Skip to content

Month: October 2015

A Halloween Rant Against Orwellian Craziness

I think this political correctness crap and the “hurt feelings” industry has been taking things too far. It seems that just about anything is “offensive” and everybody has to just stay quiet and not say anything, don’t draw pictures, don’t put up any signs, etc. And male college students have to attend special initiation rites, the “Tunnel of Oppression,” in which the persecuted white male is misinformed that he has “white privilege” and “male privilege” and that the college campus is a “rape culture.”

The people suggesting all these things are very dishonest, and they are liars. Saudi Arabia is a”rape culture,” in which rape and gang rape against females is common and acceptable, and in fact the victim is often arrested and jailed, accused of “provoking,” etc. That’s a “rape culture.” And Afghanistan is a “rape culture,” as far as these sicko “men” raping little boys is concerned. That’s a “rape culture.”

There might be instances of rape and sexual assault on U.S. college campuses, but not very much. In fact, on some college campuses, rape is just a made-up concept now in which they aren’t even talking about actual rape or any kind of non-consensual forcible physical act, and I would bet that young men are falsely accused of rape certainly more times than actual rapes occur. And that would be because many American high school and college students are totally confused about what actually constitutes a “rape.” (Or, as the ghastly Whoopi Goldberg would refer to as, “rape-rape,” acknowledging that other non-forced acts now referred to as “rape” are not really acts of rape.)

I hope I haven’t “triggered” anyone’s traumatic memories, as I don’t want to get sued for “microaggressions.”

These days, the young people’s understanding of language, words and definitions seems to be declining. They seem very confused about everything now. And certain words, phrases and activities are being banned, censored, punished, for no good reason. It’s really un-American as far as I’m concerned.

But the latest nonsense is these college administrators now warning students to NOT wear any “offensive” Halloween costumes! Jawohl, you stupid college administrator! The late Boston University President Herr John Silber may have acted like a Nazi at times, but even he couldn’t have cared less about what costumes the students wore. As long as they didn’t hang “Mondale for President” posters out their dorm windows, whatever.

Speaking of posters, it appears that, according to The College Fix, Wesleyan University administrators and students have been putting up a “Halloween Checklist” poster, asking, “Is your costume offensive? Check yourself and your friends.”

Is this a nursery school class? This is nuts.

The poster suggests (with my comments in brackets) that students ask themselves, “Does this costume … mock cultural or religious symbols [you mean, like a witch? No more witches on Halloween!], such as dreadlocks, headdresses, bindis, etc … attempt to represent an entire culture or ethnicity…trivialize human suffering [yeah, a ghost used to be alive, before he croaked], oppression and marginalization such as portraying a person who is homeless [oooh, that “bum” costume is offensive!], imprisoned, a person with disabilities, or a person with mental illness [you mean, like university administrators putting up moronic posters like this one?]…?”

Dreadlocks? You mean I can’t go dressed as the aforementioned Whoopi Goldberg? I’d have to put on some extra schlep attire, though. And by “headdresses,” the academic lettered idiots probably refer to turbans or hijabs. Listen, there’s nothing wrong with wearing those things, including fabricating bindis. If someone from Middle East or India is offended by such a Halloween costume, then perhaps that person is just overly thin-skinned. And if it upsets and “triggers” someone so much, even though nothing personal was actually directed toward him or her, then that person needs some kind of therapy. But, to be rational about this, if someone actually wore a costume because he wanted to offend someone, as Fred Reed might say, So what? (“Grow up!”, to quote the late Joan Rivers.)

And that’s another thing. People are acting as though some costume, some cartoon, or a comment overheard in the cafeteria was directed at them personally. At least that is how it seems these hyper-sensitive crybabies are acting. It’s part of that narcissism trend in America now. But lighten up, for crying out loud!

One other item in the College Fix article was mention of the word “cis,” as in “white cis men.” I had to look up “cis,” and apparently it refers to “cisgender,” the opposite of “transgender,” in which if you identify with your actual “assigned” gender, you are “cisgender.” God forbid someone might identify him or herself as the gender he or she actually is. Jeepers! As I wrote in my previous post, Stop the world, I’m getting off. (Can we go back to an earlier time? Can Capt. Kirk beam me back to 1984? That’s not even that long ago, in which people weren’t acting like the utter morons they are today. I think it stinks now. Take me back to the past, please.)

So the American (and European, etc.) culture is training the younger folks to be lifelong babies who emotionally can’t handle even the most innocent word or phrase, or innocent image such as a costume. And the culture is training the youngins to be paranoid to the point of developing fascist tendencies, with “If You See Something, Say Something,” turn in your fellow student for making a “racist” comment (racist to whom?), turn in your neighbor you suspect of promoting “hate,” etc. So someone expresses “hate” or ignorance or collectivist thinking, so what? Can’t you just ignore the bigots? And, incidentally, those who are promoting this kind of intellectual intolerance and censorship are generally the people on the Left, the most collectivist-thinking of any group as far as I’m concerned. They’re just as ignorant and loathsome as the racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.

And that’s the other thing now, this trend toward crazy Orwellian fascist censorship. According to WND, a Yale University study has indicated that “32 percent of students could not identify the First Amendment as the section of the Constitution dealing with free speech. And one-third of those who could identify the First Amendment claimed it does not protect ‘hate speech’.” This was a nationwide poll.

Also, 51% of the students polled supported college speech codes, 70% supported “disciplinary action” against students and faculty for expressing “racist, sexist, or homophobic” speech. 52% supported banning speakers with a history of “hate speech.” 50% wanted their college to ban the “publication of political cartoons that would criticize any particular religion or ethnicity.” A majority of these censorship fascists are self-described liberals and progressives. Noooo, really? So much for “liberal” and “tolerance.”

So all you little fascist twerps out there, just who is to decide what political cartoon might be “criticizing” what religion or ethnicity? Hmmm? Whose political cartoons and ethnic references will be allowed and whose will be forbidden? For example, we currently have an extreme bias against conservative and Christian-based speakers, literature and cartoons as well. What if a cartoonist is criticizing the Bible? That’s probably okay to those college students and faculty who oppose Christianity, but what about cartoons criticizing Israel, Islam or Obama? And will it be okay to criticize the Pope for being anti-abortion, but not okay to criticize the Pope for being a socialist ignoramus? Should those cartoons be censored? Will the censors take into account the cartoonist’s political views? Not good.

And when will the book burnings begin? Seriously, that is what these useful idiots for the Left are leading to. Not just burning books, magazines and other literature, and having parties doing it, but burning CDs, DVDs and so on by authors and artists who are accused of “hate.” But really, they will be targeting political dissenters, such as those who criticize the Dear Leader Obama, and his replacement Dear Leader Hillary. I’m sure that if I refer to her as “Hillary Rotten Clinton,” she’ll have my home drone-bombed to smithereens. But the youngins now obviously have no knowledge or understanding of history and the Nazi and Soviet regimes, or even the censorship and brutality that goes on in modern 2015, in Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, much of the Middle East, Ukraine, and other parts of the world.

Are these American emotional jellyfishes so weak and spineless they’d rather “punish” someone for uttering “hateful” speech or wearing “offensive” Halloween costumes than just ignore the “offenders”? C’mon, you can do it! Just ignore them. Because really now, someone’s speech or Halloween costume can’t hurt you! I think the youngins really have a hard time now telling the difference between words or Halloween costumes, and physical actions.

And just what are you younger parents (and by “young,” I mean in your 30s and 40s) doing to these kids now? Perhaps 9/11 was so traumatic that you’re being over-protective of the kids to such an extreme that even words and images frighten them. Or perhaps too much of a super-ego thing here? “Uh-oh, did you say something that hurt someone’s feelings? We’re gonna have to punish you like you’re a criminal.” And let’s jail the climate change “deniers,” too, I’m sure these ignorant college students in the Yale survey want to do that as well.

Or maybe it’s all that pot the kids can’t seem to get enough of? They like to pollute their brains, apparently. Or perhaps it’s all the extra vaccines with all their toxins and the fluoride in the water as well as the psychiatric drugs and other prescription drugs going through the bloodstream and up into their brains, whacking away at their little neurotransmitters, and turning them into irrational little zombies.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that this trend reverses itself, ASAP!

LGBT “Equality Act of 2015,” Marriage, and Intolerance

I am having another one of my “Stop the world, I’m getting off” moments. This stuff is nuts now.

It really is the Twilight Zone. Congress is set to pass a new LGBT “Equality Act of 2015,” which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 toward outlawing discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and “gender identity” or transgenders. Already, Google and other corporations such as Facebook, General Mills, Nike, Levi Strauss, Apple, Dow Chemicals and American Airlines support this addition, despite that it will be used by activists to push their particular social agenda onto those who believe in more traditional lifestyles.

Lesbian couples who have sued and persecuted bakers or photographers who wouldn’t serve them, even though the couples easily found others who would serve them, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to using the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s lifestyles onto others who oppose such lifestyles.

But to me the activists are like the traditionalists pushing “Defense of Marriage” acts of legislation, those who believe that their view of marriage is the one and only way that all people must legally be allowed to have a marriage or contract. Just how Christian is it to use the armed power of the State to forcibly impose one’s personal lifestyle and marital or relationship preferences onto others? Just who are these traditionalists to use the State to prohibit others from their right to freedom of contract?

Sadly, still many of those on the traditional Left and the traditional Right just don’t get private property, private property rights, contract rights, self-ownership, freedom of association, freedom of non-association, and freedom of thought and conscience. If you own property, regardless of what that is, your home or your business, you have a private property right to not associate with anyone you don’t want to associate with, for any reason, no matter how repugnant others feel your reasons are. They don’t have a right to force themselves onto you, or to force you to do extra labor to serve them.

And in the area of marital contracts, you and your neighbors have no moral right or authority to interfere with others’ right to establish voluntary contracts regarding their personal lives, finances or romances.

Only those who are the parties to contracts have the sole right to determine the terms of contracts and who may be the parties to such contracts, because all individuals have a property right in their own persons, lives and property to participate in any voluntary contract they wish. And that includes marital contracts.

And in the same way in modern America, Christians or otherwise traditionalists shouldn’t have to provide services for those whose lifestyles they find counter to their own values system. And it is immoral to force them to do so, or take them to court and extort finances from them because their rejection of you “hurts your feelings.”

Such intrusiveness and aggressions go against the “Live and Let Live” philosophy of liberty that came from the Enlightenment and contributed a great deal to modern civilization. These days, I’m not really sure that most Christians believe in “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

That is exactly what we have when the LGBT activists such as the lesbian couple sue those Christian cake bakers. And that is what we will have when “Civil Rights” will include a Christian school being forced by law to hire homosexual or transgenders as teachers against the will and personal values of the owners.

The social activists on the traditional Left and the moralists on the traditional Right remind me of the pre-1960s public schools forcing Jewish, atheist or otherwise non-Christian kids to participate in Christian-centered religious prayer or ceremonies, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Abington School District v. Schempp decision. Look, as a Jew I shouldn’t be forced to participate in Christian-centered Bible reading, or be made to proclaim some belief in “Our Lord Jesus Christ” (because, if you don’t mind my saying so, I don’t happen to believe in Jesus as “The Lord” or “Our Lord”!).

So to further confuse things during the 1960s, the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed segregation should not have included private property or privately owned businesses regardless of their “accommodations” status. The Act should only have addressed the public schools, parks, City Hall, the local buses, etc. That confusion between privately owned and “publicly owned” (cringe) property has been used to give some people who belong to specially-protected classes extra “rights” to enter other people’s property or to force others to associate with them. That’s the bottom line here.

But this new group of people to be protected from “discrimination” added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 now has to do with social lifestyles, not even gender or skin color, some social lifestyles which many people find extremely objectionable and they have every right in the world not to associate or do business with such people.

Forced acceptance or association with those who practice certain lifestyles and behaviors, regardless of the personal beliefs and religious views of those who are being forced to associate, is just as much a violation of the right of association and voluntary contract as were the Jim Crow laws which forced private people to not associate with others regardless of their own personal preferences. In the South, white private business owners who wanted black people to patronize their businesses and were openly allowing them on the premises were being arrested and beaten up by local police goons and racist thugs.

And regarding society’s intolerance of non-Christians, the outspoken atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was involved in the Supreme Court’s decision banning forced prayer and Bible-reading in public schools, was the target of much criticism as well as police brutality. Mrs. Murray (prior to her remarrying and adding “O’Hair”) did not believe in God or Christianity and she believed it was her right not to have her child forced to participate in Bible reading in school. In this 1965 interview with Jerry Williams on WBBM in Chicago, Murray tells of her experiences including her being the victim of Baltimore police breaking into her home and beating her “savagely,” as well as her 74-year-old mother. When they dragged Mrs. Murray outside her home, she said there were over 100 of her neighbors outside, some of whom she heard yell things such as “Hit her again! Kick her again! Kill her!” She said the hospital, Union Memorial, thought that her 74-year-old mother had either a “brain concussion or a fractured skull.” She said that there were “11 to 14” police officers. And guess who was charged with “assault”? (Hmmm, why am I being reminded of Saudi Arabia at this time?) Online, most sources such as Wikipedia go with the police account of Mrs. Murray’s “allegedly assaulting five Baltimore police officers.” (The linked interview is Part 1. Hear the other parts of the interview.)

I would bet that many people cheered on the police at that time, just as William F. Buckley, Jr. cheered on the Chicago police in their brutality against the 1968 Democrat Convention protesters, as that is how a lot of people viewed “non-believers” in the old days. Police violence is how some protesters of Jim Crow laws were treated and how liberal private business owners were treated if they violated segregation laws on their own premises.

And, given how the LGBT and other social activists turn to the violence of the State to impose their own views, morals or values onto others, when traditionalist business owners continue to refuse to associate with those in certain groups because the traditionalists find such lifestyles objectionable, please do not be shocked to see the same kind of brutal police “enforcement” of the newest addition of LGBT to the Civil Rights Act against those traditionalists who engage in civil disobedience. Especially in Obama’s America.

Yes, I am aware that homosexuals have in the past been targeted for violence by criminal goons. But in Obama’s America we may be seeing it go the other way, and activists merely suing businesspeople who refuse to serve homosexual couples might not be all that happens.

Like the intolerance against atheists (and Jews and others as well) of the Madalyn Murray O’Hair era and the intolerance toward segregation of that earlier time as well, what we have in 21st Century America is political correctness, censorship and the thought police. For the intolerant on the Left, it is no longer about “tolerance” of homosexuals or transgenders but forced acceptance. And it’s not, “This isn’t about sex, it’s about living a life just like everyone else but just happening to be gay,” because yes it is about sex. Not just sex, but sex and freakishness. It’s about flaunting their sexuality and bringing attention to themselves. And yes, a lot of people such as those Christian cake bakers find it all objectionable, and they have a right to not have those things forced on them and their families.

And speaking of freedom of speech and association, anti-bullying laws now are attempting to outlaw speech consisting of criticism of homosexuality or of the LGBT lobby and force “diversity training” in the schools. And Laws mandating teaching alternative lifestyles in the schools. Teaching acceptance of homosexuality in kindergarten. Kids in nursery school having to sign a form promising to refrain from “transphobic language.”

And besides all the made-up “diseases” now that kids are being labeled with, such as Asperger’s, ADHD, ADD, etc., we have very young children now being encouraged to be the opposite gender if they show the slightest signs of opposite-sex characteristics. For instance, this lady named Mimi tells us in her Boston Globe op-ed that her daughter, referred to as her “son” and “he” rather than the correct “she,” is just fine with being a boy, as that is what the child has decided, and by several years ago already. A little girl who is now … only 5.

Stop the world, I’m getting off.

I hope that this lady Mimi (I assume Mimi is a lady, as “Mimi” is usually a female’s name.) doesn’t sue me for defamation or slander. But in my opinion — and I do have a right to express my opinion on this — it is terribly sad what today’s parents and the schools are doing to the kids, wrecking them emotionally and intellectually. According to CNS, Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins Hospital has pointed out that, besides the higher rates of depression and suicide of transgenders, among those who at a young age had expressed “transgender feelings” 70-80% had shed such feelings over time. I guess Mimi is a little too impatient to let nature take its course. Oh, well.

And now there are bathroom bills or laws in which the ladies will have to deal with males going into the ladies room. You see, for the one transgender going into the wrong rest room, it doesn’t matter to him how he is making the ladies in there feel (like, really uncomfortable, self-conscious, violated — ya think?). No, what matters to the narcissistic restroom intruders is what they feel.

In fact, it’s all about emotion and not tolerance or reason. For example, the lesbian couple who sued the Christian cake bakers felt offended by the bakers rejecting their patronage. Even though they easily found another baker to serve them, their feelings being hurt was what mattered to them here, and they wanted to punish the Christian bakers for hurting their feelings. And that’s it. The hurt feelings industry is what “anti-bullying” is all about now. Perhaps all the people who criticized Madalyn Murray O’Hair for her fight for freedom of thought, also felt their feelings were hurt by someone who merely didn’t believe in religion as they did.

I really wish I could get those “Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, and that’s it!” robots to see how their wanting to use the power of the State to interfere with others’ right to freedom of contract and pursuit of happiness, is the same damn thing as these activists and lobbyist groups using the governmental powers and “Civil Rights” to impose their own personal views onto others. I probably will not convince most, however.

But to conclude, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected groups covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will secure for the hurt feelings industry and the homosexuality promoters a new government-police-enforced power to shut people up, those who object to perverse lifestyles and don’t want to associate with people who practice them. And it will stifle critics of the phony transgender cult. The activists are really getting to the masses via media and the government schools, with political correctness, censoring those who question the absurd, and stifling the non-compliant traditionalists.

More News and Commentary

William Grigg explains how the State’s “Justice” system cultivates predators.

Stephen Halbrook says that yes, Nazis disarming Jews did make a difference.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin asks, Just who are the real terrorists?

Peter Schiff discusses the death of his father, government tax-hostage Irwin Schiff.

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams discuss Irwin Schiff and the IRS.

Thomas DiLorenzo on the new cultural Marxism and the infantilization of college students.

Milo Yiannopoulos says, Male students: do not go to “consent” classes.

Robert Wenzel discusses the truth about Paul Ryan.

Philip Giraldi asks, Did foreign governments blackmail Denny Hastert?

Richard Ebeling discusses individualism versus sacrificial collectivism.

Mark Nestmann explains how to protect yourself from the Border Big Brother.

Laurence Vance on COLAs and the true nature of Social Security.

Sheldon Richman asks, Is instability the goal of U.S. government Mideast policy?

John Kiriakou discusses the sad fate of America’s whistleblowers.

Michael Maloof on the long war turning U.S. Special Operations Forces troops into “gleeful murderers.”

Jacob Hornberger says that JFK saves us from a nuclear holocaust.

Justin Raimondo on unlearned lessons of the Cuban missile crisis.

Joseph Stromberg has some comments on the inherent criminality of air power.

John Whitehead asks, How do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

Mitchell Shaw on the linkage between psychiatric drugs and violent crime.

Ben Swann gives a reality check on Obama’s perpetual war in seven countries.

Paul Craig Roberts on the presstitutes at their work.

Peter St. Onge says that economist Robert Shiller is shilling for socialism.

Julian Adorney says that employment is nothing like slavery.

Ryan McMaken on the mistake of only comparing U.S. murder rates to “developed” countries.

Gareth Porter says that Obama won’t admit the real targets of Russian airstrikes.

Ran HaCohen discusses what Israel is up to in Jerusalem.

And Andrew Syrios has reflections on Venezuela’s “economic miracle.”

Americans – A Bunch of Pothead Nudniks?

It appears that marijuana smoking rates in the U.S. have jumped dramatically over the past ten years, and also that marijuana smoking has surpassed regular cigarette smoking among high school seniors.

Hmmm, could this explain the large crowds at Bernie Sanders rallies? And Donald Trump rallies as well. There used to be a phrase, “useful idiots,” but perhaps we can say, “intoxicated and delirious idiots”? After all, there is that linkage between marijuana and lowered IQ. I know, I know, I shouldn’t go there because there are so many people who like their pot, their little high, their escape from painful realities of life, etc., etc., etc. And I guess those high school students are worried about their health, or perhaps want to avoid developing lung cancer, so they choose marijuana rather than tobacco cigarettes, despite an equal chance of getting lung cancer with marijuana (or testicular cancer for that matter). On the other hand, there are some studies which show that marijuana can effectively treat some cancers. (I guess you’re at your own risk when it comes to foolish things like getting high all the time. Oh, well.)

But the point is now that a lot of people just like to get high. And they’re doing it during working hours, it seems obvious to me. Have you noticed that the quality of various consumer products has gone down the toilet in recent years? For example, the laundromat has these relatively new washers, those Maytag “high efficiency” machines. They suck. They are not “high efficiency,” because they really are water-saving machines. They don’t use enough water, so as a result the clothes don’t get washed or rinsed thoroughly enough! Who the hell is thinking up these things? People high on pot, that’s who! The producers think they are “saving energy,” when no, they are wasting energy by causing you to have to re-wash everything! And have you been on the phone with any customer service representatives lately? I don’t mean the foreign language-speaking ones, the English-speaking ones. They speak English, but they don’t understand what the hell you are asking them, because they are high on drugs! And the answers to your problems they give have nothing to do with what you called about. Because they are more concerned with smoking their little joints than anything else. And why are a lot of material goods we buy, like CD players or radios, falling apart so soon? Because the laborers who are actually assembling them are busy getting high on their lunch breaks than actually having lunch, and not paying attention to what they’re doing! And the software developers — I don’t know how many problems I’ve had with updates, from browser software update to operating system updates. And you can see on various forums that I’m not alone. A lot of commenters saying how the Apple or Micro$oft developers are off the ball, not paying attention to what they’re doing. I wonder why.

A Clarification of Socialism and Fascism

My recent essays discussing socialism and fascism in the context of today’s politicians, candidates and those who worship them, seem to be annoying to some. I am not an expert in economics, but at least I have an overall understanding of things. While I realize that socialism and fascism, and capitalism and communism, etc., have various definitions that economists like to use, to me there is not much difference among those systems.

Socialism includes “public ownership of the means of production,” which to me really means government ownership of the means of production. This “public” ownership stuff is just a myth as Butler Shaffer noted, a facade, a rhetorical device to lure the unsuspecting sheeple to their enslavement. In socialism whole industries are owned and run by the government. But the “means of production” include not just the industries themselves and their capital and assets, but the labor of the people required to run them and actually produce the goods or provide services. In other words, one very important means of production is the people! When the government owns the means of production, then the workers themselves are included. (I’m sure Bernie Sanders never really thinks about those things, philosophically or morally.)

In fascism, the means of production are supposedly privately owned, but control over these industries and property is usurped by the government. That includes any regulations imposed by the bureaucrats. Fascism traditionally also includes cronyism or corporatism, collusions between the industries’ “private” owners and the government bureaucrats to favor the elites and established firms at the expense of locking out the unestablished or those firms at the bottom.

However, once you lose control over your own property, and “your” business and its operations, then you are not really the actual owner. Because ownership requires control, in my view. Therefore, as I have stated, there is not much difference between socialism and fascism. We currently live in a “mixed economy,” a mix of socialism and fascism, and NOT a mix of capitalism and socialism. In America we just haven’t allowed for actual free-market capitalism. So maybe I should just give up in my attempts to point out that Bernie Sanders et al. are as much fascists as they are socialists, and that Donald Trump et al. are as much socialists as they are fascists. And no, Donald Trump is not a “capitalist,” because if he were he would advocate against any government interferences in the people’s handling of their own economic matters, their trades among themselves or with foreigners. And he would advocate the dismantling of just about every government agency that exists especially the IRS criminal racket, and he certainly would be totally against eminent domain!

If you look at history, the times in which the standard of living was raised for the most in society, which lifted the most people out of poverty and to prosperity, those were the times of the most human freedom in society. Those times correlated with the smallest of government intrusions into the lives of the people. Freedom, private property, free association and non-association, and free exchange. Voluntary trade and voluntary associations. Those times did not allow the criminal governmentally-imposed coercion or intrusions of today’s fascism/socialism.

Doctors Over-Prescribing Painkillers Need to Be Exposed and Shamed

In response to the opioid addiction “epidemic” in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker doesn’t seem to get it, as his Mr. Bureaucrat ideas are to propose involuntary commitment, or incarceration is a better term, into a hospital for addicts, and to impose a Nanny Bloomberg-ish one-size-fits-all 72-hour supply of painkillers that doctors would be “allowed” to prescribe to patients. While that is not the right solution, obviously, at least he’s attempting to recognize a major contributor to the heroin crisis: doctors giving patients strong, addictive painkillers like candy.

Rather than his fascist attempts at solving this crisis, perhaps Gov. Baker could use his office as a bully pulpit to suggest the exposing of doctors who are giving those painkillers to patients too much, and to too many patients, particularly patients who really don’t need those kinds of drugs. I can see if someone has a dreadful disease and is in excruciating pain and might need something very powerful to help with the pain. But many times, that is not the case. Someone who has just had a tooth pulled or otherwise dental surgery, or has had an injury, probably does not need an addictive painkiller. There are many other cases in which people have pain but can take something like aspirin or tylenol for it. In the old days, most people dealt with pain under those kinds of circumstances. You know what I mean, oldsters out there? You just dealt with it. But in today’s society of intolerance of any discomfort — emotional or physical — Big Pharma comes to the rescue to dampen the pain — physical or emotional. Amerika has been wussified, for sure.

So, instead of his fascist orders, perhaps Gov. Charlie Baker can suggest to doctors to stop giving out prescription drugs like candy. Those doctors are causing people to become addicted who can no longer afford the prescription after the insurance runs out, etc., and they turn to heroin to satisfy their addictions. My own experience with “doctors” is they pray to Big Pharma, and it’s take this drug, take that drug. I think our society has become so subservient to doctors, this worshiping of the medical establishment, people are afraid to criticize them when they screw people up. Doctors really ought to stop giving out these painkillers that are getting people addicted and then turning to heroin and ruining their lives.

Socialist Donald Trump Calls Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”

Public discourse in America has become confused and muddied, and political discussions now consist of emotionalistic dogma and Orwellian newspeak, in which people known as”conservatives” are actually socialists in their policies, and people known as “liberals” are actually fascists.

But once again we have the astute Laurence Vance exposing the hypocrisy, inconsistency and outright socialist policies of today’s conservatives and Republicans, in his essay on Ben Carson: Welfare/Warfare Statist. Dr. Vance doesn’t use the word “socialist,” but he might as well. The Republicans and the Democrats are really all one statist Party, with policies consisting of a combination of socialism and fascism, in my view. But the Republicans are really all the same. Except for Ron Paul, of course, who was the only Republican in recent decades to actually advocate freedom, private property, and actual free-market capitalism.

Even Donald Trump is not a capitalist, in the true sense of the word. And he has a lot of nerve calling Bernie Sanders and others of Bernie’s ilk “socialists,” when he himself, The Donald, is not only a socialist, but a real socialist’s socialist! And Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, is really a fascist in his support for draconian police-state regulations of privately-owned companies. (But if Sanders wants full government ownership of all property and the means of production, which might really be his ultimate goal, then he is a communist. And if that really is the case, then here is my advice: Don’t hold your breath, Bernie. But I digress.)

In many ways, both Trump and Sanders are both socialists and fascists. In the end, there is not very much difference between socialism and fascism, in my view. And sadly, there are readers, particularly those who like Sanders or who like Trump, who just don’t want to hear a clarified, reasoned and accurate description of these politicians. But I will give it, whether you like it or not.

The immigration issue seems to be Donald Trump’s main attraction for the emotion-driven nationalists. He thoroughly supports the federal government’s control over immigration. People don’t seem to realize that the entire scheme of federal governmental control over immigration is a socialist scheme, one of central planning. As Jacob Hornberger points out, the problems we have now related to immigration are because of such a central planning system. Hornberger also points out that such a scheme is far from one which respects free markets.

But there are a lot of people who just don’t think about the actual bureaucratic apparatus controlling the immigration matters of foreigners, and they assume that because this is the system they have always known all their lives, that that’s the way it’s always been. When no, it hasn’t always been that way — there used to be immigration freedom in America. What screwed everything up was the federal government’s seizing of control over just about everything, immigration, medical care, retirement planning, charity, and education, since especially the Woodrow Wilson and FDR Progressives came to power. America became a welfare state long ago, and that also is what is involved in the dysfunction of immigration.

Besides the havoc that central planning causes, the immigration problem is another example of how immoral socialism is. Trump wants to build a very big wall all around the border, and that’s not a private business building a wall around its own private property. The Donald Trump Southern Border Wall would be a government wall, which is as thoroughly socialist as you can get. It certainly isn’t capitalist. Are you kidding me?

I’m sure the ditto-heads out there won’t like hearing this, even though it is the truth and it is accurate, economically speaking. But the capitalist approach to immigration would be the same approach as the capitalist approach to charity, retirement, and medical care: freedom. And I’m talking about free-market capitalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, not State-capitalism or cronyism.

Free-market, laissez-faire capitalism is a system that has never actually been realized in the United States of America. It would be a society of freedom, in which the individual has the freedom to make use of his own body, labor, property, wealth and capital as he sees fit. And that applies to all individuals, not just “American citizens,” because all human beings are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, I tend to lose a lot of conservative sheeple readers who don’t want to believe that such natural rights apply to foreigners.

So, in contrast to the socialist government wall that Donald Trump supports, with snipers ready to shoot “uninvited invaders,” and in contrast to the immigration socialist governmental apparatus of central planners in Washington and their enforcers, the real capitalist approach to immigration would be to respect all individuals’ right to freedom of movement and freedom of travel and their right to migrate and sell their labor to whomever is a willing buyer, as long as they don’t trespass on private property or aggress against others.

Note how I used the phrase “private property,” which is something Donald Trump does not believe in, especially in his support for, and making use of, eminent domain! Eminent domain is really the government stealing private property from its rightful owners, whether it’s for “public use” or to redistribute it to other private interests, such as Donald Trump.

To be a real capitalist, you really have to support the idea of private property, and private property rights! A civilized society requires the respect for the individual’s right of ownership of his own body and labor and one’s honestly-acquired property. When we say it is wrong or immoral to steal, we must say that all instances of theft are immoral. There should be no exceptions to that. It is just as immoral for the government to steal the fruits of one’s labor as it is to steal one’s property, whether it’s material property or real estate. It is just as immoral to interfere in contracts between or among individuals, including labor contracts.

Now, if the anti-immigration crowd doesn’t like that some immigrants are coming into America to get government welfare redistributed from the slave-theft-taxes stolen from Americans, then get rid of that immoral slave-theft-tax system and the whole evil system that such a slave-theft-tax makes possible, the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state!

And by the way, another aspect of the socialist, central planning in immigration is the police state. The government wall, the “papers, please,” the government border patrol (at the expense of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as well), the travel restrictions, TSA, that’s all a part of the police state, which is a scheme of socialism. What, did you think the police state is what capitalists dream up? Sorry, capitalists exercise what are known as “2nd Amendment”-protected rights, capitalists hire private property security firms, and capitalist businesspeople have private walls and fences protecting their private property. Socialists think and act with a totally different mindset.

And socialists are also fascists, with their regulatory police state. All those government regulations of privately-owned industries, private property, and any government mandate, order, demand for information of anyone’s private personal or economic life — that’s all from fascism, because while the intrusions are criminally invasive, the bureaucrats still “allow” for the private ownership (at least on paper) of property and businesses. You are just a slave, that’s all. After all, who is the bureaucrat to demand that the individual disclose any aspect of personal, private information, whether it’s from one’s home or from one’s business? That is a presumption-of-guilt policy, in which you are presumed guilty (of whatever) and must give bureaucrat your personal information, income, business matters, personal life matters, or else. That’s all a part of fascism. And that is why I say that Bernie Sanders is a fascist, because he supports all these governmental regulations of everything in society, do this, do that, don’t do this, don’t do that, give us this much money whether you like it or not. Why? Because we said so!

In contrast, in socialism the government owns the industries and the means of production. I know, we hear “public ownership of the means of production,” but in reality, it’s government ownership. This “public” stuff is just a facade, to cover up the reality that non-productive bureaucrat-parasites just want to steal people’s wealth and property.

These are good reasons why we can accurately say that Donald Trump is a socialist. Another example, by the way, is his call for raising taxes on “the rich,” even though it is still theft. If he is not a socialist, he will call for the end of government theft of private wealth and capital, close down the IRS, close down the entire welfare-redistribution apparatus in Washington, and close down all the agencies in Washington that benefit from the theft of the enslaved people’s wealth and income. And a true capitalist businessman would hire the best individual for whatever job is available, no matter where the individual is from, because that is what would best serve the consumers. A true capitalist would not put up a socialist government wall or arrest, detain or deport a prospective employee.

Obama’s Reckless Drone-Murder Program

Alex Newman comments on not just the existence of Obama’s drone-murder program but the reckless nature of it. Newman’s article is in response to Jeremy Scahill’s recent report on the leaked revelations of just how expansive and extreme Obama’s mass murder program is. It is a thoroughly criminal operation, targeting innocents, reclassifying them as this or that to justify the killings.

Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams of the Institute for Peace and Prosperity discuss these matters in this video.

More News and Commentary

Ilana Mercer on burn-the-wealth Bernie and his partial enslavement system.

Jeff Deist says that Sanders and his followers are not outliers.

Thomas Sowell comments on the “gun control” farce.

Laurence Vance asks, Do you own your body?

Patrick Cockburn writes about Syrian Christians terrified of ISIS.

Sonia Nazario discusses the refugees fleeing Central American violence.

Jacob Hornberger asks, How can anyone still be an interventionist?

Karen De Coster is not afraid to say what’s on her mind regarding LGBT.

Dan Sanchez says, Make America good again.

David Gordon discusses Charles Murray’s tepid radicalism.

James Petras on Putin and the Press: The Demonology School of Journalism.

WND with an article on a new California law requiring faith-based women’s health clinics to refer patients to abortionists.

William Grigg on the State’s blessed punitive priesthood.

Justin Raimondo asks, Is Hillary Clinton above the law? Bernie Sanders seems to think so.

Tenth Amendment Center with an article on jury nullification.

Breitbart with an article on Paul Ryan’s support for Obama’s trade agenda.

Raven Clabough discusses the “scientific” findings of Obama’s mind-control social and behavioral science team.

Anthony Wile interviews Richard Ebeling on monetary central planning and the State.

Frank Furedi writes about breathing life back into libertarianism.

Andrew Napolitano asks, Why is Hillary Clinton so unhappy?

Gary North on political fools and their money.

Philip Giraldi writes about the “A” word that terrifies Washington.

Robert Wenzel discusses Ben Bernanke’s visit to San Francisco to lie about gold.

Jeremy Scahill discusses the assassination complex.

Andrew Syrios shows what “progressive” corporate welfare looks like.

Charles Burris has more on what the Anti-Federalists were for, including linking to this article by Gary Galles.

And Jeremy Hammond on measles and vaccines.

Like the GOP Hooligans, Democrats Also Lacking of a Moral Conscience

You know, there used to be a time when liberals in America had a moral conscience, or at least spoke with a moral conscience. For example, the Vietnam War caused massive protests among the young people, mainly because there was a military draft. “Liberals” generally opposed the war. The fascist centralized Regime in Washington cracked down on protests, including J. Edgar Hoover’s illegal spying and persecution of the protesters. Daniel Ellsberg revealed in the Pentagon Papers that U.S. government and military bureaucrats knew early on that the war was not winnable yet they kept sending young Americans to their deaths, PTSD, or disabilities. The bureaucrats were clearly criminals, and all Ellsberg had done was inform the American people on the criminality and deception of their “leaders.”

But things have changed, as today’s “liberals” now defend the U.S. Regime’s crimes and they criticize the whistleblowers. Last night’s debate among the Democrat candidates for U.S. President was a good example of that, in regards to their comments on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

However, I have reservations regarding Edward Snowden, given his admission that his activities were beyond merely as an employee of a private contractor for NSA on behalf of its criminal spying on Americans, but also included being a CIA asset overseas as well as working for the NSA directly.

But unlike Bradley Manning who released troves of documents to WikiLeaks, Snowden was very select, relying on journalists’ own judgments to determine what they believed the American people should know and what they shouldn’t know. In that linked post, I brought up Arthur Silber’s distinguishing between the Bradley Manning-WikiLeaks releases and the Edward Snowden NSA revelations. Silber wrote,

WikiLeaks provided masses of “raw data”: the original documents themselves, whether they be battle reports, inter- or intra-agency communications, or documents of many other kinds, sometimes with redactions, often complete. And WikiLeaks offered them with no filters whatsoever: no one was going to hold our hand as we read the documents, telling us what was “important” and what wasn’t, and what its significance was, or whether it was significant at all. If we wished to understand the documents and what they revealed, all of us had to do the work ourselves.

If we want to make sense of the Afghanistan documents, we have to do the work … we have to be “intelligence analysts” ourselves. This is what I’ve identified as a crucial part of Wikileaks’ genuinely revolutionary approach: it transfers the demanding work — understanding the material in the first instance, and then making those judgments we think justified — to each and every one of us. Many people don’t want the responsibility. Their greatest preference is to defer to authority, to obey.

Silber then went on to refer to Snowden and Glenn Greenwald’s careful revelations versus their selective concealment of information they believed could be “harmful” or that the American people should not know. Subsequently, Silber wrote about a “disturbing similarity between the justifications for concealment employed by Snowden’s chosen journalists and the State’s justifications for keeping massive amounts of information from the public. In both cases, the ‘authorities’ rely on factors and standards that are never specifically defined, on the basis of which they engage in some kind of unexplained ‘weighing’ process, all to decide whether to reveal or conceal the information in question.”

This is part of how modern journalism and the Press have become a part of the State, rather than the adversarial truth-seekers and exposers of State criminality that the Press should be obligated to be.

In last night’s Democrat debate, when asked about Edward Snowden, Hillary Clinton said that Snowden “broke the laws of the United States,” and that he “stole very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands.” She also said that she doesn’t regret voting for the unconstitutional Patriot Act, despite how it empowers rogue government agents to spy on, harass, search without warrants, and arrest and detain innocent people based on the agents’ subjective reasons without requiring any evidence against the accused.

“Stole very important information”? Stolen from whom? The government? Now, I know there are a lot of people who are indoctrinated to believe that the State has a right of ownership of information, call it “classified,” whatever. But, given that the entire national security apparatus has been illegitimate especially after World War II and even more especially since the end of the Cold War, then all information regarding the government’s activities should be a matter of public domain. All of it. That was more or less Bradley Manning’s attitude on his releasing of information detailing the State’s and U.S. military’s criminality. Manning also said that he wanted the American people to know the truth, “because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” (I know, a lot of naive people out there believe otherwise. They want to believe that their government bureaucrats are keeping secrets from them, and keeping secrets on them, to protect them. It’s for their own good. But the hard truth is, it’s just another scam, a racket.)

Hillary Clinton also said that Snowden “broke the laws of the United States.” But there are thousands and thousands of laws on the books that are unjust laws, and morally there should be no objection to disobeying them. There are so-called national security-related laws which are not to protect national security but to protect government officials from accountability and from justice. Those are laws on the books to protect criminals, just as the Patriot Act enables and empowers government agents to act criminally against innocents. The whole system is an Orwellian Twilight Zone, quite frankly.

In an appearance on Meet the Press, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, regarding civil disobedience, “I think we all have a moral obligation to obey just laws. On the other hand, I think we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. I think the distinction here is that when one breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly, he must do it cheerfully, he must do it lovingly. He must do it civilly, not uncivilly. And he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty. And any man that breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law, is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law.” King had previous written similar views in his famous 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (.pdf).

It is amazing how Orwellian-minded, authoritarian and deferential to the State so many people are now in America, and that they actually support charging Edward Snowden with espionage or with the Espionage Act of 1917 (not 1517?), as though he was acting on behalf of foreign elements, when his stated motives were to inform the American people. That law is in fact what Bradley Manning was convicted of in his kangaroo trial, despite the fact that, even more genuinely than Snowden, Manning’s motives were clearly on behalf of the American people.

I don’t expect any of the Democrats to support Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, as the Democrats are not that much different  from the Republicans in their lacking a moral conscience. These Democrats on display last night clearly side with the State, when there is any conflict between the State and the people ruled by that criminal enterprise.

We saw that the Democrats and “antiwar” activists on the Left who spoke out in opposition to George W. Bush’s wars of aggression against Afghanistan and especially Iraq, became very silent when Democrat Barack Obama took over as President and continued the warmongering, the bombing and murder of innocent civilians overseas, the domestic civil liberties violations, the spying on Americans, and so on. Democrats are no different from Republicans when it comes to merging themselves with the almighty State. They are just as lacking as Republicans in moral conscience.

What? Republicans don’t have a moral conscience? Of course not! In 1991 the elder President George H.W. Bush started a war of aggression against Iraq, which included bombing civilian water and sewage treatment centers, causing the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, skyrocketing rates of disease and infant mortality. And Bush and the next President Bill Clinton imposed sanctions to prevent rebuilding of that civilian infrastructure and prevent medical supplies from being imported. Now, how could anyone with an actual moral conscience participate in or approve of those criminal acts against an entire population of people, or even against a small number of people, or even against one individual? Only sick sadists and psychopaths would commit such criminal acts!

But one of the few politicians who actually does have a moral conscience is Ron Paul. He called for clemency for Edward Snowden, and has said that Bradley Manning is a patriot and a hero for risking his life to inform the American people on the crimes being committed by their government, and that Manning should be released from jail immediately.

This goes with Ron Paul’s general emphasis that laws should reflect a moral conscience. He has said that he would pardon all non-violent offenders being held involuntarily in the jails and prisons, and mainly referring to the drug laws.

If someone merely possesses some drug, or is consuming something, throwing him in jail is moral? In my view, it is the lawmaker, the administrator and enforcer of such unjust laws who are the criminals! They are jailing innocent people who have not harmed anyone, and that’s criminal! And this goes well beyond drugs. There are thousands and thousands of laws, federal, state and local, on the books that are continuing to be enforced that have nothing to do with the protection of life, liberty and property. Those laws are in fact being used to violate life, liberty, and property.

And all the illicit acts being committed by the NSA that Snowden revealed have nothing to do with protecting our national security. They are merely acts of criminality, and Constitutionally speaking, they are treasonous as well. Those criminals and traitors are the ones who should be in jail, and not pardoned, and those who expose them are the true patriots!

It would be good to have a President with an actual moral conscience who would pardon anyone who is accused or convicted of any unjust law, in which that innocent individual’s life is being criminally violated by the government. I don’t expect any Democrat or Republican politician — certainly not any of the ones running for President — to even understand what I’m talking about, let alone agree with it.