The Washington Post recently published a list of many websites which the Post considers to be disseminating propaganda under the guise of news. And the Post claims that such propaganda has been on behalf of the Russians, including sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign and attempting to help Donald Trump.
All this despite that many among the mainstream news media have been acting as propagandists and spokespeople for the government, especially the U.S. government and the national security state since 9/11, including the Post, the New York Times, and CNN.
Now the mainstream media’s own propaganda campaign against alternative news sites is part of this New Cold War against Russia. The Cold Warriors used to be associated with “right-wingers” such as William F. Buckley, Jr., but these days the New Cold War is coming from the left. (Another reason why I see neocons more on the left than on the right.)
But it’s just another example of how alternative means of information — outside the “mainstream” — are the targets of smears by those whose fragile little worldviews are challenged with facts, history, analysis and common sense.
Justin Raimondo gets to the main point of this “fake news” propaganda campaign by the Washington Post and others:
if you don’t fit within a very narrow range of allowable opinion, either falling off the left edge or the right edge, you’re either a paid Russian troll or else you’re being “manipulated” by forces you don’t understand and don’t want to understand.
These people are authoritarians, plain and simple: under the guise of fighting authoritarianism, they seek to ban dissenting views, jail the dissenters, and impose a narrow range of permissible debate on the public discourse. They are dangerous, and they need to be outed and publicly shamed.
Whether on college campuses with political correctness or “microaggression”/”triggering” censorship, with climate change censorship, or this latest bunch of stuff, I think that people who believe in the open marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought and conscience, should resist calls for censorship, especially on the Internet. The Internet may be the only way for people to get the actual truth when the news media have been acting as official press releases for U.S. government bureaucrats.
Besides Justin Raimondo’s article on the latest “fake news” propaganda, here are some other articles with very good analysis.
Where did I go wrong in my predictions that Donald Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton in a near-50-state landslide, and that there would be down-ballot losses for Republicans because of Trump’s nomination, none of which happened?
Well, maybe it’s because I listen to Michael Medved and Steve Deace too much? They made similar predictions. I think I just didn’t see the extent of the anti-federal government sentiment of the people in general, and I didn’t see just how much the people would be bamboozled into thinking that Donald Trump was the “anti-Establishment” candidate.
And also, I think that FBI director James Comey’s last-minute Hillary email announcements contributed to helping to sink Hillary, in addition to already the corruption with her Foundation in the news, and the weeks leading up to the election of WikiLeaks Clinton campaign-news media emails that exposed the Clinton-Establishment-Media-Complex. Because of those issues, many people held their noses and voted for Trump.
But I was NOT wrong about Trump not being an “anti-Establishment” candidate. He is NOT “anti-Establishment,” not by a long shot. The writing has been on the wall for years regarding Trump’s Establishment credentials. He has been extremely supportive of Establishment candidates both verbally and financially all these years. I don’t think he has ever donated money to an anti-Establishment candidate. He certainly didn’t donate to Ron Paul, or even Rand Paul for crying out loud! All these years with him, it’s been nothing but expressions of support for Big Government, big-spending projects including the Wall Street Bailout, and so on. Yes, he really sucks when you get right down to it.
And now, so far he is picking all these Establishment figures to be a part of his administration, the Goldman Sachs banksters, the Washington insider schmucks and so on.
So, look forward to more government deficit spending, higher national debt, bigger and bigger Big Government and more intrusiveness, more police state, and more foreign aggressions overseas. More rearranging of deck chairs.
So, I was wrong about the election, but I was right about Donald Trump.
No, this is not “fake news.” The U.K. regime really is starting a comprehensive program for its bureaucrats to go on Internet fishing expeditions, spying on all the people’s Internet usage, for no good reason. This is from their new Prime Minister Theresa May, who as Home Secretary wanted doctors to snitch on their patients if the doctors thought such patients had anti-government views. This is all under the pretense of “Protecting the People from Terrorism,” of course.
What the British people’s government is doing is nothing but criminal, just as here in the U.S. with the NSA (and FBI, DEA, and other bureaucrats) spying on and persecuting innocent Americans that’s also nothing but criminal.
As the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” really means that the people do have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. So how secure are the people when government snoopers are poking into their private matters like this? This kind of government scheme is criminally intrusive, especially if the government is not targeting someone actually suspected of violating the persons or property of others.
And these days, much of what the government is investigating — drug usage, drug possession, selling drugs or buying drugs, and various forms of speech considered “offensive” or critical of the Regime, and so on — is NOT criminal behavior! When government bureaucrats are snooping and intruding into people’s lives for those reasons, it is those government bureaucrats who are the real criminals here.
We already know that here in the U.S. the NSA have been given access to most of what Internet users do on the Internet, as part of XKeyscore and other schemes. Most Americans don’t even know about this because they don’t pay attention to these kinds of things in the news that are not discussed on “Dancing with the Stars” or “The Apprentice.”
It looks as though the American sheeple who ignorantly and gullibly support that kind of intrusive spying and snooping will probably go along with whatever Donald Trump wants to impose, to “protect us from those terrorists, from ‘illegals,’ and those who express hate speech,” and so on.
Actually, tracking and surveillance should be done by the civilians. They should know what the government is up to, not the other way around. So, what I propose is that there be an Internet tracking program to be used by the citizens to keep track of all government employees’ Internet usage, including their emails and other Internet activities.
Now, if those who are government employees don’t like that, they can choose not to be government employees. Given what a racket compulsory government rule is, in a free society it should be made thoroughly undesirable to actually be employed by the government.
As Jim Davies writes along with his comparison of government employment to the Mafia, government “workers” should leave their dishonest jobs and find honest work. Perhaps Theresa May can repent, and find something honest and respectable in the private sector. And perhaps the dishonest, criminal spies and intruders working for her and for the U.S. fedgov can do the same. (I don’t have much hope for the power-hungry megalomaniac Donald Trump, however.)
I’m sure that this morning’s Glenn Beck radio show is a rerun, but after the Megyn Kelly interview, Beck was saying that economic crash is imminent. He said that the young people now are the ones who be the heroes to lead us out of the crash, and compared them to the heroes of the 1930s and ’40s. And he said that they need to have courage and be strong and so on.
Meanwhile, Walter Williams has a column this week discussing the young people of today, particularly in college who should not be in college. Apparently the college sbowflakes and cupcakes can’t emotionally handle the Trump election, so their idiot college babysitters are providing them with puppy dogs, coloring books, Play-Doh, and safe rooms.
Obviously Glenn Beck is aware of this more recent cultural phenomenon. But how will these young people deal with an actual economic crash and civil unrest that is sure to follow, if they can’t even handle the election of some moron as President? During the 1984 Presidential campaign, there was much panic over then-President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear arms race with Russia. There was a lot of scare-mongering over it. But when Reagan was reelected, the colleges didn’t have safe spaces and puppy dogs. The young people and others on the left just dealt with their Walter Mondale loss.
In addition to the colleges treating the students like fragile neurotics, Walter Williams describes in his column how today’s college campuses do not seem to be promoting academic freedom and diversity of thought and opinion as they used to. Williams writes:
Whether you are a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, you should be disturbed and frightened for the future of our nation based on the response of so many of our young people to an election outcome. We should also be disturbed by college administrators and professors who sanction the coddling of our youth. Here’s my question to you: Does a person even belong in college if he cannot handle or tolerate differing opinions? My answer is no. What lies at the heart of multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness is an intolerance for different opinions. At Brown University, some students claim that freedom of speech does not confer the right to express opinions they find distasteful. A while back, a Harvard University student organization representing women’s interests advised law students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence if they feel that it might be traumatic. Such students will be useless to rape victims and don’t belong in law school.
It is unfortunate that such intellectual intolerance pervades today’s college campuses. But regarding the students’ phobic fragility and paranoia, as I have written before, I think that after 9/11 the Bush administration and Congress (repeated by all their media lapdogs) engaged in a huge amount of terroristic propaganda and that negatively affected the very young people at the time. And then during the mid-2000s the Al Gore “Global Warming” crowd also engaged in their own terroristic propaganda and scared the schoolchildren, literally giving them nightmares. So I think the young college-aged kids now are the result of all that terror inflicted by activists and our government following 9/11.
And how will all those young people handle any kind of economic collapse or civil unrest if or when it happens?
People on the left are really hysterical regarding this “Alt-Right” group who are supporting Donald Trump, as the hysterical leftists continue Hillary Clinton’s smears of Trump as “racist, sexist, homophobe,” etc., etc. People are trying to say that because “Alt-Right” is a “white nationalist” group that, because they support Trump therefore so is he.
Now, I don’t believe that Donald Trump is a racist. He may be a sexist, and a nationalist, but I don’t think he is a “white nationalist,” or that he is particularly concerned about race or skin color. Maybe his father, Fred Trump, was a racist. It is unfortunate that many people make conclusions about Trump based on his obnoxious statements, such as about Mexicans or immigrants in general, or about Muslims. But given the facts, socially Donald Trump is a left-liberal progressive who favors affirmative action, gay rights and transgender bathroom laws, and all the rest. And as I mentioned in my previous post, he is for a centrally-planned, Big Government welfare state.
One problem with Trump is that he is nevertheless a collectivist, especially in his nationalistic point of view. Like many people he identifies with America but he wants to use the armed powers of government to favor Americans — at least, that is his well-meaning intention, but as many of us already know, the kinds of government-controlled, centrally-planned schemes Trump wants to impose will hurt many Americans, especially consumers and people who enjoy freedom and civil liberty.
I don’t know particularly about this “white nationalism” stuff, although I can say there are some nationalists, conservatives, paleoconservatives, even some libertarians, who are concerned about the U.S. territory maintaining a white majority. I believe that Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are two famous examples. Now, I’m not calling them “racists,” but I think that they and others are excessively and unnecessarily concerned about America losing its white majority. Mainly their problem is with immigration and the welfare state.
Yes, the welfare state, THAT’S the real problem, not immigration. Let’s get rid of the welfare state, not persecute or obstruct immigrants’ lives. When my grandparents in 1920 or great-grandparents on the other side of the family in 1900 came to the U.S. from Europe, there was no welfare. This government-theft of private wealth called “taxes” and government redistribution racket are the real contributors to ruining America, not the fact that by 2050 there will no longer be a white majority. I personally couldn’t care less about whether the majority consists of white people, black people, or Hispanics (Or is it “Latinos” now? Whatever happened to “Chicano”?)
As long as we have our freedom. I just want to have freedom and to be left alone. What people should really be concerned about is that there is this criminal racket called the “State,” or government, in which the political class uses the armed police powers of government to steal, harass, coerce and threaten innocent people, and these rulers are nothing but gangsters. People need to face the reality that if you want to preserve the kind of “America” that was intended at its beginning, much of what exists as government on the federal, state and local levels needs to be totally dismantled.
Regarding the “Alt-Right” movement, I think that is just a separate phenomenon that has nothing really to do with Donald Trump, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, conservatives or Republicans.
It appears that this Alt-Right is led by a Richard Spencer person, and they in fact just had some bizarre event this past week. Led by Spencer, they did the Nazi salute, but with the words, “Hail Trump,” and Spencer used Nazi-like rhetoric and spoke about a “peaceful ethnic cleansing” toward a renewed white America as an “ethno-state.” In other words, these people are nuts. They’re just plain nuts, as far as I’m concerned.
However, if they are followers or admirers of Nazis and Hitler, then the Alt-Right people are not on the “right,” but the left. Hitler was really a “caring” and “compassionate” leftist, as he was concerned about the ordinary people, the workers of Germany. For instance, the phrase that the acronym “NAZI” stands for is “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Hitler was “for the people,” and that is why he ordered the production of a little car, “The People’s Car,” translated from the German word, “Volkswagen.”
The Austrian monarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn proposed that the 25-point Program was pro-labour: “the program championed the right to employment, and called for the institution of profit sharing, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of userers and profiteers, nationalization of trusts, communalization of department stores, extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a national education program of all classes, prohibition of child labour, and an end to the dominance of investment capital.” Whereas historian William Brustein proposes that said program points, and party founder Anton Drexler’s statements, indicate that the Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated as a working-class political party.
The Nazi Party and its ruling regime were also part of the left because of their centralizing powers in the expanded ruling government, which is what the left in the modern western world believe in, and in which just about everything in life is collectivized. Collectivism is on the left in which property and industry are seized or usurped by the government.
Whereas in contrast, individualism, private property and individual liberty are on the opposite side of this leftist ideology. That is why I believe that collectivism and centralization are on the left while individualism and private property rights are on the real right. Many conservatives today who use rhetoric of “free markets” and “private property” nevertheless side with collectivist policies such as socialist immigration controls and national security centralization and aggressions overseas, so they are not as much on the “right” as people think they are. So that is my argument against the “Alt-Right” being on the right.
In Nazi Germany, by the way, Hitler’s focus was mainly on the German people, on Germans not just nationally but as a race. And he wanted outsiders, non-Germans, either deported or extracted in some way, or exterminated.
I am not particularly concerned about the Alt-Right movement, because it is small and just plain bizarre, in my view. I don’t know about this “ethnic cleansing” stuff. And I don’t think that Donald Trump or most of his supporters believe in “ethnic cleansing” kinds of ideas. However, they are nationalists, and Donald Trump really has been emphasizing that he wants to use the government to benefit Americans (at the expense of freedom, private property rights and prosperity). I hope these nationalists don’t see Americans as being of a particular “race” as well as just a nationality, because some of the rhetoric seems to suggest that such a mentality could be out there.
Michael Rozeff asks, Does Donald Trump believe in free enterprise? And the answer is, of course, NO. Donald Trump does not believe in free enterprise, free-market capitalism, he believes in government, and in central planning. What the Trump Administration is going to impose will be violations of and obstructions of free markets even more than what the Obama Administration has done.
First, Trump does not believe in free markets in international trade. Like other nationalists and collectivists, Trump does not want consumers and producers to have their freedom to trade with others. Trump wants government controls over the people’s trade matters. He believes in “fair trade,” not free trade. To Donald Trump, “fair” is Donald Trump controlling and deciding who gets to buy and sell with others, who the winners and losers will be.
In contrast, free market capitalism and free enterprise is this: you as a consumer can trade voluntarily with any producers or sellers anywhere in the world, and it’s none of the government’s business, and it’s none of Donald Trump’s business. As long as you are peaceful, as long as you don’t steal or defraud, otherwise you have a right to be left alone. Your having the freedom to buy the highest quality goods or services at the lowest price on the free market, that’s free-market capitalism, free enterprise.
And you as a producer have a right to sell to anyone anywhere in the world, and it’s none of Donald Trump’s business, and none of the damn government’s business. This is especially important when, as a producer, you need quality capital goods to contribute to your business’s success. Your freedom to buy whatever capital goods you want at the lowest price, anywhere else in the world — that’s free enterprise.
But The Donald thinks, or I should say feels, otherwise. He wants the government to control everything, he wants price controls, tariffs, taxes, you name it, he wants these socialist, central-planning intrusions that will violate your freedom, and obstruct your prosperity. But like many other interventionists, Trump convinces himself that his policies are for our own good, or will improve matters.
Another area: immigration central planning. A lot of people who are part of the anti-immigration crowd really like Donald Trump’s nationalistic promise to put a government wall on the border, as well as strengthen all the bureaucratic obstructions to foreigners’ ability to get work within the U.S. This, too, goes against free-market capitalism. The immigration controls currently in place also include controls on labor and employment. These controls are a part of socialism and central planning, not free-market capitalism. I know, some readers are going away and clicking on another blog, because they just don’t want to hear that. The conservative, nationalistic Trump supporters (and the conservative “Never-Trumpers” as well) who want controls on immigration find it very difficult to hear or accept that they are supporting socialism and central planning in immigration, labor and employment. But that is exactly what they support.
In contrast, in genuine free-market capitalism, free enterprise, any worker may exercise one’s right to freedom of travel and freedom of movement to go to where one can find employment, and others who are willing buyers for the worker’s products or services can hire him, without the permission of bureaucrats, as long as one is peaceful and as long as one doe not violate anyone else’s person or property. Unfortunately, many people are collectivists, and think in terms of collectively-owned territory, not private property and private property rights. And private property also includes privately-owned homes and businesses, contracts and trades. The general population and its ruling centralized government class have no legitimate ownership claims on the private property, homes, businesses, contracts and trades of others without being voluntarily included by the private owners. Those who want government controls and intrusions into the private economic activities of others don’t realize that they are supporting the same kind of covetousness we see from the leftists’ interventionist policies.
Am I repeating myself? I know, I’ve been writing those things quite a lot now. Sorry to sound like a broken record. But a lot of people seem to assume that because Donald Trump is a “businessman” therefore he advocates capitalism, or free markets. But no, that is not the case. Nor is it the case with many Americans, and many conservatives who think they believe in “free markets,” alas.
Donald Trump is also against free markets in the medical care and insurance industries. For many years he has been advocating nationalized, universal health care. And this past year in interviews he has promoted an expanded medicaid-for-all scheme, but says he wants “competition,” and so forth. Here he is with Scott Pelley:
However, even though Trump says he wants private competition, when he says that he still wants the government to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves, he is really advocating a public option, which, as the leftist schemers know well, will eventually put the free-market insurers out of business, because the government insurer need not worry about competing.
So, when it is pointed out to him that what he’s talking about is “single payer,” he says no it’s not single payer, it’s called heart. You have to have a lot of compassion, “I don’t want people dying on the streets,” and so on. (Although, it really is with government-controlled or government-run medical care, such as in the U.K. and Canada that Trump praises, in which there are people dying on the streets, or in the hospital hallways.)
You see, with the left-liberal progressive Trump it’s all emotion and no rational thought. Policies should be based on “compassion,” not morality and practicality. In the old days, before the New Deal and the Great Society, most people were taken care of, if not by their families then by charities. The progressive interventionists have exploited and taxed the people to the point of making it very difficult for private charities to care for the poor. And also in the old days, doctors would treat patients for free if they couldn’t afford medical care, such as Dr. Ron Paul in his medical practice, and the late dermatologist Cleveland R. Denton.
But now, sadly, doctors assume that government’s socialized medicare and medicaid will take care of the poor. The doctors themselves are being fleeced by the gubmint, and now because the central-planing bureaucrats are usurping the medical care and insurance industries, doctors will eventually be government employees.
If only Donald Trump could drop his “fatal conceit,” as F.A. Hayek would call it, and drop his adoration for central planning as the savior of society’s ills, when it is in fact the main cause of society’s ills.
Trump Administration apparatchiks are being announced today. Donald Trump is definitely going to “Drain the Swamp” with Establishment neocon warmongers and police statists Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo. Good luck to us all.
Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s pick for top law enforcement officer, loves “civil asset forfeiture,” in which the government police steal money and property from innocent people who have not even been charged with a crime. Seems fitting with Donald Trump who loves eminent domain which is government theft of private property. More government thievery being promoted by government thugs. And Sessions will push the drug war.
Robert Wenzel at Target Liberty has this summary of Jeff Sessions’s record:
Voted YES on the phony Ryan Budget (May 2011)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)
Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Mike Pompeo loves the NSA and believes that the NSA is doing “important work.” He reassures college students, “Your government is not recording those phone calls.” Well, technically not “recording,” although they are collecting ALL the digital data for EVERY phone call being made and storing that digital data for future use (such as to be used by the DEA for the drug war that new AG Sessions wants to pursue). Pompeo also said, “the government doesn’t care what’s in your e-mails.” However, we do know, thanks to Edward Snowden, that they are collecting “nearly everything a user does on the Internet,” including emails, including those of innocent people, which is just about everyone.
The national security state has been doing much of this stuff for decades and decades, since well before 9/11. They didn’t prevent 9/11, and won’t prevent the next 9/11 if there might be one. Donald Thug is clueless and he is total crony Establishment pol.
Sen. Harry Reid was quoted as stating, “If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs, at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate.”
That’s a typical comment from Reid, with his remark about Trump’s being a “sexual predator” backed up by Trump’s own words on the “Access Hollywood” sex bragging tape.
And then I hear Donald Trump flunky Kellyanne Conway in an interview on Fox News yesterday, in which she responded to Sen. Reid by commenting, “I find Harry Reid’s public comments and insults about Donald Trump and other Republicans to be beyond the pale … They’re incredibly disappointing. Talk about not wanting my children to listen to somebody. And he should be very careful about characterizing somebody in a legal sense … He thinks he’s just being some kind of political pundit there, but I would say be very careful about the way you characterize it.”
Interviewer Chris Wallace asked Conway to clarify what she meant by “in a legal sense,” but she did not clarify.
In the private sector Trump has taken people to court for libel, such as his suit against someone for apparently mischaracterizing Trump as a “millionaire” rather than a “billionaire,” and he tried to use the courts to suppress a film about his harsh treatment of Scottish residents near his Scotland golf resort.
One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected
And by “false” articles, like most politicians Trump probably means those which criticize him.
So, we already know that Trump is not big on freedom of speech and the First Amendment. (Except when it comes to his own right to call women pigs and say other trashy things about others.) And he’s obviously not into hearing or tolerating criticism of him.
Some people think that Barack Obama or his minions had Jay Leno fired from the Tonight Show because of Leno’s criticism and joking about the ObamaCare fiasco. Will President Trump use his power and influence to get Michael Medved or Steve Deace fired from talk radio for their criticisms? (The sycophants Rush and Sean obviously need not worry. Heh.)
And will President Donald Trump take after George W. Bush and the feds’ post-9/11 hysteria taking down websites and otherwise suppressing information? Will the narcissistic megalomaniac Trump just accuse his critics of “terrorism” and have them taken away by the military and put into indefinite detention?
And will President Trump take after Barack Obama in Obama’s going after journalists, government whistleblowers, and critics? According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Obama administration has been draconian in its suppression of information. For instance, that CPJ report quotes McClatchy regarding the Obama Administration’s “Insider Threat Program” that “requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions,” and “created internal surveillance, heightened a degree of paranoia in government and made people conscious of contacts with the public, advocates, and the press.”
Further, according to the CPJ, the Obama Administration has been using the “Espionage” Act to target journalists who are merely trying to report on the government’s programs, as illicit as they are, such as the NSA spying and so forth. Some of their targets include former CIA John Kiriakou and NSA agents Thomas Drake and William Binney, as well as New York Times reporter James Risen. And Army whistleblower Bladley Manning was put through the kangaroo court sham trial merely for revealing to the American people the war crimes and diplomatic buffoonery committed by U.S. government morons. Many people including Donald Trump really believe that Edward Snowden is not only a “traitor” for revealing criminal behavior committed by the U.S. government against the American people, but that Snowden should be assassinated.
Besides the freedom of speech and freedom of the Press rights to report on government (or corporate) criminality and unethical conduct, the right of the people to criticize, satirize, lampoon public officials and even public personalities who are not public officials has been upheld by the courts time and time again.
For example, in 1988, when it comes to speech protected by the First Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” are examples of protected free speech.
And earlier in 1941, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “For it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.”
All people have a right to free speech, especially the right to criticize the rulers and rulers wannabe. And freedom of the Press is also included in that. Members of the “Press” can be anyone who has a notepad, a typewriter, an iPhone, a video camera, and so on. And that includes bloggers as well as professional news journalists.
So, I hope that Donald Trump and all his little minions and handlers can try to cope with the fact that people will be criticizing Trump and his bad policies, that we already know will be bad policies, because that is what he’s promising us. He has already reneged on his promise to repeal ObamaCare and is now suggesting that he will just amend it. What a schmuck.
And remember, freedom of speech rights preexist the formation of any government, just as all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and all others not enumerated as noted by the Ninth Amendment. But the free speech rights are protected by the First Amendment, which really was written not to protect those who say nice things about Donald Trump, but to protect his critics.
When he is inaugurated, I hope that someone will inform Trump that he is swearing an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution, which includes that very First Amendment.
And satirists, cartoonists, stand-up comics, late-night comedians, talk radio blabbermouths, and all the rest, they have a right to make fun of Trump, call him names, and so on, and I hope he doesn’t have them fired, arrested, or thrown in jail (or worse).
I am somewhat pessimistic about the upcoming Trump presidency, because he has indicated for years that his way of “making America great again” is through government controls and central planning. I don’t think he is going to change his tune on that.
And people are saying that Donald Trump is a “builder,” and they’re very excited about that. But what will he build as President?
He will not build the private sector, or “create jobs,” because government bureaucrats can’t do those things. And yes, as President, Trump will transit from “businessman” to being the U.S. Bureaucrat-in-Chief.
So Trump will build government, that is what he will build. Bureaucracy. For instance, Trump is looking forward to imposing his infrastructure stimulus program, i.e. “shovel-ready jobs,” just like Obama did. And how did that work out? I thought so.
And we know that Trump has for years been advocating nationalized health care, praising Canada, the U.K., etc. He wants an expanded Medicaid-for-all scheme, i.e. single payer, although he won’t admit that’s what that is. He says the government will take care of everyone. And the government will pay for it.
Being an emotion-guided central planner-wannabe sans informed, rational thought, he also does not favor free trade, but “fair trade.” That means he favors government-controlled, government-managed trade and commerce. Nay, nay, nay, from free markets, stay away. No free markets in trade, in health care, or business in general, as he will order Ford Motor Co. and other businesses to return to the U.S. Or, at least tax them to death to punish them.
Authoritarians such as Trump love Big Government and compulsory governmental powers and controls. He’s a big fan of eminent domain, or government theft of private property. But he’s not a big fan of freedom of speech, except for his own freedom to insult whole groups of people as well as singling out specific targets for his verbal attacks.
Trump wants to expand the size and powers and budget of the federal government.
In contrast, a real free-market capitalist would promise to abolish all the anti-freedom, anti-market agencies, commissions and bureaus that exist, and dismantle Leviathan as much as possible, NOT strengthen it.
But Trump does know the “art of the deal.” He is a deal maker. He will make deals, with Congress and their lobbyists.
America isn’t supposed to be about government deal-making to make sure that this or that special interest group receive its piece of the taxpayer-funded pie. America is supposed to be about freedom. No government confiscation of private wealth or property.
And civil liberties, in which all people are presumed innocent and otherwise left alone by government bureaucrats, government police, and the President, unless and until some specific person is suspected of having committed some specific crime against the person or property of others. It’s not difficult.
So that is what I have to say about all that.
But Mises Institute President Jeff Deist and Mises Founder and CEO Lew Rockwell both had very good articles on what people who want to promote liberty can do now, and I wanted to link to them here. I think they are less pessimistic than I.
Jeff Deist writes about the 2016 election’s silver lining. Among the silver linings, the media losing control of the narrative, the further exposing of progressives, and the destruction of the Republicans and neoconservatives.
And he goes on to suggest that libertarians might need to rebrand libertarianism, maybe even using a different word.
Also, Deist writes,
Libertarians have for decades made the enormous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to social institutions — in other words, to civil society itself! Yet civil society is by definition the very means by which we organize human affairs without the state. And do we really not understand that family is the first, last, and most important line of defense for the individual against government?
The strategic cost has been incalculable. Liberty has been sold as an ideology for atomized individuals, for soulless economic actors concerned only with getting rich in the gig economy, for drug and sex-obsessed libertines, for people without any allegiance to anything other than their own immediate self-interests.
I have no disagreements there.
And Lew Rockwell writes about the trouble with politics. Among other things, he responds to a common assertion as to why we all must be ruled by the government:
The best known of the intellectual constructs by which the state seeks to legitimate itself must be the “social contract.” To evaluate this construct properly, consider how contracts function in civil society. You and I are interested in, say, an exchange of services for money. You are going to paint my house, and I am going to give you a cash payment. We spell out the terms of our understanding in a contract.
These terms may include the nature of the work, a deadline by which the task must be completed, and perhaps even the name of an independent arbitration service we agree to consult if one of us believes the contract is not being properly honored.
Contrast this with the state’s so-called social contract. Here, nobody signs anything. You are assumed to consent to the state’s rule because you happen to live within its territorial jurisdiction. According to this morally grotesque principle, you have to pack up and leave in order to demonstrate your lack of consent. The state’s authority over you is simply assumed (or it takes the form of a contract nobody ever signed), with the burden of proof on you, rather than – more sensibly – on the institution claiming the right to help itself to your life and property.
And he then asks, “If my cooperation with the system is only under duress, and my repeated insistence that I do not consent is insufficient to indicate my lack of consent, then what kind of crazy moral system is this?”
Rockwell then analyzes what exactly the State is, and states that libertarians need to continue in the effort to “de-bamboozle” the masses.
I certainly agree that the de-bamboozling part is crucial to get others on the side of liberty, and not on the side of the State.
It appears that Carla Gericke lost in her challenge to entrenched establishment statist Democrat Lou D’Allesandro for the New Hampshire 20th state senate district seat. It wasn’t even close. She ran as a Republican, not even as a third party, such as Libertarian.
It is difficult for newcomers already, and more so in ousting entrenched pols. And I think it’s even more difficult for libertarian-minded people, such as Carla Gericke, who criticize government police and the law enforcement bureaucracy when such people engage in extreme and irrational overreach, as I mentioned in my earlier post.
There are just a lot of people out there who don’t like to hear criticism of police, because many people are authoritarian sheeple who believe in obedience to authority, even when it isn’t deserved or earned. A lot of people believe in being dependent on government police, regardless of how unaccountable they are. Government has a monopoly on community policing and security, and monopolies that are compulsory on the people are not accountable.
So, who is the person that Carla Gericke was unable to unseat? In the New Hampshire state senate, establishment pol Lou D’Allesandro voted for a bill to require property owners to show license information in short-term rental advertisements. So, he’s a Big Government bureaucracy kinda guy. He voted to extend NH government health benefits. So, a welfare statist who favors government-provided health care and not markets. And he co-sponsored a bill to increase the minimum wage.
I think the worst thing I saw there while looking at his record was that he voted for a bill to require “certain political organizations” to have to disclose the names of individual contributors. Totally against the First Amendment here. It’s very Lois Lerner, if you know what I mean.
The people of New Hampshire’s 20th senatorial district voted 60.3% for Lou D’Allesandro and 39.7% for Carla Gericke.
Not as a Libertarian Party candidate but as a Republican. Carla Gericke, former President and currently Vice President of the Free State Project, is from Manchester and is running in the 20th District for the NH State Senate.
In her recent column in the New Hampshire Union Leader, Carla criticized government-controlled health care, proposing to allow “more choice through market competition. When free marketeers warned that Obamacare would lead to significant price hikes, we were ignored. But we were right. More regulations and fewer choices are always bad for the economy.”
And regarding the drug war, the police state and “asset forfeiture” (i.e. theft), she wrote:
Let’s stop taxing ourselves to jail our neighbors for non-violent, personal behavior.
Where cannabis is legal, surveys show a decrease in the use of other drugs such as alcohol and prescription opiates. So what is propping up prohibition? The five biggest lobbyists against legalization are: police unions; private prison corporations; alcohol and beer companies; pharmaceutical corporations; and prison guard unions. If you believe in the adage, as I do, of cui bono — who benefits? — then the perverse incentives against common sense marijuana reform are clear.
The war on drugs is an abject failure, wasting trillions in taxpayers’ dollars and resulting in the militarization of the police — yes, even here in District 20 where SWAT raids and lockdowns are increasing without proper oversight. Just as alcohol prohibition did not work, it is time for new thinking on drug policy, and time for criminal justice reform.
I am against policing for profit where police can seize your property without instituting criminal proceedings against you. From 1986-2014, revenue from federal forfeitures increased 4,667 percent to $4.5 billion. This year, some asset forfeiture reforms were passed in New Hampshire, improving our “D-” rating to one of the best nationwide. At the time, my opponent said it was the “wrong time. Wrong place to do the wrong thing.” After his 18 years in the Senate, the question is, when will it be the right time to do the right thing? Put me in the Senate, and I’ll close the remaining federal forfeiture loopholes.
And Carla knows a thing or two about the police state, and in New Hampshire no less, the so-called “Live Free or Die” state. To make a long story short, Carla was arrested in Weare, N.H. in 2010, when she attempted to film police who had stopped her friend’s car that she was following in her car. She wouldn’t give her camera to the officer, and was charged with “unlawful interception of oral communications.” Finally, with this case a federal appeals court ruled that the people do have a right to record police at traffic stops and otherwise while performing official duties in public.
Here is law professor Eugene Volokh’s post which quotes the decision. The right of the people to videotape police interactions with citizens, especially arrests of citizens, is a First Amendment-protected right, and which aids in maintaining transparency and accountability with government police.
Further, Carla has expressed criticism of several police state incidents in her own city of Manchester. According to FreeKeene.com, on May 13th Manchester police put an entire neighborhood in lockdown with a shelter-in-place order, to find a suspect. “According to one eyewitness account, neighborhood residents were forced to walk backwards with their hands up while officers trained rifles with their fingers on the triggers on them.” There have been other similar incidents including whole lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders in Manchester since then.
At a protest rally, Carla stated that, “Free people must be able to move freely, and liberty should never be sacrificed for ‘security’. It is exactly in times of crisis that you should not give up your constitutional rights and civil liberties.”
When I say liberty, I mean as enshrined in the constitution, and specifically the 4th amendment, which says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. It doesn’t say, except when X or Y happens. It doesn’t say except for lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders. It doesn’t say that law enforcement can rifle through people’s garbage cans or point guns at people’s heads.
Daytime curfews have no place in a free society! And they damn well have no place in the Live Free or Die state!
Similarly, from my own experience in Massachusetts following the April, 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist bombings, there was the “shelter-in-place” of the entire Boston area. It was literally a ghost town, and on a weekday. People didn’t go to work or school, do their shopping, attend meetings or appointments, and so on. Just because this one teenage pothead punk Dzokhar Tsarnaev was hiding somewhere. Previously, there had been plenty of escaped murderers from prisons and others who had been on the loose, but turning those whole areas into open-air prisons for everyone never seemed to enter the minds of police. But now? In the age of narcissistic hysterical irrationality? Yup. Many of them are nutso now, on steroids, and all the rest of it.
And also during that post-Marathon bombings police state, an entire neighborhood in Watertown, Massachusetts was completely under siege by government police. The innocent people were victimized with warrantless searches of their homes, after they were ordered at gunpoint to leave their homes. It was truly one of the most disgusting and un-American displays of criminality I have ever seen or heard of committed by government police.
And local communities have been terrorizing innocent children all across America with totally unnecessary “terrorism drills,” for NO GOOD REASON! It’s disgusting! Please, don’t get me started. Anyway…
We need more people like Carla Gericke to oppose the police state, and let the people have their liberty. And their security as well, because when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed, the people themselves can protect their liberty and security and not be dependent on government “law enforcers” who are more times than not just too out of control and thuggish to be considered “law enforcers,” that is, especially when they disobey their own oaths to obey the Constitution. Carla Gericke, by the way, has received an “A” rating from the NRA.
And Brandon Smith says that Donald Trump will win, but it’s planned that way, by the elites and the globalists who want chaos and confusion during the economic collapse that supposedly is going to happen, that supposedly is planned that way. Like a lot of commentators I have read, Brandon Smith says, “If you think the election has been chaotic and confusing so far, just wait until after it is over.”
Well, that might very well be because after the election is over, there could be a repeat of 2000, with counting, re-counting, hanging chads and butterfly ballots, etc.
But some people think that the elites want Hillary Clinton to win because she supports the collectivist-globalist-interventionist agenda. I don’t think there’s any particular “plan.” Yes, there is a lot of “rigging” with these elections, but it’s all locally-controlled. And each U.S. state holds its own election for President on Election Day, and I don’t believe that they are centrally-controlled by the elites, the Clintons, or the FBI-CIA-Military complex. I don’t believe, for instance, that Bill Clinton was “chosen” by the elites in 1992, because if anyone’s a “globalist,” it’s George H.W. Bush, the loser.
And as far as “civil war” is concerned, I think that the kind of riots we have had in some cities have been funded and promoted by George Soros, as well as various left-leaning groups. There may very well be an economic collapse and “civil unrest,” as I wondered in this article from 2012. Hmm, that was four years ago now. I don’t see why globalists, at least globalists in the U.S., would want a civil war and unrest here, as many of them probably have families, children, grandchildren, and do they really want their loved ones subjected to either that kind of trouble, or the police state of martial law that Obama-Hillary-Trump would impose? I don’t think so. Their families will not be protected in such a situation. Even local police officers, FBI, Secret Service, military, will be looking out for mainly their own families, and so on.
However, if you live in a densely populated area, it might be a good idea to look into getting the hell out of there, like soon. (Better to be prepared for the worst but hope for the best. I’m hoping for the best.)