(This cartoon was originally from September, 2009.)
Here are some interesting articles on the annoying issues of the day:
Gary North says that the U.S. government should auction off federally-owned lands and use the money to pay off the national debt, and says that ranchers using YouTube and exposing the government’s criminality would be more effective than using violence.
Brandon Smith says that the liberty movement is rising.
James Bovard says that our cluster-bomb Congress plants legislative improvised explosive devices.
Kurt Nimmo writes about the “liberals” who love State violence.
Jacob Hornberger writes on how, despite the 19th Century’s faults, Americans still had more freedom then than they do now.
Joshua Bennett on being a good person versus being a “good citizen.”
Wendy McElroy says, let a thousand home businesses bloom.
Justin Raimondo on the Ukrainian acid test.
Daniel McAdams exposes war-monger “libertarians.”
Nick Turse on the Pentagon, Libya, and tomorrow’s blowback today.
And Sheldon Richman writes about the Ayatollahs’ overlooked anti-WMD fatwas
In an earlier post my reference to “transgender” issues seemed to bother some emailers. Well, I have my particular views and I will stick to them. I certainly haven’t “attacked” anyone or used uncivilized language. One emailer felt that I was “hurtful” in my continuing to describe the male transgender teen (being tormented by the DCF) with the pronouns “him” and “he” when the youth feels he is a “she.” Now, if you are a male but prefer to be called “Mary” or “Susan,” then I have no problem with calling you your preferred name. But if someone is a male I will refer to him as “he.” If my doing that is “hurtful,” then I would say that there may be some unresolved issues which may need to be addressed. That’s my view on that. And one’s gender is not just associated with one’s physical genital apparatus, by the way, as one emailer thought that I had implied. One’s gender includes other aspects associated with it and associated with one’s self, in my view. It’s part of the whole individual.
Further, self-determination is an important aspect of personal growth and liberty. We should respect who someone is as a unique individual (except those who aggress against others). However, with the gender identity issues as with other issues, I really believe that the influence that one’s primary caretakers have during the first 1 or 2 years of life has a lot to do with these issues later on, and that much of the time, who one really is as an individual may not have been genuinely respected by one’s primary caretakers during that first important phase of life. In psychology, some of the effects of that can be referred to as narcissistic disturbance, which affects a wide range of personality and life aspects, including one’s gender identity, in my view. I’m sure that some people will disagree with me, but if someone says that some particular male person feels he is really female then she should be respected for who she is, well, okay but I believe there is more going on inside — in other words, my view is that the taking on of the opposite gender is part of the “false self,” and isn’t part of who one really is, and which has its origins in the earliest years of the relationship between that individual and one’s primary caretakers.
I would say that during the 1980s Alice Miller had a big influence on my thinking, particularly in her books, The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self, For Your Own Good, and Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society’s Betrayal of the Child.
Ben Swann has this interview with Sheriff Richard Mack who says that according to reliable sources the land grabbers are not only not retreating but plan on a raid on rancher Cliven Bundy’s home and the homes of his other family members on the Nevada property. (It sounds like it might be a Waco-style assault. I hope not. Let’s hope they decide against that.)
Carl Herman says that the U.S. government’s land claims against Bundy are based on an unlawful war on Mexico.
According to Joe Wolverton, it appears as though George Will endorses a Barry Goldwater Institute plan to give the President legislative powers.
Kevin Carson criticizes Reason magazine’s somewhat distorted idea of “free markets.”
John Whitehead says that Jesus lived in a police state.
Marcy Wheeler discusses the Heartbleed vulnerability and Obama’s legal hacks.
Alex Newman writes about the OECD who wants to impose a world-wide tax. (I’m sure that plenty of freedom-loving Americans will tell the OECD to go **** itself.)
Jonathan Turley asks, did GM pull a Pinto?
Ron Paul criticizes the Republicans’ latest phony budget proposal. (Perhaps the Republicans should join the OECD.)
WND on a recent study concluding babies’ risk of autism is increased by their pregnant mothers taking SSRI antidepressants.
Gary Galles writes about the cognitive dissonance on minimum wages and maximum rents.
Thanks to Rad Geek for discussing the Connecticut “transgender” 16-year-old who has been thrown into an adult male prison, without charges, because the youth “assaulted” workers at a Massachusetts juvenile center to which the youth was transferred by Connecticut DCF. The issue at hand seems to be the “transgender” confusion, whether to put “her” (who is really a “him” in my view) into an adult corrections facility for males or the one for females. The issue does not seem to be, “Should we be putting someone in a prison who hasn’t even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted?” Rad Geek links to this Hartford Courant article, which notes that before DCF took custody, “the youth was the sole occupant of a unit at the training school in Middletown, with no incidents of verbal or physical aggression…” And then because of one incident in which the youth allegedly assaulted a public safety officer, the youth was then committed to DCF and was then transferred to the Massachusetts juvenile facility. The Courant notes,
However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, describes a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
The assault occurred after one of the two staff members attempted to restrain the youth by bear-hugging the youth around the chest.
“Insubordinate”? As Rad Geek points out, the youth tried to break free from the guards’ “bear hug” in order to leave. What authority did DCF have to seize custody of the child in the first place? Because of “assaulting a public safety officer”? Was the youth convicted or even charged with assault? No, of course not. But the State owns the kids, as Melissa Harris-Perry was sure to remind us.
But another issue here for me is this “transgender” issue, which has been made to deliberately confuse all other issues, in my view. I’m sure I’m going to get in trouble here with the gender-obsessed politically correct crowd, but the youth in question is a male, not a female. “Transgender” means he wants to identify as a female, as a choice, especially since he does not appear to have had “hormone treatments” (although he may have but I doubt it) and obviously has not had a “gender-changing” surgical procedure. Until the past decade or so, we didn’t have this “transgender” issue to deal with. But I’d like to know just what have today’s parents been doing to the kids that seems to affect their gender identity so severely? Did Sue and Dave have a little boy when they really wanted a girl? Is Mommy a feminist and doesn’t believe her little boy should have “boy”- related toys, just dolls and other feminine things? We also have helicopter parents, parents who praise the kids even when they are bad, parents who won’t let the kids play outside because a male stranger might approach them to ask for directions, and so on.
Finally, regarding the situation above, I wonder whether Glenn Beck and Jeff Kuhner will come to the defense of this more recent victim of DCF child-snatching and false imprisonment, as much as they have defended Justina Pelletier. Or will they see the “transgender” aspect and decide to “not go there.” My own perception of them as authoritarians is, once they see that the youth “assaulted” security guards, that’s the end of that. You don’t “assault” authority or its enforcers. I think that conservative authoritarians tend to take the side of State authorities over those who “assault” them (regardless of their having kidnapped and falsely imprisoned the alleged assaulters).
(Cross-posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog.)
Robert Wenzel writes more about Jeff Tucker’s continued crusade to link politically correct anti-sexism/racism with libertarianism. As Wenzel writes, libertarianism really is about non-aggression (and self-ownership). It actually is also about freedom of association and freedom of non-association. Wenzel quotes several well-known feminists which show that, as he writes, “Feminists are a bunch of family-hating, state-loving, men-haters.” And he gives examples of how some feminists have been empowering or attempting to empower the State to enact their personal resentments toward men into law and public policy.
In my view, whether men or women, there are a lot of people who just don’t like traditional structures and values, such as marriage and “nuclear” families. A lot of people just want to act out their own “id” urges and immediate gratifications, but don’t believe in being responsible for their own such actions. For example, some feminists want the government (i.e. taxpaying neighbors) to pay for their birth control. I say, go out to Walgreens and buy your own damn birth control. Can’t afford it? Then if it’s that important to you then cut out the cigarettes, wine or cable TV. And I think that the hatred of marriage by some feminists comes from a fear of commitment. They seem to see a woman’s (or man’s) being loyal to one person as “slavery” (as absurd as that sounds). And those women who want to force others to pay for their conveniences or extravagances or force employers to provide extra “maternity leave” really don’t believe in being responsible, independent people (meaning, you may have to start saving in your earlier years to afford certain things). Feminists who push for dependence on others via the State and worse, State empowerment (i.e. police power) seem to merely be brainwashed to love their enslavement by the State. Non-aggression is the furthest principle from their agendas.
Ryan McMaken has this article on Mises Daily regarding the recent Bundy Ranch siege, with some background on the U.S. government’s empire building, which has its origins in its covetous land grabs out in the western parts of the U.S. McMaken mentions how the U.S. government’s confiscation of lands out west has really led to a system of land grabs by private parties with special interest connections to the government. This reminds me of Ted Turner’s ownership of a lot of land in those states, especially Montana.
My take is that the federal government has no legitimacy in its entire existence whatsoever. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, the U.S. Constitution which empowered the federal central-planning regime, is invalid and morally non-enforceable because it lacks the contractual consent of those who are “governed.” (And here is some more on that by Gary North, Gary Barnett, Bill Buppert, Laurence Vance, and Tom Mullen.)
Besides all that stuff, Karl Denninger has this post on Marco Rubio’s legislation to further screw up college loans.
William Grigg has more historical background on issues pertaining to the Bundy Ranch siege.
Grant Smith asks, regarding the government’s denial of Visa to the Iranian ambassador, will the U.S. government also deny Visa to Israeli spies?
Gary Kohls gives a voice of sanity on childhood vaccines.
Bill Sardi on the blunders of modern medicine.
And Julian Sanchez has this article on the Heartbleed issue and the NSA.
There was yet another mass shooting at Ft. Hood. Another “gun-free zone” (despite the fact that it’s a military facility!) in which people have been disarmed and made defenseless against a rampaging psychopath. As Alex Jones notes in video below, the shooter was on prescription psychiatric drugs. In many of the school shootings in recent years the shooters were found to have been on those drugs, particularly the SSRIs. Those SSRI antidepressants are known to have very dangerous side effects, including causing extremely aggressive, violent and suicidal behavior. But for some reason the news media do not seem to want to cover this angle of these tragic stories.
Even in the case of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza the officials still will not release information on Lanza as to what medications he was taking. After the shooting, friends and acquaintances were interviewed and they pointed out that Lanza was indeed “on medication.” In the Connecticut Attorney General office’s refusal to release info on Lanza’s autopsy and his medical and mental health records, the reason was because,”‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications,’” according to Kelly O’Meara at CCHR. And then there was another school rampage, this time a mass stabbing. I’m sure it will come out that the stabber has been on some form of medication.
And in this video Alex Jones reviews the kinds of medication the most recent Ft. Hood shooter was on, and he shows a clip from a press conference in which the spokesman admits that the shooter was in fact on those dangerous antidepressants. Jones gets to the gist of why the absence of discussion of the dangerous psychopharmaceuticals involved in these mass shootings, stabbings etc. It really does have to do with the gun control agenda. This gun control agenda of the Left — making sure that innocent civilians are disarmed and only police and military are allowed to possess firearms, like progressives seem to love the police now — is really what it’s all about. It’s that important to them.
Infowars has this article on the real reason why the feds are trying to run Cliven Bundy off the feds’ illicitly “owned” land: Harry Reid is trying to protect his cronies of the solar energy development industry. There’s also an aspect of Chinese involvement.
And William Grigg gives a great historical perspective on U.S. government bureaucrats’ tyrannical thefts of western U.S. lands, and the anti-human, “endangered species” agenda of sicko lunatics with power.
An emailer didn’t like my referring to “conservatards” in the conservatives’ blatherings against immigration. S/he mistakenly thinks I ‘m saying that they are “conservatards” because they oppose so-called illegal immigrants getting on food stamps and otherwise welfare programs, etc. No, I refer to the many ditto-heads and Rush Limbaugh/Howie Carr crowd who seem more motivated by anti-foreigner, anti-foreign language-speaking sentiments than being opposed to people getting on welfare programs. But, someone who would never refer to “conservatards” as I have because he is too polite and dignified, Jacob Hornberger, explains very well in a recent post why the conservatives just don’t get it on the immigration issue.
Justin Raimondo thinks the deal to release Jonathan Pollard is not to do with the Palestinian issue, but is politics as usual. Raimondo doesn’t mention the upcoming 2014 elections, but in my opinion Obama doesn’t want his Democrat Party to lose too many
Israel First “Jewish votes.”
Infowars explains why the feds’ actions against a Nevada cattle rancher are unconstitutional. (Everything the feds do now is unconstitutional!)
Washington Times reports on militias heading to Nevada to aid the rancher against tyrannical federal agents in their enforcing the feds’ unconstitutional land-grab.
Judge Andrew Napolitano writes about government admissions of wrongdoing.
Conor Friedersdorf writes about the CIA censoring the torture report is a way to hide war crimes.
Wendy McElroy writes about Common Core dictators wanting children to rewrite the Bill of Rights.
Mikael Thalen writes about a teen suspended for helping other students opt out of Common Core English test.
Laurence Vance says abolish the ATF, with good reasons why.
William Anderson says the lies continue on the Duke Lacrosse case.
I have no particular comments regarding flight 370 or where it is, except that perhaps the Bermuda Triangle seems to have expanded its reach. But in this article Butler Shaffer explains why the obsession with that flight’s fate. In that article he refers to an episode of the Twilight Zone, The Odyssey of Flight 33. In that episode the commercial airliner goes into some sort of time travel and finds itself in a prehistoric age in which they see a dinosaur below, and then they manage to get back in time, not to their 1961 but to 1939. I am glad that the episode is on YouTube, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
In Doh! Not. Another. Kennedy. I wrote about yet another Kennedy running for public office: the son of former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II (D-Caracas), Joseph P. Kennedy III ran for Congress from Massachusetts in 2012 to replace the retiring Congresscriminal Barney Frank. Little Joe Kennedy won thanks to the limousine liberals of Newton and Brookline, the town that just banned plastic shopping bags despite evidence that paper shopping bags have been shown to be more harmful to the environment than plastic ones. So much for limousine liberal elitists. But Massachusetts is Kennedy Country, don’t expect them to rely on science to enact their petty fascist decrees.
Anyway, but now another Kennedy has announced a run for public office. And this one is the son of former U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, Edward M. Kennedy, Jr. will run for the Connecticut state senate from the New Haven area. (Do we really need another Kennedy to do more meddling and intruding?) This one is over 50 now. And he’s a lawyer. (Do we really need another lawyer in politics?) This Kennedy specializes in issues regarding health care, disabilities and financial services. His wife, “Kiki,” is a psychiatrist and a professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine. (Hmmm. I wonder what “Kiki” thinks about the over-prescribing of psychiatric meds and their association with mass shootings in recent years. Or what she might think about the Justina Pelletier ordeal in which psychiatrists seized the child’s case away from the gastroenterologists who were treating her. Perhaps I shouldn’t even ask.)
And besides more Kennedys, there’s another Bush now who is considering running. For President! That’s George W. Bush’s brother Jeb Bush, another son of George “Poppy” Bush. (Another Bush?) So while the elder President George Bush wanted to be known as the “Education President,” perhaps Jeb Bush wants to be known as the “Common Core President.” (He loves it.) But for the conservatards who don’t like Jeb Bush, it’s because of this Bush’s promotion of amnesty of “illegal” immigration. I don’t what it is with today’s so-called conservatives against immigration. They have certainly exposed their inner Archie Bunkers on that issue. But, the Republican Party — such as it is — will nominate whichever statist TPTB want to run, Jeb Bush or whomever. (If Jeb is elected President in 2016, perhaps he’ll start another war of aggression like the other Bushes. They seem to love starting wars.)
So, more Kennedys, more Bushes — Let’s call the whole thing off, I say.
(Cross-posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog.)
Jacob Hornberger says that U.S. federal judges owe America an apology.
Kurt Nimmo says, regarding the call to ban Iran’s ambassador to the UN, ban the CIA instead.
Ron Paul says that the most recent Ft. Hood shooting was an avoidable tragedy.
Pat Buchanan writes about the “new blackist”: running Brendan Eich out of Mozilla, Eich’s own foundation, because he supported an anti-gay marriage campaign.
Laurence Vance says that Republicans love welfare, and has all the facts and numbers which show just that.
Paul Craig Roberts compares the modern USSA to the old Soviet Union.
Paul Bonneau believes that going unarmed us an “antisocial” act. I can’t say that there’s anything “antisocial” about it. But he does make some good points about the “free rider” stuff.