prescription pain killers, anti-psychotics and the anti-anxiety drugs have also played a role in mass killers, such as the Santa Barbara college shooter last year, Elliot Rodger, who had been taking the anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the pain killer Vicodin.

What do you know, it just so happens that this week’s South Carolina church shooter had been taking Xanax and the pain killer Suboxone. According to this article, Suboxone has been shown to cause aggression and violent outbursts. So, regardless of the shooter’s ignorant and racist views, had he not been taking these brain-chemical-altering drugs he probably would have continued to remain in control of his hatred and his emotions. I have previously written this post and this post on the relationship between psychiatric drugs and violence (and other problems such as ADHD).

But we are not hearing about any of this, or in discussions about Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, or on the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, who is currently on trial, who was taking the SSRI antidepressant Zoloft and the anti-anxiety drug Clonazepam. Will those drug names come up during this trial? Probably not.

For those who are taking any of those drugs and want to get off them, by the way, to prevent possible dangerous reaction to withdrawal, see Dr. Peter Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal.

One big reason why we do not hear about these connections between the psychiatric drugs and the violence and murders from mainstream news outlets and networks is because the pharmaceutical industry advertises their dangerous drugs and vaccines on those same mainstream news outlets and networks. And it’s not just the psychiatric drugs, but whatever crap the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a. “Big Pharma”) pays the media outlets to shill for them, such as the terrible statin drugs.

To get an idea of how beholden the news media and networks are to the drug makers rather than reporting the truth, here is what former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson stated regarding her reporting on the Swine Flu non-epidemic and vaccine issue from 2009, in an interview with Jon Rappoport:

In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?

This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.

Hmm, for some reason, Sharyl Attkisson’s website is down now, but she recently had this lengthy analysis (that I was able to get from the Wayback Machine) of a study attempting to distance any linkage between vaccines and autism. (I know, there are many people now who believed the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign against that Dr. Wakefield, but it turned out that the actual fraudsters were those who had smeared him, not the other way around.) But I digress. In the new analysis by Attkisson, she also uncovers the spin that the mainstream media give on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

So people have long known how biased CBS News is, as well as the other networks. It isn’t just bias, but a lack of judgment and appropriate decision-making. For instance, NBC has decided to relocate Brian Williams to MSNBC rather than just firing him outright. And ABC continues to keep George Snuffleupagus despite his corrupt connections to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Can we possibly trust any of these people to report honestly? Given the aforementioned issues, the Iraq War and other important stories, I am not too sure.

But the networks’ reflexive loyalty to corporate sponsors isn’t just of the commercial networks, but PBS as well, as I wrote in this piece on the deadly Gardsil vaccine, and NPR as well, as could be heard regarding the “importance” of the flu vaccine.

Whether it’s vaccines, psychiatric drugs, statins, and other scams and gimmicks to get people to consume poisonous chemicals for the sake of corporate profits, the truth-hiding mainstream news media have shown that they will not tell the whole story behind the story.

But rather than disclose to the public the connections between the psychiatric drugs and these mass murders, the news deliverers, analysts and pundits, and scribblers want to continue their emotion-centered fascist desires to disarm innocent, law-abiding people. And yes, policies of gun control are fascist, they are anything but “liberal,” as when governments make the people defenseless, that is one major point where liberalism becomes overtaken by fascism.

UPDATE: I changed my original title for this post. The original title “Psychiatric Drugs Responsible for Yet Another Mass Shooting” was not what I really intended, as the actual shooter was “responsible” for his own acts, but was apparently greatly influenced by the psychiatric drugs.

Jun 202015
 

Here is my latest article on LewRockwell.com, Trying to Make Sense of Those Who Make No Sense:

So now the narcissists of political correctness have ordered Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt to be tossed out at University College London and the European Research Council because he made remarks intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Dr. Hunt had drolly suggested that males and females should be separated in science labs because, he said, the females cry when criticized.

The subsequent actions against him say nothing about him or his remarks, but they do say a lot about those who wouldn’t even give him a chance to explain himself. And Dr. Hunt certainly isn’t the only victim of the assaults on innocents and their speech being perpetrated by the intolerant.

As I mentioned in my recent article, on the college campuses and at the workplace the political correctness reactionaries can be quite intolerant of different or diverse viewpoints, including humorous remarks, and often misinterpret innocent remarks by others. But it mainly has to do with the inability or unwillingness of the intolerant PC crowd to actually discuss or debate whatever issue has caused them discomfort.

In our impatient society, actually thinking about something that was said may take an extra second or two, and on the college campuses actually discussing a matter takes even more time. That also requires patience and listening to the other person. Our whole society has degraded into one of such impatience in which many people just don’t want to deal with hearing someone’s point of view or explanation of something that was said.

This is why there is no debate on climate change, for example, because the climate change/global warming issue is “settled.”

The alleged “rape culture” is also not up for debate. Last November the individualist feminist Wendy McElroy participated in a debate with feminist Jessica Valenti. The open-minded Valenti stated right at the beginning, “I think like a lot of people I’m exhausted of having to talk about rape culture in a framework that assumes its existence is up for debate.”

So that’s that. There is a “rape culture,” especially on college campuses in which the feminists want to redefine “rape” as including consensual, non-forced sex.

Do you disagree? Shaddap!

And that’s another part of the issue. In addition to the hypersensitive, thin-skinned crybabies who want to report on their fellow students or professors for making clearly innocent remarks, the latest phenomenon is the redefining of certain words to justify the hate-speech squad’s own acts of hate, intolerance and aggression toward others.

For instance, besides the redefining of “rape,” there is also now the redefining of “aggression” to mean something more than just a physical act of actual aggression, but also mere words or phrases which some people have asserted are making them feel bad, or “triggering” certain painful emotions.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote about that new phenomenon known as “micro-aggression,” that has nothing to do with actual aggression, which is a physical phenomenon, but is referring to certain people who overreact to various manners of speech by others, and who perceive the remarks of others (usually unintended) as derogatory or belittling. This supposedly applies to those who are members of groups which had commonly been targets of discrimination, such as people of color or women.

This Wikipedia article on “microaggression” theory refers to one of the theory’s main contributors, a Columbia University psychologist Derald Wing Sue:

According to Sue et al., microaggressions seem to appear in four forms:

  • microassault: an explicit racial derogation; verbal/nonverbal; e.g.: name-calling, avoidant behavior, purposeful discriminatory actions.
  • microinsult: communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs; unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting message to the recipient of color.
  • microinvalidation: communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.
  • microrape: Characterized by predatory non-physical prurient communications with the intent to penetrate the victim’s emotional security on the basis of heteronormative impositions.

“Microrape“?

“Penetrate the victim’s emotional security“?

This. Is. Nuts.

According to Dr. Sowell, one’s merely uttering certain phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity” can be considered a “micro-aggression” against women or people of color.

Huh? Okay, you morons, so America isn’t the land of opportunity. So if you are black, you will have many more opportunities in most African countries, and if you are a woman your opportunities in most other countries are certainly better than in the U.S (especially Hillary’s favorite, Saudi Arabia of course). And if you are in most U.S. cities and you are young, your opportunities are even greater thanks to minimum wage laws and the multitudes of business regulations! (Okay, “sarcasm off,” as they say on the Internet.)

So that is just how irrational things are now. The alleged victims of this so-called microaggression phenomenon just don’t make any sense. They are just not in the world of reality. (Was my pointing that out a “micro-aggression”? Sorry about that.)

And, as I noted in my earlier article, and as Dr. Sowell noted as well, it is these thin-skinned, intolerant ones who are the real aggressors. When you go running to the college Dean or the “Anti-Discrimination Officer” (or whatever) to make a formal complaint against another student or professor for his merely saying something you didn’t like, or to a supervisor in one’s place of employment, and a disciplinary action is taken and goes on that individual’s record permanently, you are being the true aggressor here.

So rather than the alleged victim (of one’s own insecurity and hypersensitivity, that is) actually thinking introspectively to figure out and resolve whatever issues are going on emotionally with her or him, it is easier to just go blaming some other person whose harmless word or phrase made one uncomfortable.

Speaking of “hate speech,” I think the real hateful ones are these thought-crimes aggressors. They are the ones who truly assault other people’s lives.

The aforementioned Wikipedia article notes that some “victims” can have life-disruptive reactions allegedly caused by their perceived tormentors, such as depression, eating disorders, and sexual dysfunction. I think that’s very sad, that someone is so emotionally weak and fragile that one gives other people so much power simply from their saying various innocent and harmless words or phrases which may not be politically correct.

And, as the psychoanalytical theorist Alice Miller had often noted, especially in her book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, the origins of such insecurities are probably with the earliest childhood moments especially from one’s relationship with one’s primary caretakers. Sometimes as a child, one’s own self-expressions are not tolerated by one’s mother or father or caretaker. The situation is almost certainly worse for the child (and later as an adult) who was the victim of abuse while growing up. The child’s self-expression at whatever given moment is part of who that child is at that moment, and the need for emotional acceptance and mirroring by the caretaker is a very important emotional need. Dr. Miller wrote about a latent reaction to early intolerance that can transform itself into hatred and “deflected onto scapegoats.”

I am applying this latent hatred and intolerance to those who are unwilling to discuss issues, who say that certain issues are not up for debate, and who would rather make formal complaints against innocent people rather than discuss things in a free and open dialogue. Perhaps Sir Tim Hunt’s intellectual firing squad might qualify here?

The complainers are very hyper-sensitive and thin-skinned, in my view, and they overreact to certain words which they have been indoctrinated to believe are making them feel uncomfortable. But I think there is a strong likelihood that these anti-speech control freaks suffered some form of intolerance against them during their earliest upbringing.

In my view, this is similar to all the authoritarians out there who are emotionally incapable of understanding, tolerating and having honest discussions with those who criticized the U.S. government’s wars of aggression and anti-civil liberties crimes following 9/11.

creativecommons.org