Skip to content

Month: April 2014

The Non-Apartheid (But Segregated) State of Israel

Secretary of Belligerence State John Forbes Kerry had referred to Israel as becoming an “apartheid state” unless the Israelis agree to a two-state deal with the Palestinians, followed by his backing off and apologizing for using the term, “apartheid.” Anti-Zionist Jewish journalist Philip Weiss has written this post quoting Palestinian activist Mustafa Barghouthi as saying that Israel already is an apartheid state, but that Americans perhaps could use the term “segregation” to better describe the society there. Weiss writes that one would think the American media would ask Barghouthi and others who live in occupied territories what it’s like living in occupied territories. Weiss also quotes from Andrew Sullivan who writes, “John Kerry Tells the Truth … Therefore He Must Apologize.” Sullivan writes:

The state of Israel controls a large amount of neighboring territory, seized in war, in which the inhabitants are divided by ethnicity, with one group, the original inhabitants of the land or refugees from ethnic cleansing, are systematically disadvantaged compared with the other. They are penned into eight distinct areas from which they have to get through checkpoints to move around. They have no right to vote for the government that controls their lives. This arrangement has now lasted a year longer than the apartheid regime in South Africa – and, unlike that regime, looks set to continue indefinitely. It also comprises a massive project of ethnic and social engineering in which the dominant ethnic group continues to settle the occupied territory in an attempt – forbidden by the Geneva Conventions – to change its demographic nature.

And now, according to Robert Wenzel, Sen. Rand Paul has filed legislation to end U.S. government aid to the Palestinian Authority unless the PA formally recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, as well as pledge to not engage in war with Israel. I guess when the Israeli military starts bombing Gaza the next time then Palestinians are instructed to feign life is normal. But does Sen. Paul intend to file legislation to end aid to Israel unless the Israelis recognize the Palestinians’ right to exist as human beings and to not have to live in a segregated society such as Israel currently is?

Unfortunately a lot of people are misinformed about Israel, thanks to the stenographers of the U.S. mainstream media, who get their information from the U.S. government who get their information from the Israeli government. I have written about Israel here and here. And more info here and here.

Several Items Today

Laurence Vance writes about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. In my view, even when you point out to gun control people that criminals who won’t obey laws against murder, rape and assault obviously won’t obey gun laws, such a valid point still doesn’t compute in the little ol’ noggins of the gun control crowd.

Patrice Lewis thinks the feds are gradually attempting to provoke Americans into becoming violent, for the feds to have an excuse to really get serious in their aggressions against their own fellow Americans. But her conclusion to “revive the Constitution” (the thing that actually empowered the feds in the first place) could be changed to “revive freedom by extracting the federal government from our lives completely!”

John Whitehead writes about raising up compliant children in the American police state.

Jason Ditz writes about the U.S. Supreme Court who have decided not to hear the case against NDAA indefinite detention of innocent civilians as ordered by the President without charge or suspicion. (The Justices might as well say, “We want the President to have the power to have anyone he wants detained and for whatever reason he wants and not require him/her to show evidence against the accused. Obviously, we believe that potential victims of such Presidential powers do not have standing, because we are a bunch of statist, executive-power-rubber-stamping hot-tubbers.”)

John Glaser shows how the U.S. government supports regimes that support terrorism.

Jack Douglas has an article on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Did U.S. Black Ops murder a pro-Russian, anti-Junta mayor? Is the U.S. government attempting to start World War IV?

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon writes about beyond nationalism and territorialism, from 1851.

Chuck Baldwin agrees with folks in the western states who want to take lands away from the feds.

Tom Blanton comments on the Cliven Bundy controversy, and pots calling the kettle black racist.

Robert Wenzel says that racism is no big deal.

Raven Clabough writes about the CDC’s claim that 1 in 13 children are on some psychiatric drug. Our future teachers, cops, factory workers, lawyers and, yes, “doctors.”

Alex Newman on the international bureaucrats who want to communize the Internet.

Murray Rothbard says, Never Say “Jap”!

Jeff Berwick has an article on the rise in cops killing family pets (oh, those poor little frightened “men” in blue!)

Wendy McElroy writes about a teachers’ union that speaks power to truth.

Selwyn Duke presents an example of British stupidity: arresting someone for quoting Winston Churchill and calling it “hate speech.”

Gun Control and “Mental Illness”

Here is an article by Dave Hodges on the control that psychiatrists will have in determining who is or is not “mentally ill,” and who may or may not possess firearms.

(And by the way, this archived article from 2012 by Mark Crovelli also refers to how bureaucrats and ignorant activists want to disarm “mentally ill” people. But who is to determine who is mentally ill? And why would you want to disarm and make even more defenseless a so-called “mentally ill” person?)

Ignorant Sarah Shoots Her Mouth Off at NRA Convention

William Grigg responds to Sarah Palin’s comments to the NRA, in which she said that if she were in charge, “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

So Sarah, Ms. “American Patriot Constitutionalist,” just how do you know that someone who is being tortured at Gitmo or wherever is a “terrorist”? Are they convicted terrorists? Or are they just accused of terrorism? Should you torture someone who has only been accused of terrorism but not actually convicted? And what if many of the ones being tortured were not even accused of anything, or even actual suspects but were just seized by U.S. guerrillas at random? And what do you think should happen to people that Harry Reid designates as a “domestic terrorist”? Should that person also be tortured?

And whatever happened to the “Christian moral values” that we hear so much about from these conservative Palinites? William Grigg wrote, “Nuremberg Barbie’s punchline mocked both a sacred gesture of Christian commitment and the ineffaceable humanity of those accused of terrorism and other grievous crimes. Christian tradition and teaching have recognized for centuries that torture is not only ineffective in practical terms, but an abominable sin and a horrible crime.”

Does Sarah Palin (and most other Americans for that matter) understand that the waterboarded detainees who had been taken by U.S. forces overseas without charge or in most cases without suspicion are actually innocent of any wrongdoing? Apparently not. And I wonder how Sarah would react if a foreign regime’s soldiers and other officers were to seize and detain one of her own kids without charges or suspicion.

I’m really tired now, so I’ll just put in some links.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100410113904/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantanamo/

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantanamo-story-judge-confirms-that-an-innocent-man-was-tortured-to-make-false-confessions/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/u-s-government-used-communist-torture-techniques-specifically-designed-to-produce-false-confessions.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/u-s-government-planned-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-long-before-911.html

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rep3/us-internment-camp-plan.html

I don’t know, I really haven’t been writing very much about these matters lately, as I’m so sick of it, and sick of the ignorance throughout America by sheeple chickenhawk “patriots,” with such ignorance on display right here by Mrs. Palin.

As Grigg observed, America really is an “exceptional” nation. (Exceptionally ignorant.)

Some More Interesting Items

Is Glenn Beck just another Obama-CIA propagandist? Infowars explains.

Jon Rappoport says that Sharyl Attkisson exposed CDC lies about the 2009 swine flu “pandemic,” but was silenced by CBS (so the CDC and Big Pharma could still give people an experimental vaccine that wasn’t necessary).

Jacob Hornberger explains the reason for America’s economic decline.

Jack Douglas says that the U.S. is now a global satanic empire.

Karl Denninger thinks the student in Connecticut who stabbed a girl to death because she wouldn’t go to the prom with him, may have been on psychiatric medication.

Meanwhile, James Corbett explains why that would be an easy guess.

And Bionic Mosquito writes about actual students for liberty (not the political hack group).

The Thought Police and Anti-Speech Totalitarians Are Out There

U.S. Sen. Ed Malarkey (D-Moonbatville) and U.S. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries are sponsoring the “Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014.” And also this past week Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed an extended version of the anti-bullying bill that mandates reporting of all “bullying” incidents in the schools, proven or alleged. But for the “Hate Crime Reporting Act,” Sen. Malarkey wants to silence “hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection.” Here’s some news for Ed Malarkey and his ilk: America is the “First Amendment Zone”! (Well, it used to be, anyway.) And frankly, the Internet would work best as a “First Amendment zone” as well.

Now really, in the land of progressivism and leftism, you just can’t say anything anymore. I think that the intolerance of the Left is just plain nutty, or moonbatty. But mostly, many of those on the Left seem to align themselves now with the agenda of intrusiveness and police state. Much of this intolerance really has to do with punishing dissent, such as those expressing critical thinking that goes against “authority” (especially Democrat authority) or doesn’t conform to the group mentality. And anything that might refer to a possibly racial or ethic subject, if spoken or written by a conservative, libertarian or Tea Partier, is to be not only condemned but silenced. If spoken or written by a progressive, that’s okay. I’m sure the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Shrapnel aren’t going to prosecute Sen. Harry Reid for uttering “Negro” any time soon.

As Will Grigg noted in response to Cliven Bundy’s politically-incorrect terminology regarding black people and the welfare state, “for progressives, ‘thoughtcrime’ is worse then murder.” And Will is exactly right.

Now, references to “slavery” — the chattel slavery of the period of Lincoln’s War to Prevent Independence — have been offensive to some people. But as I have mentioned in this article, we are all slaves of the State. I wish that the general population could understand that. And this might be offensive to some people too, but do you think it’s time to get over it? And not just the 19th Century chattel slavery of black people in the U.S. but the Jim Crow laws which were repealed that the Left also refer to, and so on. After all, how many black people living now were victims of compulsory chattel slavery and Jim Crow laws? And those who scream the loudest about being offended by this or that “racist” do not seem to be people of color themselves but self-righteous “lily white liberals” who have a particular social agenda they swear by and are really just out to silence those they were told should be silenced. Just like the global-warming fascists and “sexual-diversity” totalitarians.

So, regarding these laws and proposals, particularly involving the Internet, the progressives show their true colors (sorry) when they are so intolerant of so-called “hate speech” that, rather than they being so tormented by hearing or reading certain words which is all verbal and can’t really hurt people, instead these police state fascists prefer to use actual physical violence to arrest and jail those who allegedly have expressed “hate.” Honestly, I don’t know why so any people now are so thin-skinned. Yes, some people have immature “racist” attitudes, anti-white as well as anti-black, etc., and that’s the way it is. As Fred Reed expressed quite fittingly, “So what?

(Cross-posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog.)

California Entrapment Scheme

In regards to repealing the 21-year-old drinking age law, as suggested by Lew Rockwell and Laurence Vance, the California prohibitionist dictators have gone into the entrapment business. As reported on the public radio show Marketplace, police departments and sheriffs across California have recruited “Volunteer Youth Decoy” high school students to ask strangers outside liquor stores to do them a favor and buy some booze and/or cigarettes for them. In one day, the Golden State Carrie Nation-warriors made over 500 arrests. I guess the police in California have nothing better to do than arrest innocent adults who probably instinctively understand how condescending these nanny state laws are as well as futile, as the teens will get their alcohol or cigarettes one way or another.

While it appears that the public radio reporter, who rode in an unmarked police car during these operations, didn’t seem to question any police as to whether this scheme could possibly stink of entrapment, she did say toward the end of her report, “For me, trapping somebody who thinks they’re doing me a favor is too much. It makes me feel callous and dishonest.” Ya think?

So, many people are waking up to the idea that laws against victimless “crimes” shouldn’t be on the books, associated with alcohol or otherwise, when no victim exists. The real criminals here are government police who entrap innocents and arrest them, thereby endangering their lives by bringing them into government police stations where there are actual criminals (both private and public). With the thousands and thousands of violent crimes reported every year in California, you’d think that their government police might try to focus on that instead.

Congress and “Mental Health Crises”

An emailer responded to my post(s) on the Justina Pelletier case. He wrote that I should be concerned about a bill being pushed in the U.S. CONgress called “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2013,” H.R. 3717. He wrote that it includes forced psychiatric drugging. Now, I skimmed through this bill and looked at some other articles online, but I couldn’t find anything about forced drugging. I did see something about expanding “Involuntary Outpatient Commitment” on one article about the bill.

The issue for me is, I really don’t look at specific legislation. Just reading through the text of some of these bills make me want to toss my cookies. But all these legislative bills are bad unless they propose to repeal everything, and/or abolish each and every department and agency there in the Parasite Beltway. And as I saw on some articles and blogs, some mental health activists are worried about this bill “gutting” the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Are you serious? “Gut away!” I say. And as Laurence Vance would say, why is there even a “Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration” in the first place? And why is there a Department of Health and Human Services as well?

People should oppose that aforementioned bill for the same reason they should support the repeal of ObamaCare (which should be replaced with nothing as well!). It’s not the government’s place to get itself involved in mental health issues or “substance abuse.” In fact, as I looked at the text of the bill, I can see how such meaningless bureaucratic gibberish can give even the sanest of people “mental health issues.”

By the way, the sponsor of the bill mentioned here is Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, who is, according to Wikipedia, a psychologist, and a co-author of a book on how to deal with “angry children.”

Libertarians Should Advocate Liberty

Recently some libertarians had criticized Sheldon Richman for his defense of Jeff Tucker’s call for inserting “humanitarianism” (or more accurately, political correctness, viz. anti-racism and anti-sexism, anti-transgenderism etc.) into the meaning of libertarianism. To me, libertarianism involves advocating liberty. And that really means being against the initiation of aggression, coercion and respecting the self-ownership of others. But in this new article Richman explains what libertarians should do, helping people to understand the freedom philosophy and to then be advocates of freedom.