Justin Raimondo thinks the “Libertarian” Party duo are acting as straw candidates on behalf of Hillary, and that they’re doing it “consciously.” (Funny, they often sound like they’re unconscious.) Justin quotes them at their recent CNN Town Hall with Chris Cuomo, making the most unbelievable statements. If you are a libertarian, believe in promoting liberty, self-ownership and self-determination, the non-initiation of aggression and private property and freedom of association, freedom of speech, religion and so on, it would be best that you not pay attention to Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. They are statists, fascists, socialists, certainly not “libertarians”! It would be best that you instead read Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Mises Institute articles, FFF.org and LewRockwell.com articles, and many others that I often link to here. It is very sad what the “Libertarian” Party has become. I will have more comments on Johnson and Weld soon.
Here is my latest article on LewRockwell.com, On Award-Winning ‘News’ Radio and Objective Coverage
In response to the Orlando nightclub mass shooting, the U.S. House Democrats are making fools of themselves in their sit-in filibuster, as they display their childishness and ignorance on the gun control issue. Their purely emotional calls for more gun control and denying guns to people whose names are placed on a no-fly list or a terrorist watch list without due process are thoroughly lacking in rational thought.
But I’m more disappointed in the news media who are covering the pro-gun control crowd’s emotional arguments, but not covering any actual intellectual, historical and empirical arguments against gun control.
For example, I listen to news radio WBZ in the morning and its newscasts are typical of such a description. WBZ and its morning news anchor Joe Mathieu most recently have been boasting of their 2016 National Edward R. Murrow Award for Best Newscast, in addition to their “2014 Peabody Award for Overall Excellence; a 2014 National Edward R. Murrow Award for Continuing Coverage; and the 2013 National Association of Broadcasters Marconi Award for News Talk Station of the Year,” according to their website.
Now, I obviously can’t listen to this one station all day, so it’s possible that in WBZ’s newscasts they have covered both sides of the gun debate. And if they have, then my apologies. Although WBZ’s weeknight talk show host Dan Rea did interview gun rights advocate John Lott after the Orlando shooting, what I am talking about more is the mainstream media’s actual newscasts, which purportedly are “objective,” and “fair and balanced” (or they’re supposed to be).
For example, in the discussion of the no-fly list, which causes many innocent people to be denied their right to travel, and the terrorist screening database, in which the Washington Post notes that “auditors found that 38 percent of the records contained errors or inconsistencies,” the gun control crowd make the assumption that such government lists of people are legitimate. Why don’t Joe Mathieu and his award-winning WBZ news team and other media outlets ever cover the issue of names falsely placed on those lists, which thus denies people their right to due process?
Besides those who are uninvolved and haven’t been accused but nevertheless had their names wrongly placed on a list, those who are actually accused of something also have a right to not have their names on a no-fly list or a no-buy-guns list, when they haven’t been charged with anything let alone convicted, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out. Perhaps Joe Mathieu and his WBZ news team or other media outlets could interview Glenn Greenwald on the importance of due process?
As Judge Andrew Napolitano observed, “… if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it must meet a very high burden in a public courtroom. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by any lesser means. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.” Judge Napolitano could also be someone of interest to WBZ News on these matters.
Besides the issues of rights to self-defense and due process, there are the matters of practicality when it comes to gun restrictions imposed by the government. For example, in covering all the “who, what, why, when, where, and how,” do the news professionals ever bring up cities such as Chicago which has the strictest gun laws in the country yet the highest rates of gun-related murders? Do these mainstream media news people ever interview gun control researchers such as the aforementioned John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime?
Dr. Lott wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1998, “Americans use guns defensively about 2.5 million times a year, and 98% of the time merely brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack.”
Do the mainstream newscasters ever quote someone who asks, What if someone at that Orlando nightclub had been armed? Has WBZ News pointed out that many of the recent mass shootings have occurred at “gun-free zones,” areas in which people are disarmed by local or state governments?
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh listed several instances in which a private citizen (not a police officer) used a firearm to stop a mass shooing.
What about the fact that criminals don’t obey the law, so if they want to go kill a lot of people they will get their guns illegally on the black market, or steal them? I haven’t heard that point made on the award-winning WBZ news radio.
By the way, I myself am not a gun person. The “right to keep and bear arms” also means that individuals have a right to not keep and bear arms if they don’t want to. But the right of the people to defend themselves is very important, in my view.
And regarding the Orlando shooter, if he couldn’t get guns, then he might very well have made a bomb just as the Boston Marathon bombers did, and still could have killed a lot of people. That might have been even worse, because a bomb can kill a whole lot of people in an instant.
Terrorist murderers or murderers-wannabe will find the means to do their killing without guns. And that’s another thing. If Islamic extremism is associated with recent mass shootings, what exactly is causing the Islamic extremism? Do the WBZ and other media news people ask those questions?
As I pointed out in this article, the main contributors to radical Islamic extremism are the bureaucrats of our own U.S. government. Do mainstream media news outlets ever inform their listeners that the FBI intentionally radicalizes young Muslim males at the mosques, and that the CIA funds and arms ISIS as well? Or that up to 90% of those killed by the CIA’s drone-murder program are innocent civilians? The U.S. government needs to end the interventionism, the warmongering, and the invading and occupying of foreign countries which provokes foreigners.
The mainstream news media outlets also do not seem to cover alternative, non-statist solutions given to local gun-related violence in the cities such as Chicago and Boston.
Why are the city youths getting involved in guns, violence, gangs, or drugs? First, they actually are bored and have nothing to do. So let them get a part-time job, especially now when school’s out. But the problem is there are very few jobs available for them. And that is mainly because of the minimum wage. The minimum wage makes it illegal for an employer to pay an entry-level, low-skilled worker below what the government tells the employer to pay. Many times the employers can’t afford to pay entry-level workers higher wages, so the employers end up cutting those jobs.
As Murray Rothbard wrote, the minimum wage is the government’s way of outlawing jobs.
If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35 to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the “marginal” (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.
WBZ might consider interviewing economists Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Block on those minimum wage issues.
Besides abolishing the minimum wage, the second solution to the problem of gun violence in the cities is ending the drug war. The war on drugs has caused a black market in street drugs, thus causing a rise in price which incentivizes those in need of money to get involved in that kind of illicit trade. The drug war creates pushers, traffickers, gangs and turf wars, and corrupt police and bureaucrats profiting from the drug war. End the drug war.
I never hear on WBZ or other news media outlets any inclusions of those alternative perspectives in their newscasts regarding the problems of gun violence. The news media outlets mainly relay the government’s propaganda toward reducing the people’s freedom and toward the further empowerment of government’s bureaucrats and police, and the news media act as stenographers for the Left’s agenda of civilian disarmament, economic disempowerment of those at the bottom of the economic scale, and for bureaucrats’ insatiable desire for control.
When progressive writer Glenn Greenwald condemns Democrats for their continuing to shred due process regarding gun rights, you know those Democrats must really be misbehaving. Dianne Feinstein and her cohorts use “terrorist” fear-mongering to deny innocent people due process.
The 8-member U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even though government police officers violate the law when stopping motorists at random and without suspicion or for any traffic-violation related reason, such police who stop the citizen-victim can still arrest him for outstanding traffic warrants or if they find drugs in the car or on the citizen-victim’s person.
It was a 5-3 decision, in which “liberal” Stephen Breyer voted with the 4 authoritarians, now known as “conservatives.” (I wonder who’s blackmailing Justice Breyer now. His joining them just doesn’t make any sense, given his record. It seems to be the way all those J. Edgar Hoovers in Washington seem to be doing things now. Why else but blackmail would Chief Justice John Roberts twice incoherently rubber-stamp ObamaCare?)
The above is a Fox News story, and in the comments there are the usual simple-minded neanderthal reactions to the dissenting justices. “I have no worries,,, i have no warrants,,, and i respect the law,,, only liberal Trash dont like this ruling” and “Pay your tickets.” are some of the responses.
Sadly, thanks to 12 years of government schooling, police-worshiping authoritarians don’t understand why it is important that government agents follow rules as specified in the Constitution, why due process and “reasonable suspicion” are important. So with the Social Justice Warriors out there having a big influence on public policy, the speech police, and plenty of other examples of the Sovietizing of Amerika, the conservatives are next to be targeted by police pulling them over for no good reason (having a Trump bumper sticker, etc.) and they will regret supporting these pro-police state decisions. Pat Buchanan may be on to something in his concern about a declining white population. Will a future majority of police be people of color, and thus be pulling over white people for no good reason to harass and terrorize them, as it has been the other way around for years? And now that just about all your personal, private information is in government databases, everything will be fair game for all over-zealous police, such as if you are behind in child support, if you owe credit card companies, etc. It isn’t just a matter of “I pay my parking tickets, I have nothing to worry about,” so conservatives should think twice about supporting expanded police powers in violation of Constitutional rules, in Obama-Hillary’s Amerika.
It appears that some influential Republicans are going to attempt to take the Republican Presidential nomination away from Donald Trump at the convention. Given that the Republican National Committee has hired an anti-Trump insider to head the convention rules committee, she may influence the committee to change the rule that requires delegates to have to vote for the candidate to whom they are bound on the first ballot. However, if they don’t do that, and if Trump doesn’t get enough delegate votes on the first ballot, then the delegates are not bound on subsequent ballots.
“But Trump has secured more than enough bound delegates from the states’ conventions, primaries and caucuses to win the nomination on the first ballot,” you say? However, while the Trump delegates are bound to vote for him on the first ballot and not for someone else, I don’t think they are forbidden from abstaining to vote on the first ballot. If they do that, they can ensure that he won’t get enough votes on the first ballot.
I hope the hacks take the nomination away from Trump, and replace him with someone more “electable.” And I am not saying that because I want a Republican to win, because they all suck. I am saying that because, if by chance Trump actually is the Republican nominee, he will not only lose all 50 states to Hollery, but there will be down-ballot domino effects, in which many other Republican candidates will lose in November. This is bad for the U.S. Congress, and for us, in which the Democrats would retake both the House and the Senate, giving the new President Hillary a rubber-stamp Congress. That’s waaaayyy not good. However, another Republican nominee such as Paul Ryan will also lose to Hitlery, but will probably not cause a down-ballot loss of other Republican candidates. That’s a little better.
If there must be a President Hillary Rotten Clinton, then at the very least we would need a continued Republican Congress to give her nothing but gridlock and frustration. Liberty lovers should hope for nothing to get done in Congress. (The actual desired situation for liberty lovers is to see the repeal of all laws which violate the rights and property of the individual, and to see laws, mandates and orders from the Congress to dismantle every agency, commission, bureau, or department whose existence is nothing but a criminal racket, which is to say just about all of that which exists in disgusting, stinky Washington.)
Robert Wenzel has this excellent must-read post on how libertarians should respond to the recent Orlando nightclub shootings and to the government’s propaganda. The bottom line is that libertarians should continue to call for shrinking government in its size and power, not for its expansion.
One point that Wenzel makes is in response to calls for Muslim or Arab profiling to catch possible terrorists. He notes that the Sandy Hook school shooter and the Aurora Colorado theater shooter were not Muslims or Arabs.
And I was about to make that very point today, after hearing Donald Trump in the news referring to profiling, and this morning some conservative talk show hosts calling for profiling Muslims, or “infiltrating mosques,” etc. As I noted already, the FBI has already been infiltrating mosques and attempting to entrap helpless patsies to want to commit jihad, so that the FBI can thwart the plots that they themselves concoct.
But regarding the calls for singling out those of one ethnic or religious group and profiling them, such profiling could not have prevented several recent mass murders:
- Germanwings Airlines co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had depression and was apparently suicidal when he took down the plane and killed 144 people.
- Anders Breivik used a bomb and a gun and killed 77 people (and injured many more) in the 2011 Norway attacks. His attacks were apparently anti-Muslim inspired. (Should we profile anti-Muslim crackpots like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer?)
- Adam Lanza shot and murdered 27 people, most of them little children, at the Sandy Hook School. (I wrote about him here.)
- The Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes killed 12 and injured 70.
- Dylann Roof allegedly killed 9 people, apparently out of anti-Black racist motivations, in a South Carolina church.
Now, none of those killers (and alleged killer) had anything to do with being Muslims or Arabs, or sympathized with ISIS or al-Qaeda.
However, As I wrote here, most of those killers did have some things in common: psychiatric drugs, which are known to have serious side effects.
As I noted before, the South Carolina church shooter, Dylan Storm Roof, was on the benzodiazepine anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the pain killer Suboxone. (Another well-known benzodiazepine drug is Valium.) Suboxone is a dangerous drug known to cause violent outbursts.
Last year’s Santa Barbara college shooter, Elliot Rodger, was on Xanax and the pain killer Vicodin.
And Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had been on Luvox, an SSRI anti-depressant also used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders.
While it was not officially confirmed that Sandy Hook School shooter Adam Lanza had been on psychiatric drugs, a parents rights organization sued the state of Connecticut to release Lanza’s medical records, but the request was denied “because ‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications’.” I guess that answers that question.
As I have written previously, for those who are taking any of those drugs and want to get off them, to prevent a possible dangerous reaction to withdrawal, see Dr. Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.
Will anyone in the mainstream media try to find out if the Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was taking any of those damn psychiatric drugs?
But the most important issue in these shootings is that they have mostly been occurring at gun-free zones. The state of Florida mandates that establishments such as the Orlando nightclub must be gun-free zones, so that many innocent people can be shot by one deranged psychopath and no one is able to shoot him to stop him from shooting. The people on the Left are either very naive or just plain dishonest, because they must know that if someone like those above want to shoot and murder innocents they will get their guns illegally if they have to, on the black market or they will steal them. You will not prevent criminals from having the means to commit their heinous acts. Look at Chicago, with its strictest gun control laws in the country but with a very high murder rate. The gun-grabbers have to end their aiding and abetting criminals and murderers.
Laurence Vance on who the real heroes are.
Jacob Hornberger says that “open borders” is the only moral and practical solution to the immigration problem. (I would add the importance of private property borders, the right to be armed, and getting rid of the drug war and the welfare state.)
Jeff Deist comments on the Libertarian Party convention.
Robert Wenzel says that libertarianism isn’t about being “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” and has this commentary on “libertarian” Gary Johnson wanting to replace the income tax with a more aggressive tax.
From the Intercept: The U.S. Senate stuffs in its annual intelligence authorization bill a secret provision to give FBI authority and power to get Internet users’ email and other Internet usage information from the service providers without a warrant, i.e. illegally and unconstitutionally.
Also from the Intercept, the FBI wants to exempt from the Privacy Act a massive unconstitutional biometric database.
Ryan McMaken says that the FBI and NSA won’t keep us safe.
John Whitehead says that violence begets violence in the war on terror.
Brandon Smith analyzes groups such as the SPLC who dishonestly connect Liberty Movement libertarians and conservatives with actual “extremists” such as the KKK, etc.
Radley Balko discusses a federal appeals court ruling on the use of police S.W.A.T. raids for regulatory inspections.
Pater Tenebrarum says that free speech is under attack.
Thomas DiLorenzo comments on Bernie Sanders’s sick commie utopia.
Ludwig von Mises on the success of socialist newspeak.
Richard Ebeling says that real Americanism means liberty, not government paternalism.
And Andrew Cockburn on the Pentagon’s real strategy of keeping the money flowing.
Meanwhile, WND has an article regarding the common thread connecting many of those with gender confusion, and that is that they have deep, unresolved psychological issues in general. Many of them regret gender reassignment surgery, and it would be better that they instead try to resolve their psychological issues and accept themselves for whatever sex they were born with.
And also according to WND, the people of Sioux Falls, South Dakota have come to their senses on the transgender bathrooms issue.
And finally, Laurence Vance discusses the absurdity of “gender identity.”
Robert Wenzel discusses Donald Trump’s idiotic energy policy.
Jörg Guido Hülsmann describes how fiat money destroys culture.
William Anderson on how campaigns spawn really bad economics.
And Douglas French on insider trading or what free market capitalism is all about
Bill Sardi has an article stating that “we can’t afford to cure cancer.”
Someone has said there are just too many jobs in the pursuit of a cancer cure to allow any therapy to be proven and put into practice. Recognize the nation is dotted with cancer research centers that hold billions of dollars of debt. For example, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington holds $176 million of debt. [Moody’s Investor Service] Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the nation’s cancer research center, holds $1.9 billion of debt. [Moody’s Investor Service] A cancer cure would leave research centers like these on the hook for loans that could not possibly be paid back.
Better for cancer research centers to live off the $4.95 billion of research grants that get divvied out by the National Institutes of Health each year than to find a cure.
In light of this revelation, the public may be better served by private enterprise that is not reliant on public funding to find a cure for cancer. (More…)
The Telegraph with an article on the uselessness of statin drugs.
Here is Hilary Hahn with the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto. She’s got my vote.