Skip to content

Month: January 2018

Controversial Professor Julius Lester Has Died

Julius Lester the controversial black English and History professor who was once referred to as a “race traitor” and who converted to Judaism, has died, at age 78.

I like these quotes at the end of the Boston Globe article:

Although he began his political activism in the civil rights movement, Professor Lester grew wary of “collectives of any kind.” In a 1990 speech and subsequent Globe interview, he criticized “the hit parade of oppression,” and said people of color, women, and Native Americans were “competing to see who’s been the most victimized.” Doing so leads to a “perpetual state of anger, which they think is justified. It gives people an easy, cheap road to identity,” he said.

“Why would I want to identify myself as a victim? That’s to define myself in terms of a relationship to oppression,” he added.

“I identify myself as free. There are people out there who would like to victimize me. But from my position of freedom, I resist their attempts.”

The Government Shutdown

Among other things, Jacob Hornberger writes:

As we libertarians hold, the best thing that could ever happen to the United States if to restore the federal government to a constitutional republic, one whose few powers would be limited to those actually enumerated in the Constitution.

That would mean no more welfare-state apparatus, regulatory programs, and mandatory-charity programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, and foreign aid to dictator-partners.

It would also mean no more national-security state apparatus, including the enormous military empire of bases, both foreign and domestic, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA. No more foreign interventions, foreign wars, invasions, occupations, coups, sanctions, embargoes, torture, assassinations, indefinite detentions, and denial of due process of law.

No more drug war. No more Departments of Education, Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Labor, and SEC, DEA, ICE, and all the rest.

No more centrally planned, controlled, or regulated economy. A total free-enterprise economic system.

No more trade restrictions and immigration controls. Total free trade and open immigration.

No more Federal Reserve and government currency. A total free-market monetary system.

No more income tax and IRS.

That would be the greatest thing that could happen to our country. That would mean a genuinely free, prosperous, harmonious, moral, and responsible society. Example is the way to lead the world to freedom and prosperity.

A Soviet-Like Culture at Google?

Honestly, getting readers to visit my blog here is not easy. I think that some readers might like my writing on national security and civil liberties issues, but many of those readers then don’t like my promotion of traditional values and lifestyles, my criticism of the more recent “transgender” phenomenon, and so on. Or some readers might be conservatives who like my writing on those social issues but because they are heavily propagandized sheeple they don’t like my criticism of the national security state or my promotion of free markets viz. free immigration.

So I wanted to write about this article on The Federalist informing us of the extremely irrational PC culture at Google, but I have this concern that I could get censored by Google for criticizing their staff for being, well, loony-tunes. You see, just recently I noticed that Google’s crawlers haven’t been around my website as much as before and I went to “Console” to try to increase the crawling. Lew Rockwell recently mentioned that LewRockwell.com’s advertising has been stopped by Google, like for censorship reasons. Not good. So how much of us in anti-State land are targets of the State-worshipers at those powerful Internet enterprises like Google? Hmmm.

So anyway, regarding the article at The Federalist on the alleged wackos at Google, there is the case of former Google employee James Damore who wrote a memo critical of the atmosphere there and who asserted that females are not as drawn to STEM fields as males. Boy, did he get a lot of flak for that. Damore is now suing Google for his firing, and he claims that Google discriminates against white males and conservatives.

According to The Federalist article, employees there at Google blacklist and shun other employees who have expressed any views (or any slight indications of such views, like “microaggressions”) which are in any way going off the reservation. It is apparently a culture of intellectual intolerance with no allowable diversity in thought. They even give “peer bonuses” for people who go out of their way to reinforce the approved opinions of consensus conformity. It is not an office atmosphere in which I would want to be. Not friendly, for sure.

The lawsuit, according to The Federalist, mentions several examples of nonsense and craziness (Those are my words, not James Damore’s.) The lawsuit states:

Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.

… For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as ‘a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and ‘an expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘Living as a Plural Being’ at an internal company event.

(Loony-tunes much?)

One suggestion by a Google employee was to not hire “white cis heterosexual abled men who aren’t abuse survivors.”

(I rest my case.)

Now, one note that James Damore received in response to his memo, by an apparently paranoid person who thinks that others want to kill him, read, “I’m a queer-ass nonbinary trans person that is f***ing sick and tired of being told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead. We are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is ‘if you keep talking about this s***, i will hurt you.”

Trust me, person, my criticism of “transgender” ideology (and yes, it is an ideology!) does not mean I “want you dead.” If you think that, then you are quite paranoid.

So it’s actually the paranoid writer there who threatens to hurt others who challenge the majority consensus, not the memo-writer.

The James Damore-Google lawsuit also points out the directions for “How to (Properly) Punch a Nazi.” Never mind any process by which one has actually determined that someone is a “Nazi,” or what characteristics actually make up being a “Nazi.” And even if someone is determined to be a “Nazi,” the idea of physically assaulting the person?

At a “Free Speech” rally last year, mobs ganged up on individuals who were labeled a “Nazi” yet there was no actual indication that the victims of the mob violence were actual “Nazis,” let alone any hint of due process. (You would think that Internet businesses who thrive on freedom of speech, such as Google, would appreciate free speech!)

What all that really tells me is that for years now the schools have not been teaching kids how to think critically, but, along with today’s media and pop culture, have been brainwashing the youngins to think irrationally and to believe the most irrational things.

And also according to The Federalist, Google employees who do not share the majority consensus of far-left idiocy are suffering from a “psychotic break from reality.” (Talk about the “pot calling the kettle black,” for crying out loud!)

And related to all this, several so-called psychiatrists and authors including Bandy Lee, Gail Sheehy and Noam Chomsky wrote a new hysterical book about Donald Trump’s mental fitness! They made their assessment based on Trump’s shooting his mouth off all these years, and, mainly that’s it.

These schmucks are just like the “psychiatrists” who invent new “disorders” like “oppositional defiant disorder” to label kids who think critically and who question the consensus view. The kids are not individualistic in their mindset, they are just “mentally ill,” or “autistic,” according to the so-called experts.

Which brings me to Soviet dissident and defector Yuri Maltsev, the editor of Requiem for Marx. He witnessed how powerful apparatchiks of the government labeled someone “mentally ill” in his native land of Russia during the Soviet years. In a recent article, Dr. Maltsev wrote:

During the Nazi era and the Soviet rule political enemies were labeled as “mentally ill” and subjected to inhumane “treatments”. In the period from the 1960s up to 1986, abuse of psychiatry for political purposes was reported to be systematic in the Soviet Union, and even internationally renown Nobel laureates like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov were all declared paranoiacs and schizophrenics. The fame of the chief KGB psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky who gave the diagnosis of sluggish schizophrenia to numerous “enemies of the people” in absentia including Nobel laureates Andrei Sakharov, Joseph Brodsky and concluded that they were worthless. The prevalence of Snezhnevsky’s theories directly led to a broadening of the boundaries of disease such that even the mildest behavioral change could be interpreted as indication of mental disorder…

The practice of incarceration and torture of political adversaries in psychiatric hospitals in Eastern Europe, PRC, and the USSR damaged the credibility of psychiatry as a science in these states and internationally. I was blessed to know a great psychiatrist Tom Szasz who led a movement against psychiatry as it was and still used by Bandy Lee and her ilk as another form of coercion and violence against us. I recommend his “Idleness and Lawlessness in the Therapeutic State” (.pdf) to everyone to read as it is a classic of our time. Political abuse of psychiatry taking place in the US today should be condemned; otherwise all of us can discover ourselves restrained in psychiatric wards.

Now, did Googlers complain or did Bandy Lee, Gail Sheehy et al. write a book 15 years ago when George W. Bush started two wars of aggression and ordered the bombing and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? What about when George Bush Sr. started the first war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 and caused the deaths of the first bunch of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis throughout the 1990s? Who would DO that? Starting a war against another country that was of no threat to us? Only a psychopath, that’s who. But we hear NOTHING from “liberals” about these things.

And did the Googlers or the Bandy Lees and Gail Sheehys complain when Barack Obama continued the bombings, the drone strikes, the murders of innocents overseas, increasing the warrantless searches and the surveillance state, or Obama’s war on the Press, and all the rest? Nope.

And speaking of the lunatics calling the kettles black, what about other prominent people on the left, or “progressives” (or whatever you want to call them)? Such “liberals” as Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Glenn Thrush, Kevin Spacey, Mark Halperin, the list is growing. If you read about some of the things these “men” have been alleged to have said and done, you’d have to conclude what a bunch of sickos, degenerates and nutsos these people are.

Yes, the Soviet-like culture of State power-worship and intellectual intolerance seems to be getting quite promoted by the “social justice” activists, the adored celebrities, the mental health ideologues, and, sadly, the folks at Google.

“Liberals” for the Surveillance State

I was going to write a post on how America is going to hell in a handbasket, and then I remembered an article I did on America going to hell in a handbasket and so I was just going to repost that, but I changed my mind and I’ll try to write this. Maybe it’s a midlife crisis, I don’t know (I’ll be 110 years old?)

In that linked article from 2013, I mentioned circumstances that haven’t changed in the least now. In fact, just yesterday the U.S. Senate voted to reauthorize and expand the unconstitutional surveillance powers of the evil national security state that could be used to suck innocent Americans into some sting entrapment case, just as the feds did to Donald Trump’s campaign and as the FBI illicitly entrapped Mike Flynn.

In this current reauthorization, Democrats like Nancy Lugosi have been gung-ho in undoing Americans’ right to due process. Even the two Democrat New Hampshire senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan voted for further government spying of innocent people. (So much for “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire.)

As Yogi Berra would say, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” In that aforementioned 2013 article, I wrote,

Just the fact that the House of Representatives’ vote against Congressman Justin Amash’s amendment to defund the NSA’s warrantless bulk-spying program was such a close vote, is an encouraging prospect.

But it kind of gets a little less encouraging.

While it is good that the vote was close, we saw that the Pelosi-Democrat Establishment twisted arms to get people to vote to preserve the government’s criminal spying.

And would you believe that the majority of those congresspeople who voted against the Amash amendment had actually received twice as much as the Yes-voters in campaign donations from the very defense and intelligence contractors who profit from that program? Yup.

So how’s that “We the People” thing working out for you?

“Liberals”!

“Please Turn Off Your Ad Blocker” (NO!)

I really wish those websites who come on telling me I have an ad blocker would please shut up! Yes, I have an ad blocker, and no I’m not going to turn it off, you morons! And no I’m not going to “whitelist” you. Why the hell do you think I have the ad blocker? I just don’t want to see those stupid ads of grossly obese slobs and all their layers of flab, or the nude couples having sex, okay? Obviously, people have an ad blocker for a reason, Forbes, Business Insider, et al. They’re the worst! They don’t seem to understand that no, I will not turn off my ad blocker, and therefore I will not read the article there, and so I will obviously not link to it, and will thus not bring any new readers to their websites! Why can’t these goofballs understand this?

How to Prevent High Crime Rates from Immigrants?

John Lott, the “More Guns Less Crime” guy, and his Crime Prevention Research Center have a new study which concludes that in Arizona unauthorized immigrants “are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.” And that “after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.”

The study refers to “undocumented” immigrants, but I refer to “unauthorized” because I think that’s more accurate. They are immigrants whose entrance into U.S. territory does not have the permission of central planners in Washington. (But they might nevertheless have documentation.)

Some of the reasons for the higher crime rates of the groups mentioned above include America’s socialist policies in immigration, Americans’ dependence on central planners in Washington to “protect” them in its attempted controls of territorial defense and controls over the movements of millions of people. And the other socialist and fascist policies of drug controls and welfare redistributionism.

If the government in Washington would undo its corrupt police-state controls over drugs, a.k.a. “The War on Drugs,” then the terrible effect that is having on other countries in South and Central America might get a lot better. It would eliminate the black market in drugs and all the violent “drug lords” and gangs associated with it from which many immigrants come to the U.S. to escape.

Getting rid of the welfare state would remove another incentive for the “undesirables,” as the anti-foreigner bunch would refer to them. Let’s re-privatize charity. Government is not a legitimate apparatus for charity, by stealing earnings from the workers and producers to redistribute them to others. Let private organizations and charities, churches, businesses and individuals run their own organizations to help the needy including immigrants.

But also, get the government out of the immigration controls business. As Jacob Hornberger noted recently, central planning controls don’t work and they never will, even in immigration. What does work is freedom, and free markets.

Let private individuals, churches, organizations and businesses take in immigrants and take responsibility for them. The private people would be obligated to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions in taking in, housing or employing immigrants. Monopolist government bureaucrats who have usurped those endeavors and assumed that authority are not responsible for their decisions on immigration and they are never held accountable, such as with Washington’s central planners or with government-run “sanctuary cities” and towns.

Another issue that is relevant, given the conservatives and nationalists’ panic and hysteria over the immigration issue, is the right of the people already in the territory and who are peaceful people to actually protect themselves from either immigrant criminals or U.S. citizen criminals who do not respect the persons or property of others. That means there should be no government intrusions into the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The conservatives are terrible on this issue, because they are little dependent babies who love and worship government police to protect them from criminals. While they would never admit to this because they probably don’t realize it, the damn conservatives believe that we really don’t have a “right” to keep and bear arms, but a privilege granted to us by government authorities. The conservatives also believe very strongly in the welfare state and all the rest.

Some of the Latest Articles

As a follow-up to my earlier post in regards to “hate speech,” censorship, and the absurd mentality pervading the colleges and public schools, there is a recent column on WND by Patrice Lewis on the latest stupid parenting advice: not allowing kids to have a “best friend.” According to an expert psychologist, such a relationship would be “exclusionary.” It gives some kids an “unfair advantage” over others.

Another older suggestion by a professor that Ms. Lewis brings up is the idea of parents not reading stories to their kids because it disadvantages other children whose parents don’t read to the kids. So, the mentality is that rather than encouraging parents who don’t read to their children to read to their children, instead encourage parents to not read to their children. In other words, don’t encourage more reading, don’t encourage more stories for kids to learn from, or more educational techniques — instead bring everyone else down to the level of those who are either intellectually lazy, too busy to interact with their kids, or perhaps too incapable of reading coherently. And rather than having some (or most) people who are “advantaged,” make more people or everybody disadvantaged.

That is the mentality of the people on some people in economics as well. Rather than encourage or help to bring poor people up from being poor, instead bring more wealthy people down by stealing from them (i.e. “tax” them) for a better, more “level playing field” and all that crap.

Of course, those who advocate the idiocy of stealing from people (rather than enabling or freeing people to become more prosperous) are usually the same people who love and worship the State and its god-like powers.

The Mises Institute recently published an excerpt from Albert Jay Nock’s book, Jefferson, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle. Nock was not a big fan of the State, that’s for sure. (In his book, The Myth of a Guilty Nation, Nock shows that the extreme war propaganda during World War I was false, just as the propaganda was with the Vietnam War, and the two Bush Presidents’ two Iraq wars, as well as all this propaganda regarding North Korea and Iran. In a recent column, Justin Raimondo wrote that the Korean “crisis” is completely phony. Hmm, was the recent “false alert” in Hawaii that caused a lot of panic a “false flag”? Who knows?)

For more truth-telling (and not propaganda, like the propaganda we’ve been getting from Washington), Laurence Vance says that Donald Trump’s tax-reform bill, now law, is a welfare-expanding tax-reform law. The propagandists in Washington lie about international relations and situations to get into wars illicitly, and they lie and propagandize about more ways to take money from the people in order to create or expand more government programs to increase dependency on government and expand their own powers and breed more welfare voters to keep themselves in power. Dr. Vance also had a recent article describing the difference between free-market middlemen and government middlemen. (Or perhaps that should be “middlepersons” in PC speak?)

Speaking of government’s intrusions in the economy, Doug french wrote recently about insider trading laws: ruining lives and markets. Governments certainly don’t understand free exchange and property rights. Michael Rozeff had a post recently on the problems with Haiti and property rights. And Daniel Fernández Méndez’s article addressed the real relationship between capitalism and the environment.

I wish the people advocating that parents not read to their kids, those who want to ban “best friends,” and everyone who thinks only in terms of race and that there is such a thing as “white privilege” would read the above articles. They would see that there is government privilege. And it has got to go.

False Alert of Incoming Ballistic Missile in Hawaii Causes Panic

This weekend, cell phones across the islands of Hawaii received a false alert warning of an incoming ballistic missile. The alert was initiated by a state worker who “pushed the wrong button.” The false alert caused panic with people frantically trying to reach loved ones to say goodbye. Some parents even tried to place their kids in sewer drains.

Hawaii U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard stated that it took her only 12 minutes after the alert was issued to confirm with “authorities” that it was a false alert and there was no incoming missile. Yet, it took “authorities” 38 minutes to issue a false alarm message.

So, it was a government worker who caused the mistake in the first place, by “pushing the wrong button” (Was he high? Drunk? Too much Xanax or Adderall? Was he texting while “pushing the wrong button”?), and it was government “authorities” who took 38 minutes to finally let people know they weren’t going to be disintegrated by a nuclear blast. (Not that “government worker” means anything.)

This reminded me of the time that another government worker, President Ronald Reagan, was about to do his weekly radio address, on August 11, 1984. When asked to do a sound check prior to his address, he decided to clown around, and, he stated, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Now, after that occurred, I remember listening to a radio talk show in which the host clearly said that the mic was live, or that Reagan was told it was just a sound check but that it was actually live on the air. However, everything on the Internet now is saying it was not live on the air.

But as people found out later, news of Reagan’s joke wasn’t just on our own biased newscasts but actually caused alarm in other countries. For instance, Politico noted recently that, “TASS, the official Soviet news agency, solemnly declared that ‘the USSR condemns this unprecedented and hostile attack by the U.S. president’.”

The Russians (then known as the Soviets) actually did go on a “Red Alert.” As NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw and reporter Marvin Kalb told the story a few months later in October, 1984:

Yes, the Inmates Really Are Running the Asylum

Here is a “trigger warning”: This is another one of those rare posts in which I will just say what needs to be said, and if you don’t like it, tough noogies, as Frank Burns would say. If you are a young millennial or a “snowflake,” beware. So here is what I have to say.

Rush Limbaugh was recently discussing the “net neutrality” issue and the dishonesty of the pro-net neutrality activists. The activists and their followers on the left were distraught over FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s decision to dump so-called “net neutrality,” removing regulations imposed in 2015 by the Obama regime. Activists have been going over to Pai’s home to harass him and his family over this one decision.

Prior to 2015 there were no “net neutrality” regulations. The Internet was a place largely free of government controls. That is why the Internet has flourished as it has.

The activists say the regulations were necessary to make ISPs, broadband and other Internet services more “equal” for the masses. Nope. What it really does is prevent those providers from providing more choices, which ultimately would make services more affordable for some people. But what the control freaks don’t understand is that government regulations cause distortions and generally cause prices to go up. In the auto industry, healthcare, new homes, and with the Internet as well.

Limbaugh cited a column by Jonah Goldberg who discussed the activists’ harassment of Ajit Pai. Goldberg couldn’t understand why this one issue is so important to, mainly, the people on the left, to the point that people would go to the home of an FCC chairman, harass his family and refer to him as a “pedophile,” a “dirty, sneaky Indian,” and threaten to kill him.

So, it’s not really about “equality” or “affordability,” but taking control away from Internet providers and consumers, and the government usurping that control. Rush Limbaugh correctly compared net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine, in which the controllers on the left wanted to censor conservatives on talk radio, for instance, by mandating that those programs also provide a “balanced” point of view.

What, the biased CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, ESPN, New York Times and most local newspapers, Comedy Central, HBO — all THAT’S not enough for you on the left? No, they want to force non-leftist outlets to have to provide space and time for more of their point of view, and ultimately they want to outright censor conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and any critics of the regime.

The bottom line is that “net neutrality” is all about control of speech and expression — it’s about censorship.

But when the Internet was free of government controls prior to 2015 (and now), THAT was “neutrality”! Internet users had freedom of expression and freedom of choice in their usage of the Internet.

So with this Orwellian “neutrality” stuff the activists really want to censor the Internet, mainly conservative or libertarian websites such as American Thinker, Daily Caller and Breitbart, LewRockwell.com, and … me.

This censorship stuff is all over the place now. Twitter has been censoring conservatives and Trump supporters in its “extreme social justice warrior climate” as admitted by insiders, and Twitter is actually sharing Donald Trump’s private messages with the DOJ without warrants. (I disagree with just about all of Trump’s policies, but I will still call a spade a spade, and so I will call a stasi a “stasi.”)

Not that Trump is an actual conservative. But the snowflake SJWs and Trump-haters act solely on emotion and are easily provoked by Trump’s bombastic personality, just as the conservatives and nationalists are emotional with their anti-immigration “Build the Wall!” idiocy. It’s ALL emotional. No rationality or thinking involved with any of these people.

Just look at the recent decision by the so-called Committee to Protect Journalists to give Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” award. They did this at the end of their article in which they gave awards to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as “Most Thin-Skinned” and “Most Outrageous Use of Terror Laws Against the Press,” and to Chinese President Xi Jinping as “Tightest Grip on Media,” and Myanmar State Counselor and de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi as “Biggest Backslider in Press Freedom.”

But no, after all those tyrants and fascists, it’s Donald Trump who is given the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom,” even though he hasn’t had journalists arrested or otherwise censoring media despite his constantly threatening to do so.

As opposed to President Barack Obama. According to the same “Committee to Protect Journalists” (sic), Obama really did have journalists arrested, such as James Risen of the New York Times, and then naming James Rosen of Fox News a “criminal co-conspirator” under the so-called Espionage Act simply for doing his job as a reporter. And what happened to Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone? Those were under the Obama Regime.

Democrats favor civil liberties? Don’t. Make. Me. Laugh.

You see, ideologues on the left hear Trump’s rhetoric that’s threatening or “triggering,” and they respond more to that. Just as the college snowflakes accuse the people they want to silence of “hate speech.” To them, “hate speech”= violence.

The college kids shout down conservative or libertarian speakers they disagree with, or pressure their administrations to cancel or ban certain speakers as “too divisive, triggering, offensive,” etc.

But do we ever see conservatives shouting down liberal speakers, like when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University? Or conservatives and libertarians going to the homes of Obama administration bureaucrats to harass their families because of their policies? Nope.

And all the people in the media so outraged over Donald Trump referring to certain countries as “s***holes” regarding the immigration issue. The newscasts and talk shows are now obsessed with that. They think Trump’s “racist” language is “offensive.” Meanwhile, the goofballs at NPR and other outlets couldn’t wait to repeat the whole word in their newscasts. If Trump had said the “F-word,” they would have said that word, too, without bleeping it.

You see, the people on the left and the triggered college snowflakes LOVE to offend people themselves. Just look at the videos of the traumatized students’ protests, of how they hate Trump and how they yell about “white privilege” and all that with their constant expletives, not caring in the least who THEY offend. Extremely narcissistic, just like The Donald. In fact, many of these young schmucks intentionally direct their expletive-ridden verbal venom at their professors and speakers, and other students who are just minding their own business.

And a lot of the ideas of these misfits are irrational and just plain bizarre.

Schools banning “best friends” because that’s “exclusionary”? Learning math in college perpetuates discrimination against minorities and promotes “white privilege”? Academic rigor and scientific knowledge are “gendered, raced, and colonizing”?

Well, no, minority students should be expected to study and learn the same damn things that white students learn, and should be expected to put the bong down and study to get better grades, dammit, just as the white students should be expected to do.

So the people in the media and entertainment who are saying they are “offended” by Trump are just a bunch of liars, in my view. They’re really feigning feeling offended because they just hate Trump. And many of the college snowflakes are not really “triggered” either — they just like to shoot their mouths off and shout down someone they believe is the “enemy,” such as Milo or Ann Coulter. Most of the snowflakes are FOS, and the extremist Antifa wing of these leftist imbeciles are not as offended as they are thrilled to have an excuse to act like marauders, vandals, thugs and degenerates.

And the ones who aren’t just FOS are really making themselves and each other anxious and hysterical intentionally, thanks to a hysterical society of fear and irrationality, especially since 9/11.

No wonder they want to use government force to shove their crap down other people’s throats. How can any rational, decent human being take these punks seriously?

More on the Criminals of Our Beloved Government

Roger Roots, who has been directly involved in the BLM vs. Cliven Bundy-rancher case, gives this summary of the trials involving the Bundys. Roots describes how the BLM goons killed the Bundys’ cattle and destroyed their cattle ranching apparatus, the brutal mob-style tactics used by the government marauders against the Bundys, the FBI misconduct (like that’s a new thing?) and the sham kangaroo trials the feds have put the Bundys through.

And former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has this latest assessment of the FBI hand behind the “Russia-Gate” case.

Government Goons’ Illegal Surveillance on Innocent People

Today the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on two bills to address surveillance of Americans’ data: a bill sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash that is supported by liberal and conservative groups such as the ACLU and Freedom Works, and a bill sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes that is supported by the “intelligence” community. The liberal and conservative groups oppose the Nunes bill because it contains restrictions on government’s intrusions that are “so narrow and allow so many exceptions that they’re virtually meaningless,” according to USA Today. Nothing new there.

All these procedures of bureaucratic prying into innocent people’s lives are criminal, and the early Americans attempted to prevent such criminality when the Anti-Federalists insisted that an Amendment be added to the new Constitution that would protect the people from such criminal intrusions: the Fourth Amendment.

Commenting on this issue, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about these surveillance procedures, known as the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA, in which the government purportedly tries to “protect Americans” from foreign aggressors or terrorists. The Judge wrote,

The Fourth Amendment — which guarantees privacy in our persons, houses, papers and effects — permits the government to invade that privacy only when a judge has signed a warrant that authorizes surveillance, a search or a seizure. And judges may only issue warrants when they have found probable cause to believe that the government surveillance or invasion of the target’s privacy will produce evidence of criminal behavior. The Fourth Amendment further requires that the judicial warrant describe specifically the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.

All these requirements are in the amendment so as to prevent any court from issuing general warrants. Before the Constitution, general warrants were issued by British courts that met in secret in London. They were not issued based on probable cause of crime but issued based on the government’s wish to invade the privacy of all Americans living in the Colonies to find the more rebellious among them. This was the king and Parliament’s version of protecting national security.

General warrants did not describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. They authorized the bearer — usually a British soldier physically located in the Colonies — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found.

FISA did not interfere with the standard understanding or use of the Fourth Amendment by the government and the courts. But it did add another way for the government to invade privacy when its wish is to surveil people for national security purposes — a return to general warrants — as opposed to solely gathering evidence of crimes.

The FISA-created procedure, enacted in defiance of the Fourth Amendment — which makes no distinction between government evidence gathering and government intelligence gathering — permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.

The Judge also noted in his article that Donald Trump and his campaign were illegally surveilled by Obama apparatchiks with the misuse of FISA warrants. So why would Trump support this?

At first this morning Donald Trump seemed to question the legitimacy of the FISA, when he tweeted, “‘House votes on controversial FISA ACT today.’ This is the act that may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony Dossier, to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump Campaign by the previous administration and others?”

However, in a subsequent tweet (after his national security state goons psy-opped him, I assume), Trump wrote, “With that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today’s vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it! Get smart!”

Now, why he needs to bring Don Adams into this, I don’t know. But the truth is, all this surveillance state stuff, this police state stuff especially since 9/11 is real totalitarian phony-baloney stuff. Don’t believe what the morons and knuckle-draggers of the national security state have been saying in their propaganda. They’re full of it.

I say, if the feds need to illegally pry into the people’s private lives, then all this surveillance stuff should be a two-way street. There needs to be a database or databases operated in the private sector in which the American people can access all emails, texts, phone calls, Internet usage — everything — of these government bureaucrats of the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and ALL the other agencies and departments. Oh, they’ll say, “but a lot of the information is classified, it’s TOP SECRET,” and all that crap. So what. What difference does it make? If the government can keep track of us, then we should keep track of them! (And mostly, this is the kind of crap the people would be seeing, if they had such access.)

The truth is, it doesn’t matter how much illegal, intrusive surveillance powers the idiots in Congress give to the criminals of the FBI, CIA, NSA et al., because as long as our own government continues to cause foreigners to want to attack us, this terrorism crap will never end.

The truth is, what’s been causing the terrorism especially since the end of the Cold War has been the U.S. government’s wars that the U.S. government and its military have been starting, their invasions, bombings, occupations of foreign lands which have been doing nothing but provoking foreigners. As I have said before, and I’ll say it again: We wouldn’t have had a 9/11 had the U.S. government not been invading, occupying, and bombing foreigners prior to that point.

Psychologically, in my view, their starting wars against foreigners and stoking terrorism gives the power-hungry warmongers a sick sense of purpose — it makes them feel important. After they start their wars and incite reactions from their targeted victims, the warmongers get to say how much they are protecting the rest of us from those awful foreigners, and how much we need them. (Really, it is actually how much they need their power trips satisfied and how much they need to parasite off the labor of the workers and producers of America. And THAT’S the truth!)

And the domestic police state is for our own good as well, the illegal, criminal surveillance and prying into people’s private lives, the TSA groping, molesting and raping innocent grandmas and babies at the airports, and the DHS, FBI, NSA — the whole thing’s a racket, folks. But, if you’re a gullible sheeple and believe the propaganda, and prefer to believe the lies coming out of Washington, knock yourself out.

And, oh, the DEA with this barbaric and uncivilized “attorney” general Jeff Sessions drooling to put potheads in jail, and also his encouraging the local police departments to steal money from innocent people without suspicion or even charging them with anything. They’re literally criminals. But they do have their obedient defenders, especially on conservative talk radio.

I don’t think that the Salem Radio talk show personalities understand any of this. They and the other ditto-heads on the radio don’t seem to understand anything that America is all about, quite frankly.

Michael Wolff vs. Trump; Steve Bannon; and Oprah

There’s this new book that I have no intention of buying or reading by a Michael Wolff — I had never heard of him until now — in which he is trashing Donald Trump. And I heard the author interviewed on Meet the Press in a rebroadcast on Bloomberg Radio. The way he answered questions made him seem somewhat deceptive or deceitful. My conclusion on Wolff is that he has an anti-Trump agenda and is just out to smear Trump. Not that Trump himself merely opening his mouth (or his Twitter account) is enough to be his own worst enemy, mind you.

And this Steve Bannon guy who was quoted, or misquoted, in the book as criticizing Trump and the Trump family. Does Bannon look a little like Archie Bunker? He sure thinks like him. One problem with Bannon (besides looking like a slob and in need of a shave) is this “economic nationalism” ideology of his. What that means is national socialism. He is yet another conservative who doesn’t believe in freedom, the actual freedom of the so-called American founders, that requires respect for private property rights, voluntary exchange, individual liberty and self-determination. (Huh? What are those things? ask the clueless brainwashed millennials. But I digress.)

No, these so-called economic nationalists advocate not freedom but government. Government Central Planning is what they believe in, not freedom. They believe that central planners in Washington should dictate the terms of contracts in trades and commercial transactions, should “protect” American businesses by imposing tariffs i.e. taxes on their own fellow Americans including American businessmen whose economic freedom in purchasing the best capital goods at the lowest prices is violated by these very Government Central Planners in Washington. Go figure. (In fact, just yesterday Donald Boudreaux had a post on just that kind of cognitive dissonance.)

And these economic nationalists — i.e. national socialists — believe that Government Central Planners in Washington could ever control the movements of millions of people. Guess what? They can’t. Their government immigration controls will never work.

So one thing with many conservatives today is their cognitive dissonance. I’ve been writing about that for years now. For example, many of them are collectivists. After all, nationalism is a form of collectivism, certainly not individualism. So they are just plain anti-immigration, or anti-foreigner, regardless of what they say about “legal vs. illegal” and all that. Nope. And I hear the talk radio ditto-heads comparing “illegals” with criminals breaking into “our” home, and “they are invaders,” and so on.

Yet, these same conservatives have been supporting a U.S. military invading and occupying foreign lands, with one irrational excuse after another, for years now. So these conservatives, nationalists, and True Believers in American Exceptionalism nevertheless support actual invaders, and trespassers i.e. occupiers on foreign territories. Meanwhile, the immigrants they want to lock out are not invaders. My grandparents were not “invaders.”

Will Oprah run for President? Should she run for President? Well, if she promises to close all U.S. foreign military bases and bring all U.S. military personnel back to the U.S. where they belong, then maybe I’ll consider supporting her candidacy. The “troops” don’t belong over there in foreign countries that are not U.S. territories. In fact, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to have its apparatus (military or otherwise) on territories that are not U.S. territories. And militarily invading other countries that were of no threat to us is criminal! How can any decent person support that?

I’ll support Oprah if she openly acknowledges that government taxation and confiscation of private wealth or property is theft. Any transaction that is involuntary and involves coercion is theft or extortion, and is immoral, and criminal, and must end!

And if Oprah promises to pardon and release from jails any and all people who have been abducted by armed and badged goons of the State and falsely imprisoned even though such victims had not harmed anyone else’s person or property, then maybe I’ll consider supporting Oprah’s candidacy. And that includes people accused of committing “victimless crimes,” regarding drugs, gun possession, driving-related “offenses” or whatever. And that also includes those who have unwittingly violated any kind of arbitrary rule or diktat imposed by bureaucratic government apparatchiks in the absence of any voluntary contract. She should also promise to have arrested and prosecuted for abduction and false imprisonment and harassment any government enforcer whose enforcement of such victimless “crimes” actually violates the lives, liberty or property of the enforcers’ victims. Then maybe I’ll endorse and support Oprah’s candidacy.

I personally haven’t violated any laws, by the way, because there is no one in charge right now who would save me from the violent ravages of the State. Certainly not Donald Trump. In fact, he is on the side of all the criminals of the State and their goon enforcers, certainly not on the side of innocent people. But then, he is just like most other politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers or other criminals.

And that is what I have to say about all that.