Skip to content

Month: October 2016

Time to Catch Up on Many Bookmarked Items

I have had a whole bunch of items bookmarked covering maybe the past few months now that I just haven’t gotten to yet. So I am trying to catch up on things.

On Reason, an article about Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee Bill Weld overtly telling people to vote against Donald Trump, i.e. implying that people should vote for Hillary. It’s bad enough that the LP has nominated a non-libertarian as its Presidential nominee, but not only is the Vice-Presidential nominee a non-libertarian but is urging voters to vote for candidates other than the LP ticket. How fitting that the Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party has the name Wes “Benedict.” Can the Party commissars use some sort of formal rules to disqualify Bill Weld and replace him? I know, it’s only a week before the election. Too bad the convention attendees decided against principle and nominated these two goofball degenerates. The LP’s Political Director is still Carla Howell. I would support her candidacy for President or Vice President, given her experience in Massachusetts with the tax-cutting ballot initiatives and her candidacy for governor in 2002.

More links, I’ve put them into sections by various categories:

Lew Rockwell’s speech on the truth about war. Laurence Vance asks, Is the U.S. military the Lord’s army? and discusses what exactly makes a qualified soldier for the military. Wendy McElroy writes about war as the antithesis to libertarianism. Karen Greenberg writes about what actually keeps Americans safe: liberty.

28 Pages shows John Kerry collaborating with Saudis to “fix” the 9/11 lawsuit bill. And Glenn Greenwald says that the U.S. and U.K. bureaucrats continue to actively participate in Saudi war crimes, targeting civilians. And Greenwald asks, Why did the Saudi regime and other gulf tyrannies donate millions to the Clinton Foundation? Jacob Hornberger addresses Hillary Clinton’s abuse of women. Yes, Hillary’s abuse of women. In Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and more. And Becky Akers says that Hillary is such a nasty Marxist.

Thomas DiLorenzo writes about the ecological poison of democratic socialism, and the alternative to Presidential politics.

Lawrence Reed has these comments about socialism. Donald Boudreaux provides the elemental case for free trade. Louis Rouanet provides the case for unilateral free trade. Laurence Vance asks, Will tariffs make America great again? and says that free trade is fair trade. Robert Wenzel writes about Donald Trump’s horrific view of “globalism” and trade, and comments on Kenneth Rogoff’s call for ending cash.

Scientific American with an article on Big Pharma’s manufactured, misdiagnosed ADHD epidemic. Bill Sardi has a special report on flu vaccine propaganda. Michael Accad, MD on the pharma-fed doctor.

Glenn Greenwald analyzes the hypocrisy of the Washington Post.

During my lunch break, I listened to part of a rebroadcast of Meet the Press on Bloomberg Radio in the kitchen. My, that Todd Chuck sure does interrupt people he’s interviewing, such as in today’s interview of Mike Pence. You know, when you ask someone a question, it is kind of polite to let him actually answer it, and not interrupt him after he utters just three words. Does Todd Chuck only interrupt Republicans? Anyway, back to my links.

Why do “conservatives” love Sheriff David Clarke so much? William Grigg shows why they perhaps should not. James Bovard says that the TSA treats Americans like Gitmo detainees. Judge Andrew Napolitano says that Due Process is vital to freedom.

A rape victim asserts that the transgender agenda creates “rape culture.”

This morning I saw an article on Breitbart on the “gay thought police” (or censorship, intimidation or “bullying”) being imposed by supposedly gay people against other gay people just for expressing their point of view on some issue. The writer refers to “bullying” mainly on the Internet, on YouTube or other websites comments sections. But as I see it, in the cases in which explicit, direct death threats occur, the moderators of YouTube or website comments sections can trace an IP address if someone wants to make a formal complaint or press criminal charges (unless someone is spoofing an IP address, then it’s more difficult). It’s a crime, as far as I know, to threaten someone’s life. But, mainly the intolerance toward others of differing points of view in the “LGBT community” is really just a part of many people in society with a growing general intolerance toward different points of view.

The College Fix with an article on professors telling students to drop the class if they dispute man-made climate change. Lenore Skenazy on a high school senior who is being forced to have a psychological evaluation for making an anti-gun control video for a class project.

Robert P. Murphy has this scorecard of Gary Johnson’s interview with Chris Wallace.

Walter Block, of all people, endorses government police “stop and frisk” of innocent people not suspected of anything. That is on the Target Liberty blog, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. , and Part 4 (I think). It’s a debate between Walter Block and Michael Edelstein. Listen, in my view, as long as it’s “public property,” and the policing is monopolized by the government without the consent of the people, then of course all the people have a right to presumption of innocence and a right to be left alone, unless and until the government police goon thugs have a specific reason to suspect someone of some specific crime against someone else. So, Dr. Block is way off here.

The Idea of “America First”: How About FREEDOM First?

There has been quite a lot of talk regarding “America First,” and being associated with Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign in which he says he wants to “Make America Great Again.” Well, I am not really concerned about Making America Great, or “America First.” The concept of “America” is a collectivistic concept. Rather, I am more of a Freedom First kind of guy, and I think that freedom is more important than America.

I wish that more people would think in terms of Freedom, because most people are collectivists and statists, and, in my view, when people say “America First,” I think they inevitably point to Government First. Here are a few examples, starting with some ballot questions in this November’s election.

Massachusetts, for example, will have four questions on the ballot in November. How should a supporter of freedom vote? Hmmm. Here are the questions, according to Ballotpedia.

Question #1: “Expanding slot machine gaming. A ‘yes’ vote would allow a second slots parlor to exist in Massachusetts. The 2011 gambling law currently allows for up to three resort casinos and one slots parlor…” Partial summary: “This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines…”

How do you vote on this question if you believe in freedom? You don’t. There shouldn’t even be a state Gambling Commission! While a “Yes” vote *allows* another slot parlor, who the hell is the government to allow or forbid people from having a damn slot parlor? If it’s your private property, you have a right to have on it whatever you want. Regarding taxes, if it’s a business (such as a gambling casino) as with any other commercial enterprise, 3rd parties (such as bureaucrats) have no moral authority to demand a take from your profits. (However, given that Gov. Charlie Half-Baker opposes the question, that might be a good reason to vote “Yes,” even if a “Yes” vote contributes to the expansion of further bureaucracy and tax-thefts. But I still wouldn’t recommend it.)

Question #2: “Charter school expansion. The question, if approved, would let state education officials approve up to 12 new charter schools a year.”

A “No” vote retains the current cap on the number of charter schools to 120 (there are 78 charter schools running presently).

The problem with charter schools is that they are still under the control and curricula of the state’s government school system, just like regular public schools. The charter schools must comply with regulations imposed by ignorant bureaucrats.

The bureaucracy is unaccountable, unlike private schools which are accountable to consumers. (The idea that a bureaucracy is “accountable to taxpayers” is quite laughable. The government takes your money in taxes whether you agree to it or not, and the bureaucrats do with the funds what they want.) As Colorado teacher Candace Allen wrote in her 1995 report card on charter schools, “Charter schools will temporarily cast the appearance of consumer choice, but it must be remembered that they are publicly financed, which guarantees burdensome regulation. This prevents market feedback, including reward for entrepreneurial achievement, or failure and loss for unworkable ideas and poor management.”

What we need in America is education freedom, or separation of education and State, as Jacob Hornberger suggested.

What we need is total education freedom. No mandates, no regulations, no licensure or certification, no confiscatory taxation to fund a self-serving education bureaucracy. And as Richard Ebeling points out, with a free market in education, political correctness would also take a hike.

So, I guess if I were voting in Massachusetts I also would not vote on Question #2, because the real question is, Should government have any control over your kids education? And the answer, obviously, is “No” on that.

Even private schools are under the control of government diktats. I think that homeschooling is the best alternative for parents who want their kids to have a good education. Sadly, many parents today are themselves ignorant and lacking in good cognitive skills and critical thinking. (Thanks to government-controlled schooling, alas.)

Question #3: “Conditions for farm animals. This question, if approved, would phase out what advocates say are “extreme” methods of farm animal confinement.”

Ballotpedia notes: “If approved, this law would prohibit breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens from being held in confined spaces. Question 3 defines confined as meaning that which ‘prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.’ This law would also apply to business owners who knowingly sell pork, veal, or eggs from animals held in this way, even if the source is outside of Massachusetts.”

My vote? “No”! Let farmers raise their chickens and cows as they see fit. There are already laws against “animal cruelty.” (Whether such laws are valid or not is for a different discussion.) As a consumer, I don’t want the prices of my eggs and chicken to go up any more than they already have. Perhaps activists might consider encouraging farmers to voluntarily have their animals living in “better” conditions? Is “voluntary” that much a foreign concept to activists?

Question #4: “Legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana. If voters say “yes,” Massachusetts will join Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington state and District of Columbia in legalizing marijuana for recreational use.”

Laurence Vance has written about the drug war, drug prohibition, legalization and decriminalization in several articles, most recently here. And Vance has written about the moral case for drug freedom.

The reason why this proposal is bad is because it calls for taxing and regulating. Government has no moral authority to regulate businesses, regardless of what they have to sell to consumers. As Vance wrote in May,

The libertarian view of taxes is a simple one: taxation is government theft. It’s not that taxes should be fair, adequate, business-friendly, uniform, flat, broad, simple, efficient, apportioned equally, or low. The libertarian view is simply that taxes — income, sales, property, or excise — should not exist in the first place. And taxation is still government theft even when it takes the form of “sin taxes” on alcohol or tobacco — or marijuana. To say that taxation is not government theft is to say that the government is entitled to a portion of every American’s income.

It should also be pointed out that marijuana taxation is no panacea for budget deficits. Tax money raised from marijuana sales will not mean that taxes will be lowered on other items or that the overall tax burden will be lower. State legislators, along with members of the U.S. Congress, have an insatiable desire to spend money, other people’s money — the taxpayers’ money.

Vance considers the question of whether it is better that marijuana be legal and taxed rather than illegal and not taxed, and he states that “some liberty is better than no liberty and more liberty is better than less liberty.” However, I would still vote “No” on this question, in the same way that Ron Paul would vote against a bill he generally favors but contains an amendment he opposes. This ballot Question calls for a new regulatory authority for the state and new consumption taxes in addition to all the other bureaucracies and taxes being imposed on the people. Not good.

Eventually people are going to learn that prohibitions and regulations lead to a more oppressive police state which is what we already have now.

What we need to do is legalize everything. Everything except aggression, theft and fraud, that is. Unfortunately, those who want prohibitions in place of otherwise peaceful behaviors are endorsing exactly that — aggression, theft and fraud — being committed by government enforcers in their enforcement or regulations of such prohibitions or regulated choices of consumption.

So just in those ballot questions we see rearranging the deck chairs kinds of questions, in my view. People are not asking whether America should be freer, or should America continue to have more and more governmental controls, diktats and intrusions in the people’s lives. Those are the questions which need to be asked.

And just how can America be “First” in anything if we in America are not free?

For instance, while some of his proposals are good for freedom, Donald Trump in his recent Gettysburg speech made several promises that he would do if elected President, which threaten our freedom.

According to Breitbart, one proposal is:  “Direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.”

There should be no “U.S. Trade Representative” in the first place. Just let the consumers and producers have their freedom to buy and sell whatever they want, and with whomever they want to buy and sell anywhere in the world, as long as they don’t steal or defraud. That’s what the real free market is. No government controls, restrictions, mandates, prohibitions, and so on. Just let the people have their freedom. It’s not too much to ask, Donald (and Hillary).

Trump also proposed: “Work with Congress on a American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years.”

“Wrong,” as The Donald would say. A very good Mises article by Patrick Trombly notes that “there is no such thing as the Infrastructure Fairy that takes government spending and magically turns it into economic growth.” In my view, for “Shovel-Ready Jobs,” I think that the people are going to need a lot of shovels to handle all the “BS” being emitted from our politicians.

One way to “grow the economy,” a way that politicians never think of, is for the people to call for an end to their government’s stealing from them via taxation. That’ll do it, for sure.

Finally, as far as these bad anti-freedom Trump proposals are concerned, here’s another one: “Work with Congress on a Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.”

No, no, no, not a federalized law enforcement bureaucracy, please. Paul Bonneau addressed on Strike the Root just recently why the Rulers actually want high crime rates. The Rulers want crime to continue to justify their little bureaucratic fiefdoms, their power trips, and the taxes they plunder from us in the name of keeping us safe.

As mentioned above, end the drug war and let the people have their freedom. That will already effect in a reduction in crime among the civilian population. And restoring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, with NO restrictions, regulations, government databases, and so on (with the exception of banning nuclear weapons as pointed out by Murray Rothbard), will make the society much safer in general.

And besides ending the drug war, repeal the thousands and thousands of unjust laws and bureaucratic intrusions that give government bureaucrats the excuse to violate the lives, persons and property of the people. All my suggestions here will make the people free, and that is what matters.

So, as I noted, I am not particularly concerned with America being “First” but being Free. So, I am for Freedom First, and not so much America First.

Sadly, Early Cheating Has Started

Am I being too cynical? It’s actually called “Early Voting,” and it’s a fraud, a sham in my view, and a way to make it even easier for cheaters and voter fraudsters to do their cheating and frauding. A few days ago on one of the radio talk shows, a caller stated that she early voted. She had to place the paper into an envelope and seal it shut and put her name and address on the cover.

So, all those envelopes are going to remain in some box and in some area for the next two weeks? I hope that town and city officials have surveillance cameras on all those areas, and security guards as well. Or do the officials open the envelopes as they come in and then the officials record the votes somewhere immediately?

The whole thing smells, if you ask me. And there are already reports that voting machines have been hacked or pre-fixed to switch Trump and Clinton votes, like in Texas now. And Pennsylvania may have problems, too. (UPDATE: And see this.)

Should we really trust local officials to count the early votes accurately and honestly? We know there is a large element in society who doesn’t even want voters to be required to present IDs when they vote. Why? Some people say that such a requirement is “racist.” But you need an ID to cash a check at the bank, and so on. Many low income people don’t have a driver’s license or ID and can’t afford to get one (supposedly). The opponents of voter ID even reject offers to have the town or city subsidize the IDs for those people. Why do the anti-ID activists reject even that offer? I think we know the answer to that question.

We had a society in which the majority of the people were by and large honest, but it doesn’t seem that way now. The young people were taught right from wrong by their parents, who usually set an example. But the very system of democracy has enabled our society to elevate the worst of the worst to positions of power. Such a situation may have been largely ignored by the masses, but now the masses are fully aware of the corruption and criminality of the Rulers, but rather than the majority of the people wanting to bring those criminals to justice, the majority of the people adore the ruling political class. And they adore the lowlifes from “Reality TV” and so on who manipulate them as well. And the masses want a piece of the pie (stolen from others via taxation of course). That’s just what our society has become now, unfortunately.

A recent study showed how people become desensitized to dishonesty, over time. In our society, either many people themselves are dishonest and don’t see lying and corruption as a big deal, or they don’t mind others’ lying and dishonesty now (e.g. look at who they have chosen to rule over them: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump). The masses don’t mind the NSA spying on them, even though they are not suspects, they don’t mind TSA goons molesting and raping them at the airport, and they don’t mind their own government starting wars against other countries. Are these passive, obedient sheeple very dishonest, or are they just dumb?

Walter Williams has a column this week, “Dumb American Youth,” on the dishonesty of college administrators, who are admitting students to college who are not qualified. There are many graduates of high schools and colleges now who haven’t learned what they were supposed to have learned. For instance, according to Dr. Williams, a high percentage of students can’t identify states such as New York on the map, or foreign countries such as Iraq as well. You’d think that, given how much Iraq has been in the news for 25 years now, that even young people had seen various maps on the TV news or in news feeds, even if they haven’t seen that in their geography or social studies class in school. But no, they don’t pay attention to the news, apparently.

Dr. Williams points out that “the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won ‘American Idol’ than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.”

They don’t know how to use a ruler? They can’t understand a food label? What’s to understand about a damn food label? Is this a contributor to why there is so much obesity out there? People don’t know what the hell they’re doing as far as eating habits are concerned. And even if they become informed of better nutrition, it looks like they don’t actually comprehend the facts that they might hear or read.

So, what the hell are those teachers teaching these kids in the elementary schools and high schools now? They certainly aren’t teaching them how to read and understand what their reading, and how to think logically and critically.

More reasons why the federal Department of Education should never have been imposed on the people. The U.S. educational ranking has steadily declined from #1 down to the double digits now, and there’s a relationship there, in my view. WHY didn’t Ronald Reagan fulfill his promise to get rid of that bureaucracy?

And is there a linkage now between society’s lack of moral scruples, increasing acceptance of dishonest behavior and lack of intelligence or knowledge one usually acquires throughout life?

So the next generation are the ones who will be working on political campaigns, working at voting places and at voting registrar offices. At the local registrar’s office, will we be seeing, “Oh, this newly registered voter mistakenly checked Republican by his name, so I will correct it and make it Democrat”? At elections, will the poll workers be opening up ballots or reading off machines, “25 votes for Clinton, 3 for Trump,” when it really says, “25 votes for Trump, 3 for Clinton”? Are they doing that now? And if so, are they doing it with no clear understanding that they are lying and cheating? Or do they really believe that they are being “do-gooders,” because the other team is “bad”? Now, I’m not supporting Trump, but it is clear that most of the cheating and voter fraud comes from those promoting more and more government power and control (i.e. Democrats, although Republicans now are just Democrat-lite). And by the way, Donald Trump is in that category as well, as he is a central planning fantasizer like crazy, hardly a free-market capitalist or individualist, or a believer in “limited government.” Unfortunately, many of his supporters have been bamboozled into believing that Trump is a “capitalist,” and not the socialist that he is.

So given that “democracy is the god that failed,” people really need to consider non-voting as part of a better solution to society’s problems.

Some Talk Radio Gossip

During this very exciting and dramatic Presidential campaign, I have found myself listening to talk radio more than I was previously. During the 1980s talk radio was at its height. And then it declined throughout the ’90s (along with the rest of the society, alas). It seemed to have gotten a little more interesting since the 2000s, but mainly it’s conservative ranting with mostly conservative callers. There are some conservatives such as Mike Gallagher and Michael Medved who have good discussions with non-conservative callers.

During the ’80s, Jerry Williams was not only the top talk radio personality in Boston but his show was #1 in all of Boston radio, for years. On that station, WRKO, there were also David Brudnoy who later went to WBZ, Gene Burns, and Janet Jeghelian. My how WRKO has declined since then, with Howie Carr (Jerry Williams’s replacement in the afternoons) and Jeff Kuhner. The new morning show, however, with Kim and V.B., is pretty good.

Jerry Williams was an old-fashioned left-liberal who was very critical of Reagan during the first half of the ’80s, but became more of a “populist” during  the second half of the ’80s in his harsh criticism of a fellow left-liberal, then-Gov. Michael Dukakis. Jerry was critical of Dukakis’s mandatory-everything including the seat belt law, as well as the Dukakis state regime’s constant raising of taxes, fees and fines, and having state police troopers hiding behind every possible bush, behind every possible corner, to catch hapless motorists to collect even more loot for the state.

Jerry was someone who felt protective of the little guy, whether it was the an innocent civilian murdered by police in a brawl at a tavern, or the lower- or middle class worker who is being taxed to death by the state. Some people thought that he had become more “conservative” (whatever that means anymore) in later years, but no, he said he was still an old-fashioned union liberal. I really believe that if he were around today (he died in 2003 at age 79), Jerry Williams would see right through Donald Trump, the authoritarian police statist. Jerry was very critical of police in general, and was extremely anti-war as well. I doubt that he would support Hillary, though.

During his tenure on WRKO Jerry frequently had on his show tax-cutting guru Barbara Anderson, who died earlier this year. In this column from 3 years ago, Barbara expresses her similar disappointment in what talk radio has become, including her criticism of Jeff Kuhner. (Even Roger Ebert predicted the demise of talk radio as early as 1968, because of Jerry’s then station, Chicago’s WBBM, changing formats.)

Jeff Kuhner, by the way, is very supportive of and enthusiastic for Donald Trump, along with Howie Carr and Michael Savage. Their nationalism, anti-immigration views and other policy outrages are based solely on emotion and not rational thought, unfortunately. I can’t believe that Carr is still on at the same time after all these years (22 years), despite his medical issues and somewhat disturbed sense of humor. Kuhner and Carr don’t tend to yell too much, but Michael Savage sure does. (Can you imagine if Savage and Mark Levin were to co-host a show? It would be all yelling, all the time.)

With the decline of talk radio has been the decline of society, as I mentioned, and also the decline of critical thinking, the decline of challenging assumptions and the status quo, and the rise in authoritarianism and collectivism, as can be seen from the aforementioned Kuhner, Carr, and Savage. Popular now are “Reality TV,” “Dancing with the stars,” Twitter and Facebook and other State-controlled social media, and Faux News cable stuff. People are zombies now, on the Left and among the conservatives, too.

During those old days of talk radio, most of it was local, although there were a few national talk radio personalities before the Rush Limbaugh-Sean Hannity crowd came along, such as Larry King. Now much of talk radio is national, and most of those guys themselves are conservative Big Government nationalists (despite their “small government” rhetoric). Throughout the country, there is huge division now between the Democrat/left-liberal progressives and the conservatives, Republicans and religious types. Perhaps it’s because of a lack of localism and much of the media is national and centralized, I don’t know.

Laura Ingraham is now closely involved in the Trump campaign, supposedly. I haven’t heard her radio show in several years, thank God, because she hasn’t been on a station in this area for a while. But she was quite irritating, quite frankly. Apparently, she has some issues. Sean Hannity is similar to Ingraham, and he also is a shill for Trump (along with Kuhner, Carr and Savage).

And Hugh Hewitt is extremely annoying, and he’s even worse now first thing in the morning. Which is why I’ve been listening more to Kim and V.B. Ever since Hewitt said on his show back in 2006 that he donated $500 to Deval Patrick for Governor, just because Patrick was a college buddy of his, and despite Patrick’s being a far-left loony-tunes, I haven’t really taken Hewitt seriously. Hewitt is also a warmongering neocon with a B.A. in “Government” (Ouch!) who worked closely with Richard Nixon. What’s not to like there?

And Hewitt had recently called for Donald Trump to drop out of the Presidential race, just because of Trump’s perverted talk caught on tape, but NOT because Trump is an anti-free market crony socialist ignoramus who wants single payer nationalized health care and who opposes free trade and civil liberties. Oh, well.

Dennis Prager is also annoying because of his authoritarian preachiness and constantly pointing out that “the Left is destroying America,” even though plenty of people on “the right” have also participated in such destruction, such as the two Bush Presidents. And Reagan as well, as I noted recently. While Prager cries that the Never Trumpers are in denial of how “the Left will further destroy America under a President Hillary,” Prager and his ilk are also in denial of how Trump is just as much a leftist, a long-time Democrat and donor to Democrat hacks, of how the “New York values”-minded Trump supports transgender bathroom intrusions, and will probably sign whatever new LGBT “civil rights” legislation comes to his desk as President, if elected. In denial that Trump is equally bad and equally dangerous as Hillary Clinton.

And Michael Medved is one of those who encourages disagreements from callers, like Jerry Williams used to do. He certainly provides an interesting discussion, which is why I listen to him a lot more than Sean Hannity and Howie Carr. However, occasionally Medved doesn’t sound totally rational, such as during the 2007-08 Presidential campaign when he was discussing candidates with Hugh Hewitt, and they were chortling and giggling how the Republican nominee should be someone with “experience,” and what they were saying sounded like they were referring to John McCain. Yes, that John McCain. Yech.

And Medved’s personality occasionally becomes fingernails-against-the-chalkboard, you know what I mean? For instance, when the discussion is about taxation, such as the New York Times‘ recent article about Trump’s questionable tax filings (if any), the “conservative” Medved turns all egalitarian and goes off on this “everyone has to pay his fair share,” and so on. What I clearly hear from him there is the politics of envy, like a leftist. And I know I heard him talk that way at least twice now.

Another example of annoying, while I really like hearing Medved’s criticisms of Donald Trump, lately he has been nearly shilling for Hillary, to the point of dishonesty, in my view. Medved rarely yells, but just the other day, in fact (I think it was Thursday), he was yelling at Sharon from Louisville, with Medved saying that it was “sick” to suggest that Hillary Clinton should be “locked up.” Medved was grilling Sharon from Louisville, interrogating her on what exactly Hillary should be charged with, stating that FBI Director James Comey’s decisions were final. Ugh.

And several times now I have heard Medved say some particular thing, and a few days later when a caller points out that he said such and such, he denies it and says, “I did NOT say that,” and so on. And he’s done that at least a couple times now. So either he’s extremely forgetful, or just dishonest. In fact, during that 2007-08 campaign Medved smeared Ron Paul by saying that Dr. Paul had appeared on the Alex Jones Show, and after playing a tape of Jones ranting and sounding like a snarling and snorting madman, while Medved didn’t actually say that that was Ron Paul, it came very close to sounding like he was saying that was Ron Paul. It was extremely dishonest, in my view. I’ll bet that other people who were Ron Paul supporters also heard that, and that the Ron Paul campaign contacted Medved after that, because just days or a week later Dr. Paul was on Medved’s show, and I hadn’t heard him on that show prior to that.

But, I still listen to Medved because he does have interesting discussions, albeit annoying at times.

And Rush Limbaugh? I’m glad he is very tech savvy and discusses those things on his show. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if he is another one of those iPhone zombies who spends a lot of time with his little electronic gadgets. Well, at least he doesn’t need Viagra to play with his iPhone. (Or does he?)

But I do wish we could go back to earlier times, so I can hear Jerry Williams again, along with Gene Burns and David Brudnoy, of course.

Conservatives Should Support Marriage Freedom

It is unfortunate that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was ousted from his job for defying last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, he should have seriously considered the Alabama Senate’s vote to eliminate a licensing requirement for marriage altogether.

Should conservatives continue to support government controls such as licensing to promote a particular social agenda?

The truth is, when conservatives rely on the government for the purpose of social influences, they are relying on force, compulsion and coercion.

In contrast, a preferable way to promote one’s social or cultural customs is the voluntary way. Persuasion. For example, use the church, talk radio, public speeches, TV, and so forth as non-coercive ways to get the word out.

In the conservatives’ promotion of traditional marriage, they have attempted to use the legal force of government to impose restrictions on private property and private contracts as a means of banning same-sex marriage in society. The Defense of Marriage Act and California’s 2008 Proposition 8 are but two examples.

Now, I’m all for traditional marriage, but I think that the democratic process of using the powers of government to control these matters is now being exploited by activists on the other side to try to force acceptance of same-sex marriage by those who do not want to accept it.

Avoidable situations include, as I referred to just recently, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who was unnecessarily thrown in jail for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But if she didn’t want to perform all the duties her employer (Rowan County government) required, she could have just resigned.

Frankly, workers do not have a right to pick and choose what job tasks to do and what not to do, because they don’t own their jobs, the employers do. However, in this case, the employer is the government (or the public) and Davis’s job is an elective public office. Davis has an obligation by law to perform her duties as assigned. A private employer would have just fired her (or sued her for breach of contract).

But why have conservatives or traditionalists allowed government bureaucrats to usurp control over marriage, via licensing requirements, away from the people in the first place?

What moral authority do bureaucrats have to decide who may marry and who may not, or the terms of marriage contracts?

None. Marriage used to be a private matter until activists and the control freaks of progressivism decided to get involved. Because of the emergence of collectivism over the past century, just about every aspect of an individual’s life is everybody else’s business, so it seems now.

In my view, let the people decide for themselves to be married or not, and let those who want to establish a marriage contract do so, as long as no theft, fraud or coercion is involved.

After all, aren’t all human beings endowed by their creator, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It shouldn’t be up to a bureaucrat to decide just who is worthy of such rights, in marriage or any other aspect of life, any more than it should be up to a bureaucrat to decide how parents may educate their kids.

As with “civil rights” laws, conservative support of government controls of marriage and licensing has also been self-defeating.

And that governmental control over marriage, by the way, has also been an instrument for activists and their government cohorts to control private wealth and finances, via taxation, fees (more taxes, called “fees”), and so on.

All these are further reasons to restore private property rights in the people’s private contracts and earnings, their persons and property, their careers, their families and marriages, and the education of their children as well.

For Authoritarians, “Patriotism” Means Showing Loyalty to Corrupt Bureaucrats in Washington

I don’t want to seem redundant, but some important ideas need to be reiterated, especially when it’s hard to get through to some people who are conditioned all their lives with so much cognitive dissonance. So I wanted to get this out there. I’ll be doing a post on talk radio shortly, but these issues here take precedence.

As I wrote in a recent post, many Americans are collectivistic in their support of U.S. government atrocities such as Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq and so on. While one problem is their collectivism, another problem is their gullibility in believing the propagandistic crap that government bureaucrats spoon-feed them, as repeated word for word by the bureaucrats’ lapdog apparatchiks in the mainstream media.

In a related post, Michael Rozeff asserts that many Americans don’t like the idea of defeat. He writes, “Americans will not look history in the face because it means accepting American defeat. They will fight on and on in war after war or support their government’s fights because they want to turn defeats into victories.”

As I see it, the cognitive dissonance includes many Americans’ inability to understand the cause and effect of our government’s starting wars, invading other countries, murdering innocents, and the blowback against us that such terrible central planning policies cause.

But a lot of people are very authoritarian-minded, and they don’t like it when others question the authority and judgment of their rulers. We heard the reactions of talk radio people and others to Colin Kaepernick not standing for the National Anthem, and to Gary Johnson seeing a moral equivalence between the U.S. military bombing, murdering innocent civilians and the Syrian regime bombing and murdering innocent civilians (or ISIS murdering innocent civilians, quite frankly).

Of course there is moral equivalence between any individual or group who kills an innocent human being. If you believe otherwise, then you believe in moral relativism. Yes, it’s that simple. So, one ought not believe those who say that “we had to drop an atom bomb on a city of innocent civilians to save the lives of U.S. soldiers,” as such people are engaged in rationalization. They are rationalizing the murders of innocent human beings. They are relativists.

But some people are offended and personally insulted by the idea of anyone questioning their rulers’ judgments, including the judgments of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, there are sheeple who get on their knees for the military (and government police), because of being conditioned to unthinkingly and unquestioningly idolize and worship authority, especially the armed authority of the government rulers.

And there are plenty of regime apparatchiks in the government who have authority themselves but use it to give official approval of government criminality. Some of the worst of these regime apparatchiks are the judges. Such judges include the notorious contortionist U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who bent over backwards twice now to rubber-stamp ObamaCare, and plenty of judges who have rubber-stamped the FBI, local police and other “authorities” who have violated the rights and lives of innocent people.

Another example: When testifying before Congress FBI Director James Comey listed one item after another as to why Hillary Clinton should be indicted for her email server recklessness, but he concluded in Orwellian fashion by saying that he doesn’t recommend that she be indicted. In fact, FBI agents are now calling him a corrupt buffoon and saying that he obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. Comey, in fact, has a long relationship with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Crony Comey, you might say.

Another regime judge, FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, rubber-stamped CIA secrecy in its drone-murder program. In a 2011 ruling, she wrote, according to Politico:

At first blush, there is force to Plaintiffs’ argument that a ‘targeted-killing program is not an intelligence program’ in the most strict and traditional sense …  [But:] The Court has no reason to second-guess the CIA as to which programs that may or may not be of interest implicate the gathering of intelligence.

And then in 2014, Judge Collyer threw out a lawsuit against Obama’s drone-murder program, writing that such a lawsuit “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning deliberation.”

In other words, just as we shouldn’t “second-guess the CIA,” we also shouldn’t second-guess the military. Isn’t the point of having three branches of government so that we can, or must, second-guess the government, including its military? But, as Jacob Hornberger pointed out yesterday, the U.S. military runs things, not the President. Therefore the judicial deference to the unquestionable judgment of the military or the CIA.

But God forbid we should second-guess the CIA, given how just about everyone in the CIA and FBI is “corrupt,” according to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou. He was the one who exposed the CIA torture program. And for that the CIA and FBI persecuted and jailed him, and not the torturers themselves. (Hmm, did Hugh Hewitt ever interview John Kiriakou? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.)

The truth is, the torture was initially to justify George W. Bush’s planned 2003 Iraq War, not to protect us from terrorism.

You see, many authoritarians believe what bureaucrats tell them about “national security” and that the detainees at Guantanamo are “terrorists,” even though no evidence has been shown against the detainees and they certainly haven’t been convicted of anything. The authoritarians who worship at the alter of government authority are scoffing and snickering at my noting that here. They know those detainees are “terrorists,” because the rulers said so.

And God forbid we should second-guess the U.S. military. Those bureaucrats are beyond reproach. Like during the Vietnam War, when the military bureaucrats of the Pentacon knew as early as 1967 that the war would be unwinnable, yet they proceeded to send U.S. troops to their deaths for no good reason anyway — for ego, for power, and for financial enrichment. Even after the Pentagon Papers were published and the American people knew how treasonously the Johnson and Nixon administrations were acting in their sending people off to their deaths for no good reason, the sheeple believed in their government anyway, and they still didn’t want to second-guess the military.

Even now there are Americans who still defend the U.S. government’s actions in Vietnam in the 1960s and ’70s, either because they are ignorant, indoctrinated with misinformation and propaganda, and/or they just obediently believe what bureaucrats tell them. They don’t like it when such a policy is criticized! Especially when you point out that young Americans were sent to their deaths for no good reason. We must sweep the truth under the rug. For some people, the thought of their own government acting treasonously and criminally in such an extensive and murderous way is unthinkable.

And then there was Iraq from 1990 and continuing. We shouldn’t have second-guessed George H.W. Bush’s judgment in starting a war against Iraq back then. We shouldn’t have second-guessed his son’s starting a new war on Iraq 12 years later. In Bush the Younger’s war, the U.S. military involved itself in chemical atrocities, and as they invaded and occupied Iraq (and not the other way around), besides shooting at and bombing and murdering innocents, their criminality also involved going house to house to search for and confiscate firearms from the Iraqi people.

Can you imagine a foreign regime invading here and doing that to the people of Texas or Pennsylvania? I’m sure the moral relativists say that it’s okay for our military to violate foreigners’ right to keep and bear arms, but we certainly can’t allow it the other way around.

The right to keep and bear arms is part of the general right of human beings to self-defense. Such a right is an inherent human right that preexists the formation of any government, and that right applies to all human beings, in America, Iraq, or wherever.

But, we shouldn’t question the judgment of our high and mighty military or whichever commander-in-chief happens to be in charge, according to the obedient authoritarians.

We certainly shouldn’t question the judgment of the military when its bureaucrats impose gun-free zones on U.S. bases, which have enabled lunatics like Nidal Hassoon to shoot up the people there who have been disarmed and can’t shoot back. Nope. Don’t second-guess those brilliant bureaucrats.

And we shouldn’t question the judgment of the Navy bureaucrats who will require all sailors to get transgender education. And the Pentacon will now cover transgender sex-reassignment surgery for all active duty troops. Yay! (Did Klinger on M*A*S*H ever think of this?) And these bureaucrats, whose judgment we should always trust and never question, have come out with their new sex change handbook.

As Laurence Vance writes, “You will be paying for all this nonsense. What red-blooded American man would want to join today’s military? What Christian would want to join?”

Well, I’m sure the authoritarians who love and worship the military will try very hard to look the other way regarding those things.

The Invasion of Private Property Rights by the Progressives’ ‘Civil Rights’ Laws

A new transgender protection law just went into effect in Massachusetts, and already a question will appear on the 2018 ballot to repeal it.

And four churches are preparing a lawsuit against Attorney General Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Additionally, there have been many same-sex couples who have sued bakers who didn’t want to bake a cake for the couple’s wedding, photographers who didn’t want to photograph it, and florists who didn’t want to provide flowers.

Some lawsuits claim to involve hurt feelings, but given the huge number of illicit lawsuits and threats against those who have a moral conscience and act defiantly against the activists, one can very well make the case that the activists have been intentionally using the laws and courts to push the homosexual agenda beyond just acceptance or preventing discrimination.

The Orwellian Massachusetts law will apply to places of religious worship, and, according to Conservative Review, the law states that “’all entities subject to the law’ are encouraged to ‘use names, pronouns, and gender-related terms’ that coincide with a person’s imagined gender, and ‘prohibit derogatory comments or jokes about transgender persons from employees, clients, vendors, and any others, and promptly investigate and discipline persons who engage in discriminatory conduct’.”

So this is what conservatives’ own acceptance of progressive “civil rights” laws has come to.

The bottom line is that conservatives need to return to a principled support for private property and private property rights, and freedom of association and freedom of non-association. And this requires a direct and explicit call for a change in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent legislation to only address government-run functions and public property, and to exempt all private property from such laws.

Unfortunately many people are afraid to speak out against certain invasive and immoral laws for fear of being labeled “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and so on. And now decent people are afraid of being sued.

While a church has more to do with voluntary charity and usually isn’t a for-profit business, it is nevertheless private property. Churches are not publicly owned, they are not government-owned.

That means that all individuals involved, the ministers and workers, the church-goers, and so on, have freedom of speech as guided by their own prayers, thoughts, consciences and conversations, and under the authority of the proprietors or owners of that church, NOT the authority of any government agency, legislator or bureaucrat.

Regarding the business side of “public accommodations,” the progressives and statists for a century have been treating private business as not-truly privately owned, but as publicly-owned or even government-owned mainly out of the very negative emotions of envy and covetousness. The “civil rights” laws have merely been extensions of New Deal and Great Society usurpations and takings, in my view.

Morally, if you own a business that you built from your own labor and capital, or that you acquired from your own wealth or inherited, then that business is not any less private property just because the business is a commercial enterprise and involves profits.

Within such principles, the individual owns one’s own life, person and labor, and justly acquired property, and has a right to make use of one’s person and property as one sees fit, as long as one is peaceful. And that’s the moral way for a society to be.

So in the examples of LGBT activists suing bakers and other businesspeople, the choice is this: Either the baker owns his own business and has the ultimate right to decide on and control all aspects of the business, including what customers he will serve or not serve by his own choice; or a couple may use the force of government and the law to compel the baker to serve them.

Those are the two choices. And it doesn’t matter what reasons the baker has for refusal, by the way. As Laurence Vance pointed out, if the law is to punish someone’s reasons for refusing to associate or do business with others, then we are talking about thought crimes here. Not good.

And the principle involved is not so much “religious liberty,” but private property rights and freedom of association. An atheist baker has the same right to refuse service to a Christian couple, if the atheist baker opposes Christianity. That is because his business is privately owned and he is the ultimate owner.

People don’t have the right to force others to associate with or do extra labor to serve them, period.

A related issue involved Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. There was absolutely no good reason for her to be thrown in jail for her refusal.

However, if Davis were a private businessperson or service provider, such as a minister or priest working in a church, she would have every right in the world to pick and choose which couples to marry or not, and for any reason. That’s not exactly what the “civil rights” laws say, but many laws on the books are unjust laws — laws which force involuntary associations on people and which violate an individual’s sense of moral scruples as well as private property rights.

In other words, individual ministers, rabbis, priests or marriage officiants should have the freedom to discriminate which people to marry or not to marry, and for any reason.

“Civil rights” laws and other governmental intrusions have been used by the progressives to force acceptance of what many people view as unacceptable, by law. So conservative support of such laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been quite self-defeating.

While one purpose of civil rights laws is to force involuntary associations and acceptance of unacceptable lifestyles, another motivation of the progressives has been to punish successful entrepreneurs via monetary losses through the courts. This motivation of envy, covetousness and hatred of the profit motive runs deep within the soul of most progressives. (Most?) Perhaps I mean within the being of progressives because one wonders whether many of them are deficient of an actual soul.

The progressives seem to have been using just about every aspect of everyday life to act out and impose their emotional envy and resentment toward those who are productive, successful and living an honest life, and who have a particular point of view that’s contrary to the LGBT lobby’s propaganda.

Many people of a moral conscience who believe in freedom and private property rights are attempting to defend their rights in court, such as those religious groups in Massachusetts now. States can also make use of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and nullification to fight federal diktats.

But I think that people may very well have to use a good offense as a defense against activist aggressors against them. For example, if a same-sex couple sues you for refusal of service, you can immediately sue them for emotional distress, or press criminal charges of extortion and harassment against them. And that could also apply to a transgender person who sues someone in a church for “discrimination” because he was referred to as “he” rather than as his preferred “she.”

Are You Ready for President Hillary Rotten Clinton?

We are all sick of Hollery, but we’re going to have to get used to it. And yes, the system is “rigged,” in that the Clintons have a Machine built up for over 25 years now, in all 50 states. Early voting is going on right now — not good. “Vote early, and often,” and all that sort of thing.

And also, we have seen from the WikiLeaks email dumps, Democrat operatives such as Debbie Wackerjob Schultz have been cahooting to lock Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. Hillary gets debate questions from media people in advance of debates. The DNC and Clinton campaign incite riots at Trump rallies. There are now Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s revealing emails, the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s telling her supporters one thing and telling the banksters something else.

Various news media hacks have been cahooting and colluding with the Clinton campaign to slant not just the news but the whole campaign for Hillary. Here is WND with an article on Hillary supporters “embedded” in the news media. Among other sad displays, Glenn Thrush asks Podesta for approval of his Politico stories. How sick is that? Here is the Columbia Journalism Review with an article on journalists wasting their money on the Hillary campaign. CNN fires Dr. Drew Pinsky for his expressing concern over Hillary’s “1950s” medical care. Clinton campaign workers and media hacks shame an NBC reporter for covering Hillary’s coughing fit. (Hmm, which coughing fit was that one?)

But the media bias is nothing new. As I wrote in a previous post, in 2008 there were the “Journolists,” the Washington-Establishment news reporters and editors who consciously chose not to report on any news or facts that could damage Obama’s chances for the White House. That included biased debate questions during the Obama vs. Hillary debates, and smearing conservatives and Tea Partiers (“Call them racists.”). Some of the “Journolists” included Spencer Ackerman and Ezra Klein, and, according to the Daily Caller, reporters from such media outlets as “Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic.”

And here is the Observer with an article on extreme media and entertainment favoritism toward Clinton including Howard Stern, of all people. The Observer writes about the denial by the exposed Hillary sycophants in the media:

Ignoring a tidal wave of Wikileaks documents that show instance after instance of media collusion with the Clinton campaign, Politico on Monday morning declared that “Trump takes media-bias myth to new heights.” The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan agreed, telling CNN “There is no sort of little group called ‘the media’ that gets together and decides to do terrible things to Donald Trump.” Nevertheless, the recent Wikileaks dump has forced even some serious liberal critics, such as Glenn Greenwald, to assert that the profession has damaged its credibility in ways that will outlive this gruesome election.

And here is my list of articles by Glenn Greenwald showing media bias, mainly biased toward the glorification of all-powerful government in general as well as for Obama in particular.

Well, as I have written in articles before, news “journalists” shill for the State, and The New York Times, CBS and Fox, et al. — They’re ALL part of the Regime.

But as far as the election being “rigged,” it isn’t just the media and campaign hacks who are trying to sway the election in favor of Hillary. It’s the voters themselves. As I wrote in this post, many Independents went into open Republican primaries to vote for the weakest Republican because they wanted Hillary to win in the general, and perhaps many Democrats re-registered to vote in Republican primaries as well.

In fact, among the many emails leaked by WikiLeaks, one showed how Democrats were worried about candidates such as a Rand Paul making it to the general election, and were promoting someone such as Donald Trump who would be like a “pied piper” candidate. And he is. (But so is Hitlery, truth be told.)

But, there is also the possibility that Trump himself has been running to intentionally lose the general election on behalf of Hillary. I’ve mentioned this before, but there are many True Believers who refuse to accept even the possibility of that sort of thing.

On August 8, 2015, I wrote,

I like the fact that Donald Trump has been throwing a wrench into the system, but I think that Justin Raimondo is probably correct, that The Donald really is there as a straw, to throw a wrench just into the GOP, and on behalf of The Hillary. It is good that Trump stands against political correctness as he told Megyn Kelly, but he really does have a history of making rude personal comments to women. Even if Rosie O’Donnell is herself rude and ghastly, Trump should at least have some class and keep certain thoughts to himself. And why does he have to say out loud that he thinks a woman wanting to breast-feed her baby is “disgusting”? Can’t he keep such opinions to himself?

Raimondo apparently doesn’t think that now, as he has been promoting Trump (with some reservations, of course). Raimondo is big on “America First” with his tweets, which allegedly reflects Donald Trump’s campaign. However, Trump’s policies and rhetoric show that he is not about “America First” as much as he is about “Government First.” Trump wants to expand the size and power of the fedgov by trillions, and he wants to expand the police state. In contrast — and I know I am quite alone on this these days — I personally am in favor of “Freedom First.” (Alas, some people think that I am actually treasonous for thinking “Freedom First, not America First,” but that’s the way people are now in Authoritarian Soviet Amerika. Oh, well.)

But could Trump be a straw candidate or stalking horse for Hillary? It’s not entirely out of the question. Was it just a Freudian slip when, in this interview (a little after 11:00) Trump said he wanted to “beat the Republicans”? Just askin’.

And just one final note. People have been criticizing Trump for his sniffing at debates. I suspect that it might be a sign of his contempt for either Hillary or others he is dealing with. In a blog post in September of 2015, I wrote:

… in an interview with the author of a new biography on him, Trump is quoted, stating: “For the most part, you can’t respect people because most people aren’t worthy of respect.” And it sounds like that isn’t even taken out of context, because how could you do that? I think that one statement tells us about what Donald Trump really thinks of other people. (Not much.) And there really are sheeple out there who think that that kind of contemptuous attitude is okay. They want their President to have that attitude and think that way about them! They want their rulers to walk all over them and treat them like dirt. I know I do.

Don’t Compromise Moral Principles, Don’t Believe Government Propaganda

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby makes some very good points in his criticism of the compromising of moral principles by the “religious right” in Christians, evangelicals, or conservatives’ supporting of Donald Trump in this Presidential campaign. While Bill Bennett had previously written that there are moral absolutes that ought not be compromised in favor of supporting political candidates or causes, now he has changed his tune and is compromising his principles, according to Jacoby.

But Jacoby does cite a group of religious Christians among the younger crowd who can give us some hope. Liberty University students have formed Liberty United Against Trump, and they “want nothing to do with him.” Good for them.

But, Trump and Bennett aside, I think the conservative movement had dropped adherence to moral principles decades and decades ago, either for political reasons, or maybe out of ignorance and an indoctrinated deference to the government and governmental authority.

For instance, on talk radio the emotional reaction was intense and harsh to Gary Johnson’s assertion of moral equivalence between Syrian civilians killed by supporters of Bashar al-Assad and civilians killed by U.S. forces such as in their bombing of a civilian hospital. Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt were especially furious at Johnson for telling the truth.

God forbid that we here in “exceptional” America should believe in the Golden Rule: 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.

To some people who think like collectivists, targeting and killing innocent human beings is justified when the victims are on “the other side,” such as Japanese and Germans during World War II, or Iraqis, Afghans, etc. more recently. But if Afghan or Syrian jets came over and bombed U.S. hospitals, why, that would be a war crime! The rationalization of U.S. military targeting and killing innocent non-combatants including children in Tokyo, Dresden, and Hiroshima is a rationalization of mass murder, in my view. “Collateral damage” is the mantra of the moral relativists, sad to say.

But that is how collectivists think, when they rationalize intentionally killing innocent children (or adults). As though a little child has some responsibility for what his ruling regime and its military are doing. As though any individual has any guilt or responsibility for what anyone else has done. Morally, it is just plain wrong to assign guilt to an innocent person, and it is evil to target and harm an innocent person, period.

And people also defend President George H.W. Bush’s starting a war of aggression on Iraq in 1991, a country that was of no threat to us. Already those who defend such aggressions are scoffing at my bringing that up. I can hear them tut-tutting me. Well that is because they are conditioned to believe the propaganda that the government dishes out, and they are also conditioned through 12-16 years of government-controlled schooling to always “pledge allegiance” to the government. “Our government, right or wrong” is the saying for many people.

The hostilities started by Bush and the U.S. military in 1991 included the intentional bombing of Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment facilities which caused the Iraqi people to have to use untreated water. This intentional and sadistic scheme was reinforced by the U.S. forces and UN sanctions and no-fly zones which prevented the importing of construction materials to rebuild, and which prevented the importing of medical supplies to treat the sick. And the sanctions and no-fly zones were continued by President Bill Clinton as encouraged by his wife, You-Know-Who. By the mid-1990s there were at least 500,000 deaths in Iraq caused by disease, by cholera, typhoid, and starvation and much higher infant mortality rates, and according to U.S. Air Force Col. John Warden it was intentional.

Now, there are probably many people who are saying, “Our government and military did NOT do those things. They wouldn’t do those things.” And that is because many people are ignorant of history, even of current events, and/or they are in denial: they know about what our government did but they rationalize such actions, out of an obedient deference to the government.

So the Clinton bombings continued throughout the ’90s as well as sanctions, and by the year 2000 the death toll was even higher. Those bombings and Clinton bombings in other areas elicited warnings from Ron Paul throughout the 1990s that the U.S. might very well be the target of attacks within our territory. But Ron Paul is “crazy,” as Howie Carr would say, or an “old fool,” as I heard Dennis Prager say during the 2008 campaign.

But outside of people such as Ron Paul who actually have a moral conscience, we don’t hear very much from the alleged proponents of “moral values” against starting wars and targeting civilian populations, or being consistent regarding the Golden Rule. Listen to the boos from the audience directed at Ron Paul when he calls for a Golden Rule in U.S. foreign policy. Those are boos from the true believers who worship the military like a god. The Iraq fiasco was repeated by the 2nd George Bush, who started the unnecessary Afghanistan war as well. Many propagandized and bamboozled people still believe that Afghanistan and Iraq played a role in 9/11.

And then there’s the abortion issue. I can’t believe the number of conservatives I heard criticizing Donald Trump (of all people!) when he said that the woman having an abortion should also be punished as well as the abortionist. Whatever happened to “personal responsibility”? Unless she’s being made to go get an abortion against her will, the young girl or lady is definitely responsible for what she’d doing. I don’t know if she should be thrown in jail, but if killing an innocent unborn human being is an act of murder then she should be punished in some way. Many conservatives also defend abortion as justifiable when the woman was a victim of rape or incest. So, killing an innocent unborn human being is okay just because the father committed an act of violence? The baby is responsible for that? But I digress.

My theory as to why many people will defend immoral criminal actions by their own government and military including starting wars of aggression, is to do with a combination of a collectivist mindset and a long-conditioned reverence for the government, and an exaltation of it, like a god. For instance, when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the National Anthem, the conservatives on the radio were outraged. Why, that’s insulting. It’s “offenseive” (like they were being triggered by Kaepernick’s microaggression against them, the precious cupcakes).

You see, when collectivists see that one mere individual is not going along with the rest of the crowd in honor of “our side’s song,” they take it personally, because of their own individual psyches having merged into the collective, and the State. So this is the same kind of mindset that approves of government mass murder of innocents, like in Hiroshima, even cheers it on. Because it’s “our side” committing the atrocities. Only condemn the other side‘s atrocities against innocents.

As O’Brien stated to Wilson in George Orwell’s 1984,

“The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual…. Alone — free — the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal….”

The “Party” also being the State. So it’s not just an obedient deference to government by the authoritarians and nationalists, but a merging of themselves into that ruling regime as well into the collective population. We can’t have Colin Kaepernick acting in “civil disobedience” to a national song.

Yes, he can do that if he feels strongly enough about his principles, even if his reason of America being “racist” is erroneous and itself a collectivist conclusion. But for those who don’t stand for the National Anthem (a terrible song musically and lyrically, by the way, as it glorifies war) because they protest their government’s immoral policies and its wars, they have a better point.

So another problem with the nationalists and authoritarians is that they believe what government propagandists tell them. They agree with Donald Trump and believe that torturing innocents is justified as an end-justifies-the-means kind of rationalization. However, as in the case of Guantanamo, they really believe that the ones being tortured are “terrorists,” because the government said so, even though not one of the detainees was ever brought to trial let alone convicted of any crimes, and in most cases the government had no evidence against them. But, as I wrote in this post, over 80% of the Guantanamo detainees were apprehended mainly in Afghanistan by local villagers because they were paid bounties by the CIA and military, and senior intelligence analysts had said that one-third to one-half of the detainees were “mistakes” and “had no connection to terrorism whatsoever.” But the nationalists won’t believe that because they believe government bureaucrats (and their sycophantic media stenographers who obediently repeat what bureaucrats tell them, word for word) who say that the detainees are “dangerous terrorists” etc., etc. That is what we get in this banana republic of government propaganda and moral relativism.

In recent months, thanks to the depressing Donald Trump campaign, conservatives have been expressing concern over the decline of the conservative movement. But it is nothing new. The decline coincides with the decline in morality and decency in America. Not that conservatives caused that decline, as the main culprits are the progressives. But conservatives do have some responsibility in accepting the progressives socialist schemes. They need to reject progressivism once and for all. And that includes not supporting the socialist ignoramus Donald Trump or the rigged elections that will crown Hillary as the new Queen of Soviet Amerika.

Anyway, in a speech at a recent Mises Circle event, Lew Rockwell noted that the decline of the conservative movement has been coinciding with the rise of the libertarian movement. “Nobody can figure out what constitutes a ‘true conservative’,” noted Rockwell, who is certainly one who can be referred to as “Mr. Libertarian” (if he doesn’t mind my calling him that).

Rockwell states that after World War II conservatives “bought foreign interventionism hook, line, and sinker.” They still do. I wish that those who say they believe in morality and decency wouldn’t be so gullible and naive when it comes to their believing what government bureaucrats tell them. It is probably better to assume that just about everything that comes out of a bureaucrat’s mouth is a lie.

Further Comments on Trump’s Trash Talk

I just wanted to make some further comments on my previous post on Donald Trump’s bragging about trying to have sex with married women and talking in a vulgar manner about it. I am not condoning that kind of talk, and certainly not that kind of behavior that Trump was claiming to have been doing.

However, all these phony media people, talk radio personalities and so forth are so full of it. They never hear that kind of talk in locker rooms, etc. What bull. I have heard that kind of talk in middle school, high school, college, and after. And it isn’t strictly limited to locker rooms (and obviously some locker rooms are without that kind of talk, like in a church). It really has to do with when males get together, especially in private areas. I’ll bet that MOST show-biz celebrity and politician males talk like that — and worse! — in private. And I appreciate Linda Schrock Taylor’s comments (and sarcasm) on that kind of male-bonding trash talk.

And by the way, given that the recent example is an off-mic recording of Trump, who had that private conversation in the private area with the implication that it was a private conversation, should he consider having this Billy Carter Billy Bush person charged with wiretapping or invasion of privacy, etc.? In many states, recording another person in a conversation without his consent is illegal.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Trump has actually acted toward women in that way, and it’s probably that he’s just “all talk,” etc. Although it might be true what his first wife Ivana alleged against him, as far as rape is concerned. But it might not be true. And I hope it isn’t true what is now being alleged that Trump allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl.

In any case, he’s a loathsome degenerate as I’ve been saying. Either way, whether it’s Hillary Rotten Clinton (who has her own case of the potty mouth herself) or Donald Rotten Trump in November, we’re all screwed.

Ooooh, Donald Trump Made Vulgar Comments!

(UPDATE: Some slight corrections made since I wrote this originally.)

As everyone already knows, I am no supporter of Donald Trump. I loathe and detest Trump. However, I can’t believe all the people feigning being “offended” at the revelation of his vulgar comments on a tour bus or wherever it was, back in 2005. He was talking to someone in a bragging way about trying to “move on” some woman, and didn’t know a mic was on and recording the conversation. Jeepers, guys say things like that ALL THE TIME! (No, not me.) When guys like Trump get together, they talk trashy, like in a locker room, etc. And for all we know, it is very likely that he was just making it all up what he was saying to that other person. Many of them just make things up and lie like a rug about their experiences. I can’t believe that the Trump supporters such as Hugh Hewitt are trying to tell Trump to drop out of the race because of THIS! After all the other rude comments Trump has made and tweeted? Like this is any worse? (Perhaps Hugh Hewitt can drop out of talk radio. I can’t stand him.) So anyway, these sleazebag showbiz celebrities and political celebrities are all the same, in my view.