Skip to content

Month: January 2016

Did Trump Make a Freudian Slip?

Toward the end of Sean Hannity’s radio interview of Donald Trump yesterday, during the 5-5:30 (ET) segment, Hannity asked Trump whether he wanted to go after Hillary or Bernie, Hannity saying, “You were kind of joking that you’d rather go up against Bernie,” and Trump responded, “Well I would like to go up against either, I want to beat the Republicans, I don’t mind Hillary …” and so on. So, obviously he’s not referring to Republicans in the primary. Could it have been just an honest mistake? Or did Trump make an apparently Freudian slip with his saying, “Republicans” rather than “Democrats,” because he probably does want (the Democrats) to beat the Republicans. Could this be further evidence that Trump is a straw and on behalf of the Democrats and maybe more specifically Hillary? So with the Bernie zombies cheering on Bernie, we have all those nationalistic and conservative useful idiots sheeple cheering on Donald Trump. With them it’s all emotional, all that nationalistic propaganda Trump is using to manipulate their collectivist anger. And they might very well be aiding and abetting the election of Hillary. This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh’s 2008 “Operation Chaos,” in which he ordered his dittohead followers to go into Democrat primaries to vote against Hillary, suggesting they vote for Obama, and look what happened.

A little after 11:00 in the video (which may be yanked, and if so, I’m sure you can get the Hannity radio podcast) Trump says he wants to beat the Republicans.

On the Irrationality of the Conservative Talk Radio Crowd

I’ve been a news and talk radio listener for years, from conservative talk to NPR and the BBC. NPR mainly reflects the views of the Left, with some of the talk shows refusing to include guests with a non-statist point of view. For instance, while they sometimes do have conservatives, they are statist conservatives such as the ones coming from the Heritage and other Washington “think tanks.” No libertarians or otherwise people challenging the establishment statist quo, such as a Ron Paul, Tom Woods or Lew Rockwell, so it seems.

But I’m writing this now to express my continuing disappointment in the so-called conservatives and their uninformed (but well-meaning) listeners and all the conservative-statist guests they sometimes have on. Once again these people have high hopes that some new political candidate will get in the Presidency and things will be better. That is because they are either terribly ignorant of the past or they do know the history but nevertheless maintain their denial and rationalization for a system that can never be “reformed” and they keep on trying anyway.

Their hero Ronald Reagan expanded the size and power of the federal government and raised taxes after the famous “Reagan tax cuts” and signed the first trillion-dollar budget with a lot of pork. Their faux conservative hero should have thrown that budget back at Congress and told them, “Cut out the damn pork!” at the very least. And yes, shut down the government!

FedGov continued to expand after the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” and more after the 2000 election and throughout the 2000s with a Republican President and Republican Congress. The 2010 sweeping in of Tea Party conservatives did nothing for liberty, and the 2014 elections of even more of them did nothing as well.

So their cognitive dissonance and denial is just amazing now. It’s like no matter how intelligent these people are, they never learn. However, I really enjoy hearing them disagree with each other, such as the current Presidential candidates tearing each other apart. And on talk radio, some of the talkers such as Dennis Prager and Steve Deace sound like they HATE Donald Trump, but some of the others such as Jeff Kuhner and Michael Savage sound like they LOVE The Donald. Yech.

Steve Deace endorsed the vicious collectivist warmonger Ted Cruz, yet nevertheless continues to speak of morality, and so on. So, when collectivist Ted Cruz wants to order the “carpet bombing” of whole territories which includes murdering innocent human beings including children, I guess that sure is someone to endorse when promoting “morality.” Yup. And Deace is also one of those who is obsessed with the marriage issue, as is Michael Savage. They want the State to continue to be empowered to “allow” heterosexual couples to marry under the State’s sanctified authority, and to disallow homosexuals to marry. That is one issue on which the conservatives truly worship secular government power, control and authority. The real solution is to get the State out of the picture entirely. Marriage and contracts are private matters.

Among the conservatives and nationalists’ many problems is their naive acceptance of an authoritarian collectivist system including a compulsory monopoly government (that is doomed to collapse at some point, because it violates important principles of liberty, such as the ideas of self-ownership and self-determination, non-aggression, and private property). Another major problem they have is their arrogant belief in “American Exceptionalism” which blinds them of the morality of the aforementioned principles. And they have a blind love of authority, especially uniformed, armed authority. What this means is they are not totally enthusiastic about the right of the people to defend themselves against aggression and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But they are enthusiastically supportive of the right of the government and its police and military to be armed and have artificial authority over the people whether all the people consent to that or not. That’s today’s conservatives, or most of them anyway: nationalists, collectivists, and authoritarians. And hypocrites where morality preaching, advocating “liberty” and “limited government” are concerned.

Some of the aforementioned conservative talk radio personalities like to refer to morality and “good vs. evil.” They often refer to murderers and abortion as typical conservatives do. However, they have cognitive dissonance, or they psychologically rationalize or just look the other way when it comes to the murders and murderers they tend to support, such as politicians who start wars of aggression. Because today’s conservatives are collectivists and nationalists — and “American Exceptionalists” — they tend to rationalize government murder as “collateral damage,” and so on. For example, President Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombings of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, killing over 100,000 innocent human beings, while with full knowledge that the Japanese were already surrendering. And this was after Truman and his predecessor FDR ordered the bombings of civilian centers in Tokyo killing another 100,000 innocents. “Well, we had to do what we had to do, to end the war,” and so on, they say. No, “we” didn’t have to murder innocent human beings.

It is evil to target innocent human beings, war or not. But the “Exceptionalists” continue to defend such evils of the past and present, including the Bush and Obama wars.

And currently Barack Obama’s CIA continues to murder innocents overseas in Pakistan, Yemen, and other areas with their remote-controlled drones, and all that does is provoke those foreigners to retaliate. And it isn’t “collateral damage,” as they are targeting the innocents, they target weddings and funerals, and they target the people who run out to help the ones who have been blown up by the CIA murder-bombs. The government-worshipers rationalize immoral atrocities committed by their rulers.

And history really is important, you know. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush ordered the war of aggression against Iraq. This included the bombing and destruction of civilian water and sewage treatment facilities, which caused the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, which led to high rates of disease and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people mostly children, by the year 2000. And it was intentional, by the way, as reported by even the mainstream media then, according to James Bovard. One Air Force strategist noted in a 1995 Airpower Journal article that “A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm…. [Destruction] of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage treatment plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate.” According to Bovard, the strategist “concluded that the U.S. Air Force has a ‘vested interest in attacking dual-use targets’ that undermine ‘civilian morale’.”

Hmm, let’s target civilian water supplies to deliberately sicken and kill them and hope they will get rid of their leader that we don’t like. That’s not psychopathic and sadistic, but civilized, and moral.

So, elder Bush started a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, bombed civilian infrastructure and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, leading up to 9/11. His invasions and intrusions, deaths and destruction also included setting up U.S. military bases in areas that were considered sensitive to Muslims who didn’t like such occupations (in addition to the pre-9/11 destruction of Iraq).

And it isn’t just the Presidents, their Secretaries of Defense (sic) and State, and their military bureaucrats who have been committing all the atrocities by ordering them, but as Laurence Vance has pointed out, those more directly responsible for the murders and destruction have been the soldiers, the bombardiers, and so on, who actually carried out the physical acts of destruction and murder they committed. And that is a good explanation for all the military suicides: guilty consciences. Despite the military’s brainwashing soldiers to suppress their moral conscience, which apparently conservatives are good at, the soldiers who have murdered innocent human beings know that what they have done is very wrong and immoral and that they have acted criminally and out of evil and not out of good. It is difficult or impossible for the conservative American Exceptionalist warvangelicals to acknowledge all that, because to do so might lead them to acknowledge that the U.S. government’s wars of aggression and mass murders overseas have been immoral and have gone against what America was supposed to stand for.

But conservatives and perhaps most Americans, indoctrinated with heavy doses of propaganda day after day by the mainstream media, “support the troops.” Of course, had a foreign government and military invaded and bombed the hell out of New York City’s or Detroit’s water system and electrical supply, that’s different because we’re America, say the “Exceptionalists,” but those are Iraqis, after all (i.e. sub-human). God forbid the conservatives should actually believe in the Golden Rule. And their view of patriotism is: Support our government, right or wrong. Support immorality.

And then 9/11 happened in response to the U.S. military’s occupations, invasions and bombings. The propagandists said it was for other reasons. And because conservatives don’t believe in personal responsibility, or acknowledging that actions have consequences, it was better that their Left-influenced impatient and short-sighted mentality not consider the ten years previous to 9/11 and the criminal actions of their own government. And after 9/11, rather than withdrawing criminally invasive and trespassing U.S. forces from those overseas areas that are not U.S. territories, George W. Bush the Junior Bush started new wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which had anything to do with 9/11, and increased the bombings, the murders and destruction, and provocations overseas. Many propagandized and gullible people actually believe that Iraq started the war, and that those foreigners began the aggressions. They really believe those things!

So, it would be better if conservatives weren’t so irrational, because if they could drop the syrupy emotionalism, the flag-waving “Exceptionalism” stuff and their nationalistic collectivism then maybe they can progress a little bit. Speaking of “progressing,” the “progressives” — at least most of them, anyway — are beyond help, in my view.

Another thing with most conservatives is their blind defense of government police. The local government police is definitely one big example of socialism that conservatives approve of, and love with all their hearts. Yes, a compulsorily government-monopolized function is an example of “socialism,” which is what government police is, as is the national security state that conservatives love. Until President Obama or President Hillary sics the police or military on those dissenting politically incorrect conservatives, that is. In that case, they will not like the government police or military so much.

And I agree with the talk radio crowd in their criticism of Black Lives Matter or any groups or individuals who call for or commit acts of violence against government police. If an officer is just there, sitting in his cruiser munching on the donuts and hasn’t harmed anyone, then you leave him alone. Just as any decent person should do with anyone else. However, when government police act criminally against innocents, then I don’t hear conservatives speaking out against such injustices, such immoral acts of criminality. And yes it is happening all the time, criminal cops bullying, brutalizing, assaulting, and murdering innocent human beings. As I mentioned in a recent post, just read articles by William Grigg, Radley Balko, Glenn Greenwald, and the CATO police misconduct blog, to get an idea of what’s going on.

As I stated, it’s wrong to shoot or otherwise harm innocent people, including government police who are just there minding their own business and not bothering anyone. I try not to think like a collectivist, as most conservatives (and most people really) tend to do. But what if government police officers are beating up on innocent people, or otherwise directly threatening their lives, do the people have a right to defend themselves? If police break into the wrong house or apartment, as they often do, or into your home and you know you’ve done nothing wrong, do you have a right to shoot the invaders to protect yourselves and your families? I would guess that most conservatives will defer to the government police, probably even if they were the unfortunate targets.

Obedience to authority is the conservatives’ thing, just as with the Left. Not absolute moral law, which includes the right to defend yourself against aggression.

And that authoritarianism is what connects the conservatives, nationalists and collectivists to Islam, believe it or not. The word “Islam” translates to “submit,” as in submit your independence, your self-rule, your spirit, your freedom, your will, to Islamic or Islamic government authority or to Muhammad, or Allah. And the conservatives also strongly believe in submission to authority, such as government bureaucrats, government police, and government military. They might object to such a characterization, and say that they believe in the family and that children must submit to parental authority, and that they believe in church or Christianity and that you must submit to Jesus’s authority, but not to the government. But their droolingly blind support for government police and military that we see on a daily basis proves otherwise.

One more thing is the conservatives approval of government taxation of the people. Well if you want to live in our society you have to pay taxes, after all. And that means involuntarily in the absence of a voluntary contract.

Sorry. Taxation is robbery. It is the government (that only a particular percentage of the people approve of and consent to, anyway) ordering you to fork over your earnings, your wealth, or they will throw you in a cage. No different from a robber, a gangster. So taxation is criminal, and is imposed by a criminal enterprise. But like the statists on the Left, the conservatives approve of this way of life, thus showing that they have no idea what true morality is all about.

And also, without involuntary taxation, none of the unconstitutional, immoral and criminal government programs, schemes, and wars would take place, because no one in his right mind would voluntarily participate in funding them.

So I’ll keep on masochistically listening to conservative talk radio along with NPR and BBC, and the conservative talkers will keep on living in their little fantasy worlds, pretending that the current democratic system of compulsory government monopoly can ever be “reformed,” if we can only get the “right people” in office. Maybe I have some hope that some of them will eventually realize that compulsory monopoly government is inherently flawed and inherently criminal. But I think that’s unrealistic on my part. It is probably also unrealistic to hope that they will ever drop their arrogant “Exceptionalism” and their love of uniformed armed authority.

Perhaps miracles can happen.

More News and Commentary

Classic article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe on a four-step health-care solution.

Ron Paul says that when advocating liberty, purism is practical.

Jacob Hornberger has some comments on the Presidential election.

Justin Raimondo on what the Oregon standoff is really about.

Jay Syrmopoulos explains how federal Special Ops may be infiltrating Oregon occupation to act as provocateurs.

Gary Chartier says, Free the Hammonds.

Jon Rappoport describes how we were once free.

Becky Akers on the TSA’s pedophilia and the sheeple who allow it.

Jim Davies explains why Black Lives Matter matters.

Jane Orient on politically correct hospitals firing politically incorrect doctors.

John Whitehead says that in the government’s war against the people, it is best to resist becoming violent ourselves.

Niall Bradley says that Libya is under almost complete control of ISIS.

Philip Giraldi explains why the U.S. government spies on Israel.

Glenn Greenwald on spying on Congress and Israel, NSA cheerleaders become NSA critics when they are spied upon.

Robert Wenzel clarifies fractional reserve banking.

Richard Ebeling says that the government must stop printing phony money.

William Grigg provides some historical perspective on the Oregon Bundy occupation.

Andrew Napolitano on the Constitution, Obama and guns.

Laurence Vance on Bibles, hotels, Christians, and atheists.

Thomas Knapp comments on Gary Johnson’s suggesting a law to ban burqas.

Mark Perry says that acceptance rates at U.S. medical schools indicate racial preferences for black and Hispanic applicants.

Roger Stone and Robert Morrow say that the Clintons are criminals.

Jerusalem Post with an article on Israelis who chose Vladimir Putin as their Person of the Year for 2015.

TJ Martinell on a bill in Indiana to introduce separation of marriage and State.

And Kelley Vlahos on 20 years of Antiwar.com: an enduring domain for peace.

The Oregon Militia Fiasco Highlights Socialism’s Land Grabs

This militia “occupation” of federal building(s) and possible conflict with the gubmint in Oregon seems to be on the one hand totally unlike the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges, and on the other hand it could be a false flag situation with provocateurs as it seems to be suspiciously coinciding with Obama’s declaring new executive diktat gun control restrictions on the people. I will reserve judgment until further developments occur.

There was an informative article on WND on the feds’ “ownership” of lands out in the western U.S. and how “latté sippers have no clue how the ranching economy works.” (I think the latté sippers have no clue how anything works, quite frankly.) And there is an older article at the Tenth Amendment Center blog on whether federal land ownership is constitutional. The TAC blog article seems to indicate that the current federal ownership and controls over those lands is blatantly unconstitutional.

Even the militiamen occupation of a federal building isn’t an act of “invasion” or trespassing, in my view, given that the feds’ themselves are keeping such buildings and implementing duties (not authorized by the U.S. Constitution!) with all such behaviors being funded involuntarily by the people — and thus it is the feds who are the real “occupiers” and trespassers here.

But the response to this situation especially from the people on the left is showing those “progressives” true colors. They are the ones who are calling for violence on the militia types, referring to them as “terrorists,” despite the militiamen having been peaceful (so far). Even a liberal Boston Globe columnist recognizes this and calls them out on it, with a headline, “Liberals take the low road in Oregon standoff.”

Justin Raimondo responds to the progressive Twitterverse and notes that they seem ready to applaud the government’s doing another Waco against the “militants” in Oregon. He even compares the feds’ conquering of western U.S. lands and a possible Waco event as a part of the imperialist nature of what the U.S. government has become, comparing those acts of expansionism with the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq.

The Left consists of “liberals” and progressives who do not believe in private property, freedom of association, individualism, free markets, and self ownership. They do not believe in the Golden Rule. It is they who see nothing wrong with using armed goons to force their ways onto others, to realize their covetous desires and take stuff from others, including land. And it is those progressives whose wacky environmentalism policies cause utter destruction such as the fires out west. They covet those western lands, they destroy those western lands.

And the people on the left are also characterized with a collectivist mentality. Those are the people who start wars, and they come up with the phoniest excuses and propaganda for their wars that the masses eat up, hook, line, and sinker. This is another reason why I say the George Bushes of the world are not “conservative” and they don’t believe in private property rights or free markets. The elder Bush started a war of aggression against Iraq in 1991, intentionally bombed civilian water and sewage treatment centers, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and then his son did the same thing in 2003 after he started a first war of aggression against Afghanistan in 2001.

I know, a lot of “conservatives” prefer to believe the official propaganda explaining those conflicts, and they don’t want to believe that the Bushes are really leftists and socialists. But some people are guided by cognitive dissonance, by emotion, and by fear. Just look at all the “conservatives” who cheer on Donald Trump, yeah that guy who wants nationalized health care and single payer and who wallows in the thoroughly covetous and socialist thievery of eminent domain. Whatever. Today’s conservatives are just as much collectivists as the Left and do not support genuine private property rights and free markets, as they support socialism in the biggest of ways: Social Security and Medicare which are nothing but redistribution of wealth schemes (and they are “going” bankrupt as well). And the “conservatives” love their central planning bureaucrats’ national security socialism (.pdf) and control over the immigration matters of millions. In fact, Republicans love their own socialist gun control as well.

But this older WND article explains how the feds’ conquest and thievery of lands is part of the overall road to socialism, which is where we have been in Amerika for over a century now. There is something about the nature of the government bureaucrat that is different from the rest of us. And George W. Bush and his father are of the same socialist fabric as the current President Obama and his successor, dictator Hillary. They are generally covetous people, they see nothing wrong with taking from others by force, they see nothing wrong with using armed force to impose their ways onto others. That is the nature of the typical bureaucrat. And ALL the current Presidential candidates are of that same cloth, regardless of their pleasing manipulative rhetoric.

But because they know that openly stealing from others is generally frowned upon, at least in the so-called “Judeo-Christian” West, they act out their covetous tendencies through the back door. Such as the feds’ land grabs in America for two centuries, and their invading oil-rich countries. Another example, Ted Turner owns two million acres of land, much of it in Montana. There are conspiracy theories as to what he intends to do with all that land. But he says he wants to save the bison, buffalo and ferrets. However, according to this report, after Turner’s last child dies the entire millions of acres will be taken over by the Turner Foundation which is a charity to “preserve the environment.” (You see, the Left are concerned with the “environment,” but human lives and our freedom, not so much.)

I can see why the ranchers, militiamen, “patriots” and their cohorts are so concerned that Obama wants to steal more land, which includes imposing controls over lands either leased privately or owned by private owners. People are concerned that the openly Maoist and Marxist agitators in the White House want to use the powers of the federal government to engage in conquest over all the rest of the land in the U.S. that is still under private “ownership.” And they are rightfully concerned about their means of self-defense being taken away, which is why gun sales in the U.S. broke previous records in 2015. The people are afraid that Obama and his minions will disarm them and make them vulnerable to criminals, especially if there might be an economic collapse much worse than in 2008, and we might see empty store shelves, and the EBT cards might stop working. I hope it doesn’t take such a catastrophe for the “conservatives” to finally drop their collectivist crap, their “American Exceptionalism,” their blind faith in government bureaucracy, and their love for socialism and central planning.

How Will the Obama Regime Respond to the “Militia Occupation” in Oregon?

Do you remember the March-April 2014 conflict between the federal Bureau of Land Management and Cliven Bundy the cattle rancher who was allegedly grazing his cattle on “public lands”? Well, it appears that members of the Bundy family are joining a citizen’s militia “occupation” of a National Wildlife headquarters building in Burns, Oregon, in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond who are ranchers convicted of arson because their controlled burning of some of their land spread to federally “owned” land.

However, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers clarifies the differences between this issue and the Cliven Bundy issue. In the Bundy stand-off, which Oath Keepers joined, the feds were clearly the aggressors and were clearly threatening the Bundy’s home and family with snipers and all. And that is why Rhodes and Oath Keepers joined the situation to defend the Bundys. They were genuinely concerned that the Bundy situation could be another Waco-like fiasco.

There were military trained sniper teams, Special Forces veteran “contractors” and video footage of BLM agents tazing Ammon Bundy, sicking attack dogs on him, and throwing his elderly aunt to the ground.  The Feds also set up their absurd and disgusting “First Amendment Areas” and tried to confine protesters to them, and arrested one of the Bundy sons for being outside of the taped off designated protest area.

All indicators were that the Bundy’s were at risk of being killed in a Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident.   And that is why we went(along with many other groups and individuals), after the Bundy family directly asked for help.  And because the whole Bundy family, and many of their cowboy friends and neighbors were willing to take a hard stand, with the support of veterans and patriots, they prevailed, the Feds blinked, and backed off.

In contrast, the Hammonds have made it clear that they intend to voluntarily surrender themselves to the feds and do not want Oath Keepers and others to “help” them. As Stewart Rhodes states, you can’t help someone who doesn’t want your help.

It sounds to me like the militia “helpers” who are going to Oregon to “protest” are looking for trouble with the feds. I hope not, of course. Perhaps they do not know that the Hammonds themselves don’t want any help and are voluntarily turning themselves in to serve their (albeit unjust) prison sentences.

Rhodes makes it clear that provoking the feds is a bad idea. It is never a good idea to pick a fight with them, or to resist when it is clearly not in your own interest to do so. In clear violation of the early Americans’ belief that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms (and not the right of the government to bear arms), today federal, state and local governments in police state Amerika are heavily armed and dangerous and overwhelmingly overpower any citizens’ militia group.

To illustrate his point in advising citizens to avoid provoking government goons, Stewart Rhodes brings up the early moments of the American Revolution.

Even after General Gage was appointed Royal Governor over Massachusetts, and placed Boston under martial law (and suspended all town hall meetings throughout the Massachusetts colony) the patriots still did not fire upon the King’s troops.  Instead, they formed militia and minuteman companies in each town and county, they stored up ammunition, food, medicine, etc for the coming resistance, and they organized and prepared an effective resistance movement at the town and county level, which included both pubic militia and underground “Sons of Liberty” cells.

And they let the Crown piss off all of the other citizens of Massachusetts with the egregious ban on town hall meetings, which the people ignored and intentionally violated while daring Gage to try to stop them from meeting, and because they had formed into well organize militia, that numbered in the tens of thousands, Gage knew he was powerless to stop those town hall meetings, as he made clear in his written request for more troops.

The patriots did not fire on the King’s troops until General Gage ordered his men to march on Lexington and Concord to seize Hancock and Adams, and to confiscate guns, cannon, powder, and food supplies.   In other words, the patriot leadership had the discipline and wisdom to maneuver Gage into attempting  wholesale gun confiscation.  And that was the spark that fully justified armed resistance in they eyes of the greatest number of Americans at the time.

By doing so, they retained the moral high ground, while also engaging the King’s troops out in patriot dominated territory, where they were strong, well organized, and vastly outnumbered the Red Coats, and thus they kicked their ass all the way back to Boston.

However, today’s U.S. federal government is many times more empowered and armed than the British rulers were over the colonists. Today’s federal regime imposes many more draconian and irrational rules, intrusions, tax-thefts, mandates and prohibitions on Americans now far worse than the early Americans had to deal with. And all those rules, intrusions, tax-thefts, mandates and prohibitions are being enforced by the True Believers and minions of government power and largess. Such imprisonment and enslavement of the people could not be possible now were it not for the federal income tax which is a method of involuntary funding of the regime. Such a criminal racket could not be funded voluntarily. Another reason to abolish that income tax and the criminal IRS which enforces it.

But in regards to the even worse “stand-off” than what Cliven Bundy and his family endured in 2014, the 1993 Waco disaster was a siege by the feds against private civilians very much under the direction of someone who may very well be the next President: Hillary Clinton. James Bovard compiled some of his columns on the Clintons’ mass murders at Waco here and more here. While 76 people were murdered by the government, the survivors who weren’t murdered were put on a show trial for murdering government officials, all found innocent of that. And some were convicted of “illegal weapons” charges. Another reason to get rid of the BATF, and prohibit government bureaucrats from infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The feds like to go after the people’s not obeying the feds’ strict rules on firearms. They do that to reassure the people that the “right” to keep and bear arms really isn’t a “right,” but a government-granted privilege. The Waco siege really was a case of psychopathic government bureaucrats and enforcers needing to exploit a situation to reinforce their “authority” over the people. And the way the Obama-Hillarys of the world (you know, the Maoists, Marxists, etc.) will assert their authority is by forcibly disarming the people so they are unable to resist the rulers’ criminality and tyranny.

Stewart Rhodes connects the Cliven Bundy and current Oregon cases with the Obama gun-grabbers.

All of you who are impatient and itching for a fight, put your thinking caps on, and use your heads… Obama, and the other anti-gun idiot politicians, such as the Governor of CT, will not be able to resist the temptation to attempt to violate our right to bear arms by executive decree, such as barring anyone put on no-fly list and other “government watch lists” from owning guns – which would include me, by the way, as I am on an “Aviation Security” watch list, and get a special “SSSS” designation every time I fly…

Clearly, their intent is to eventually put all of you “dangerous” veterans, patriots, and constitutionalists on such watch lists, designate you as someone who is barred from owning guns, and then use that to disarm you, one at a time.   And they actually think we will just roll over and let them do that.

The idiotic CT Governor, Malloy, is paving the fast track to the next American Civil War/Revolution with his plan to sign an executive order precluding “those on government watch lists” from purchasing or owning firearms.  See this, and this.   He is actually planning on confiscating the guns of anyone who lives in Connecticut who the Feds put on one of their many watch lists.

Who can be on those lists?  Anyone, and everyone.  What is the criteria for being put on such a list?  Who knows?   What due process is there?  None.  And Malloy thinks the gun owners of Connecticut, who have already refused to comply with his prior edicts on guns, will just comply and be disarmed.  What a delusional fool!   He is poking a hornet’s nest while smiling for the cameras.

Regarding the cases of federally “owned” lands that are involved in these conflicts, the people of Utah have the right idea: order the feds to give that land back that feds illegitimately occupy, or the states will have to take the land back. What further needs to be done is abolishing each and every unconstitutional federal agency, such as “Bureau of Land Management,” anything having to do with “wildlife,” the BATF, EPA, and so on. They consist of extremely evil bureaucrat criminals (but I repeat myself), and that’s not what America was supposed to be about.