Skip to content

Month: June 2018

Elitist Liberal Jurists Worried about Helpless Minorities and Poor People

Ohio has a procedure of removing voters from registration lists if they have not voted a certain number if years, and if they did not respond to a registration verification request to reaffirm their voter registration status. A guy challenged the policy because he couldn’t vote as his name was not on the voter list in his district, because he hadn’t voted in a while. The U.S. Supreme Bureaucrats denied his challenge to that policy, with the 5 conservatives voting in the majority against the 4 liberals dissenting. Part of the reason for those laws is to guard against possible voter fraud, and, as cited in the majority opinion, it’s “been estimated that 24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”

I have no idea why the 4 dissenters think it’s unreasonable to require a voter who hasn’t voted for a number of years to respond to a notice to verify one’s voter status. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was whining about “disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters.”

It seems to me that she is implying that minorities and low-income voters are too dumb to understand a notice clearly stating that if they haven’t voted in several years they need to respond to the notice or their names will be taken off the voter lists. What an elitist.

That shouldn’t be a surprise, given that Sotomayor seems to think mainly in terms of racial bias with her own anti-white male bias, with past statements such as, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” So we have a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who admits to being an affirmative action justice, looks down her nose at the intelligence and abilities of other minorities and the poor, while at the same time says how racist our voter laws are. She exemplifies the irrational, ignorant thinking from the reactionaries on the left, in my view. (Wait, didn’t Sonia play the housekeeper on All in the Family? No? Okay, just kidding.)

So how could such a rule “disenfranchise” minorities and low-income people but not disenfranchise white or wealthy people? I know someone who last voted in the early 1990s, and a few years later received a notice from the local registrar of voters with exactly the message referred to in this court decision. Frankly, people need to take responsibility for their own situations, such as making sure that you are still registered to vote when you receive a notice warning you that you might be taken off the list. (Why oh why do sane, rational people want to continue voting, anyway?)

More Articles on the Governments That Ruin

Jacob Hornberger has a truth-telling post on the bizarre Trump-Kim summit, saying that the U.S. government is the root cause of the North Korea problem.

Jennifer Lynch at EFF on HART: Homeland Security’s massive new database will include face recognition, DNA, and people’s “non-obvious relationships.”

Justin Raimondo writes that the Euro-weenies don’t want free trade, they want a free ride at Uncle Sam’s expense.

(Not related to the Justin Raimondo article, but on his Twitter he responds to a tweet by Melissa, who says to Merck, “Your cancer drug Keytruda costs $150,000 per year for a patient and your CEO makes $17,000,000 a year in salary. You are what’s wrong with healthcare.” Justin replies to Melissa: “Bull****. Without Merck, there would be no Keytruda, which is saving my life.” And my response to the both of them is that if we get rid of the patent laws these drugs would be MUCH cheaper!!)

The Daily Caller with an article on the nazi-like California state gubmint, harassing and persecuting a gun owner who honestly tried to comply with a gun registration law, but they raided his home and arrested him anyway. Nazis.

Tony Heller says that disaster arrives for climate alarmists.

And James Jatras asks, Where, why and how will the empire strike back?

2018 Candidates for State-Wide Offices: Utah

It is time for another review of candidates running for offices in 2018. My previous one was on Massachusetts. This time I will discuss Utah, because a former Massachusetts governor and “frequent candidate,” Willard Mitt Romney, is running for U.S. Senate in Utah to replace the dull neocon Orrin Hatch.

Why can’t Willard just leave people alone?

There is also another Republican on the primary ballot, state Rep. Mike Kennedy. (Do we really need another Kennedy in the Senate?) I’ll get to him a little later in this post. The primary is June 26.

Given that Willard Romney is so far ahead in the polls, it appears to me that the Republican voters of Utah forget what a lying two-faced weathervane hack Willard has been for the past 25 years. So, I will remind you of his record.

So here we go. During his 2012 Presidential campaign, Romney said that, regarding taxes, “everything is on the table,” including raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit. No surprise there.

During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney raised taxes on corporations. The tax hikes, according to columnist Deroy Murdock, “totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005.” And, according to Murdock, Romney “created or increased fees by $432 million…Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness.”

My, what a great guy, this Willard.

You see, he is typical of the elitist political class, taking from the poor and middle class and redistributing the wealth to the rich fat-cats, as we saw in his support of the Wall Street Bailout in 2008. To show how clueless he was about the Federal Reserve and the financial crisis of 2007-2009, Romney endorsed the reappointment of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2010. During his 2012 campaign, Romney received the most among the GOP candidates (and more than Obama as well) from the Big Banks in campaign contributions between just January and September of 2011, according to Michael Snyder: $352,200 from Goldman Sachs, $184,800 from Morgan Stanley, and $112,500 from Bank of America.

As a crony capitalist with Bain Capital, Romney used government subsidies with some of the companies Bain bought out to restructure and sell and profit from.

Speaking of crony capitalism, when it comes to “climate change” interventionism, Romney is all in. No free market solutions in sight with this Willard. For instance, in 2012 he cited a study in support of carbon taxes, and, according to Forbes (or you can view that article here), Romney’s advisors were all for cap-and-trade legislation/regulations, subsidizing renewable energy, with one advisor who was involved in the “Department of Energy loan guarantee program that funded Solyndra,” and another who was responsible for getting the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments passed.

You see, the main reason for this climate change fanaticism is to expand the powers of government and to raise taxes or impose new taxes. More tax-thefts, more stealing from the workers and producers of society by the parasites, by the envious and the covetous. And that’s why “climate change,” “global warming,” and “we’re all gonna die!” hysteria and irrationality. The activists want your money! If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

And who can forget “RomneyCare,” the predecessor to “ObamaCare,” in which Romney colluded with Ted Kennedy and other schnooks to ram mandatory health insurance down the throats of Massachusetts residents. A scheme which didn’t control costs, but which did cause the state’s largest medical provider for the poor to have to dramatically cut costs. (Hmm, isn’t that a little backwards, Willard?)

On guns, do you remember during the 2007-2008 campaign when Romney lied gaffed about hunting? “I’m not a big-game hunter … I’ve made it very clear, I’ve always been a, if you will, a rodent and rabbit hunter, all right? Small, small varmints, if you will. And I began when I was, oh, 15 or so, and have hunted those kinds of varmints since then—more than two times…”

Anyway, in 2004, Romney signed a permanent ban on “assault weapons,” proclaiming, “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense…” He’s very well informed on all these subjects, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about. Right? So, he’s certainly a flip-flopper when it comes to gun control and gun rights.

Besides all that, Romney is a vicious drug warrior, including prohibiting medical marijuana. (See Romney rudely snub a medical marijuana patient in a wheelchair. What class.)

Romney is also a militarist who said he would have signed the NDAA which permits the suspension of due process in its provision to allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. Not exactly “Mr. Civil Libertarian,” that’s for sure.

And, while the conservatives are all criticizing Hillary Clinton in her private email server scandal cover-up, and criticizing the FBI/DOJ conspiracy to frame Donald Trump in “Russia collusions” and cover it all up, why didn’t we ever hear about Willard Romney’s shenanigans with his governor’s office staff destroying computers and removing hard drives from their government offices when he was leaving as governor, and spending $100,000 in taxpayer money to do it? What was he hiding?

Speaking of shenanigans, during the 2012 campaign Ron Paul was very close to winning the GOP nomination, and this article and this article explain how the Romney Establishment colluded in the primaries and caucuses to steal the nomination away from Dr. Paul. In one instance, Ron Paul convention delegates’ hotel rooms were broken into and pot was planted in hotel room safes, and bullets planted in one lady’s luggage, for which she was detained at the airport. Now, I’m not saying that Romney was involved in that. But, why would people do those things? The Establishment loves its power, and will do what’s necessary to retain it or expand it.

And do you remember more recently when Romney gave that big speech calling Donald Trump a “phony,” a “fraud,” a “fake,” and a “con man”? He was talking about HIMSELF!

Okay, enough of Willard. In the Republican primary, there is also state Rep. Mike Kennedy, a father of 8. (Was he a Dick van Patten fan?)

Do we really need another Kennedy in the Senate? No, really. Sadly, some of Kennedy’s legislative “accomplishments” seem very central-planning-obsessed, if you ask me.

For instance, as a state rep. Kennedy sponsored “Termination of Parental Rights Amendments,” which states, among other things, “with regard to a minor who is in the custody of the Division of Child and Family,” … “If the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the minor to the minor’s parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minor’s physical or emotional well-being, the minor may not be returned to the custody of the minor’s parent. … return of the minor to a parent or guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the minor is established if: (i) the parent or guardian fails to: (A) participate in a court approved child and family plan; (B) comply with a court approved child and family plan in whole or in part; or (C) meet the goals of a court approved child and family plan; or …”

WHY is a Republican sponsoring this kind of legislation, with “court approved” this and “court approved” that?! Why isn’t he sponsoring legislation that abolishes any government “Division of Child and Family”?!! As I have written rather recently, there is no place for government in child care (or education for that matter).

And, according to Dennis Romboy of the Deseret News, state Rep. Mike Kennedy also sponsored legislation this year which “requires the Utah Driver License Division and the State Board of Education to provide information to student drivers on ways to improve air quality and the harmful effects of vehicle emissions.” That’s a Republican? A conservative? (Why isn’t he advocating abolishing the State Board of Education?!!)

And this Kennedy is not particularly honest, as apparently he placed some names of local politicians on his list of endorsements who didn’t actually endorse him. (Maybe he served in Vietnam, too? — Just kidding.)

The Democrat in this race, Jenny Wilson, is on the Salt Lake County Council, has been a press secretary and chief of staff for two different Congressmen, and has a “Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School,” according to her website. Is she promising to “Drain the Swamp”?

Now, there actually is a candidate on the ballot of the Libertarian Party, Craig Bowden. In my view, he’s very good on many issues, pro-liberty. While he isn’t exactly Ron Paul or Harry Browne, most of his views are consistent with the NAP and the voluntaryist perspective.

On criminal justice, he writes on his website, “Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm…As your Senator, I would favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes…Because civil asset forfeiture involves the taking of property without due process, I would immediately move to cease such practices in all levels possible.”

On economic liberty, Bowden writes, “Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.”

On foreign policy, Bowden writes, “In regards to the number of bases we have around the globe, it is time to take a hard look at what is really necessary for national defense. I believe it is time to start withdrawing from countries we have been stationed in for decades and bring those unit colors back to American soil.” (Do you mean remove ALL those bases and bring ALL U.S. troops back to the U.S.? They don’t belong on foreign lands that are not U.S. territories.)

Among other things, he also writes, “Lastly, I will be moving to remove the United States from entangling and outdated treaties such as NATO and pulling us from the United Nations as neither hold U.S. interests at heart.” (You think Romney or Kennedy would do this?)

I don’t know why he doesn’t mention immigration, because he did in past campaigns, apparently. In his 2016 campaign for Congress, Bowden wrote, “Craig supports the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” (You would think that those who proclaim to be “pro-America” would agree with this.)

So, who knows why he doesn’t mention immigration in this year’s campaign website. Is he afraid of putting his actual views online for voters to see? In the past, the Libertarian Party view has been that honest persuasion is important to change the minds of others.

Conservatives and nationalists want to separate “legal” from “illegal” immigration, when they just don’t realize that in government immigration restrictions they are really opposing the free market and private property rights, and supporting socialist government central planning, not to mention the police state.

Now, I know that many conservatives in Utah don’t like Romney, but they will probably vote for him anyway, because he’s a good demagogue who knows how to manipulate people’s emotions, just like Trump and most other pols. And I know that many conservatives want the government to continue its immoral police state with its war on immigration and its drug war. But if voters in Utah really want to put at least one voice to “Drain the Swamp” in Washington, they might consider voting libertarian. Really, what do you have to lose?

Were the Suicidal Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain on Psychiatric Drugs?

Why did Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade both commit suicide and within a week of one another? Well, I think the timing is unrelated, but from the little information I’ve seen about both of them, I am wondering if they were taking the SSRI antidepressants.

I know, I know, I go on about the SSRIs, and the anti-anxiety meds, and so forth, but with good reason.

We do know that Bourdain had a history of depression, as he acknowledged in 2016. According to TMZ,

Bourdain addressed the issue while visiting Argentina — a country that fascinated him because it embraced psychoanalysis and mental health treatment.

The episode featured several scenes of Bourdain speaking with his therapist and addressing real issues in his life. And, even though it seems like a joke at first, it becomes clear he’s not kidding around.

When asked what brought him into the office, Bourdain says … “I will find myself in an airport, for instance, and I’ll order an airport hamburger. It’s an insignificant thing, it’s a small thing, it’s a hamburger, but it’s not a good one. Suddenly I look at the hamburger and I find myself in a spiral of depression that can last for days.”

Regarding Kate Spade, according to the Guardian,

“Kate suffered from depression and anxiety for many years,” the statement said. “She was actively seeking help and working closely with her doctors to treat her disease, one that takes far too many lives

Now, I’m not saying that either of those two had been taking those pharmaceutical antidepressant drugs, or, if they were, that the drugs caused them to decide to commit suicide. However, among other things, Dr. Peter Breggin writes, “With or without mania, antidepressants often cause a worsening of the individual’s condition, with “crashing” into depression and suicide.” Read the linked article for more information. You see, those SSRI antidepressants have very serious side effects, including causing depression and suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Breggin has written several books on the subject, and has testified before Congress on this issue as well.

As I have noted many times before now (and with documentation), many of the mass killers in recent years had been taking either those antidepressant drugs, or anti-anxiety drugs or anti-psychotics. In recent years, the young people have been exhibiting a rise in depression and anxiety. And I believe this is because of the schools and the mental health industry feeding them those damn psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin, adderall, xanax, prozac, zoloft, luvox, and the list goes on.

As Dr. Breggin notes,

Antidepressants are neurotoxic, that is, they harm the brain and disrupt its functions. As a result, they cause innumerable kinds of abnormal thinking and behaviors, including mania, suicide and violence. In the process, they cause detectable damage to the brain of the child or adult, and also to the fetus of pregnant mothers who take the drug (See Scientific Section 9).

The antidepressant drugs have no specific impact on depression and instead are used off label to treat everything imaginable from physical pain to anxiety and ADHD. People often experience euphoria after starting an antidepressant, but it is short-lived, leaving the individual to try one and then another antidepressant in the hope of re-experiencing this artificial, chemically induced “happiness.” This initial “feeling great” is in reality a danger sign, often signaling the start of an antidepressant-induced manic episode that can ruin lives. Antidepressant-induced mania is largely indistinguishable from spontaneous mania, and varies in intensity from mild to psychotic. It can include bizarre destructive behaviors, impulsivity, sexual acting out, callousness, grandiosity, and very bad judgment. Antisocial behavior is common. Extreme irritability can lead otherwise loving people to become hateful and violent. Loss of judgment can cause ethical people to act like criminals (See Scientific Sections 1-7).

Again, I don’t know if Anthony Boudain or Kate Spade had been on any of those psychiatric drugs, but it would be informative to know if they had been taking them. In my view, it would be those damn drugs in which the emotional effects of personal incidents, which can affect someone deeply in the first place, are exaggerated greatly by the drugs.

As Wenzel observed, one possible incident in Bourdain’s life is that two days before his suicide he may have found out that his girlfriend was seen with another man, according to Daily Mail. But we don’t know if Bourdain had been on those psychiatric drugs. If he had been taking one of those psychiatric drugs, would he have otherwise gone on to commit suicide if he had not been on them?

And as I have included in my past posts on this subject, if someone wanted to stop taking antidepressants, to prevent dangerous withdrawal symptoms see Dr. Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.

More News and Commentary

Ray McGovern is still waiting for evidence of a Russian hack.

Wendy McElroy discusses a campaign against sexual violence which is biased for female victims and removes due process from male defendants.

Don Boudreaux says that Trump’s tariffs hurt American workers and ruin relationships with our allies.

Jacob Hornberger comments on Mike Pence’s hypocrisy on Cuba, and asks, Could a U.S. domestic coup ever be justified?

Jack Burns on an immigration detention center calling the police on U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley who attempted to visit the facility.

WND with an article on how medical patients will be losing even more privacy in a big way.

Daily Caller with an article on Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Google working with the Soviet Poverty Law Center to falsely label people as “hate groups.”

And Robert Tracisnki says the Supreme Bureaucrats’ “conservative” majority wants to kill freedom softly (gay wedding cake decision).

More News and Commentary

Ron Paul says that homeschooling is a viable alternative to the government schools, and can protect kids from the violence and cultural Marxism which seem to pervade the schools these days.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Why the silence from libertarian immigration controllers?

Chris Calton says that there was a time when the feds took Habeas Corpus seriously.

Walter Williams discusses guns in America, past and present.

Ryan McMaken on what the Supreme Bureaucrats got wrong on its gay wedding cake decision.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos on targeted killing, Donald Trump style.

John O’Connor discusses politicizing the FBI: How James Comey succeeded where Richard Nixon failed.

And Howie Carr gets into the details on documents which show how Robert Mueller’s FBI opposed the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men.

What Should Be Done About Social Security?

A lot of people have been conditioned to believe that Social Security is necessary. However, the institution of Social Security has caused dependence on government, and is a major fraud as well. Many people believe that they contribute to some sort of account and that they are paid back when they retire. But no, the government takes the earnings away from you and from employers and puts it into the general national treasury, and Congress squanders it along with the rest of the general fund. There is no personal “account.” A young person today will probably never see any of the money that is being taken by the bureaucrats in Washington.

Prior to the Crash of 1929 and the 1930s, the American people were doing very well, by and large. The 1929 Crash and initial Depression years were greatly contributed to by the government interventions of President Herbert Hoover. After being elected President in 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rammed Social Security through and his 1930s further interventions prolonged the Depression. And his new socialist/fascist Social Security scheme created a whole new mass dependence, which escalated with LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid, which created whole new problems in the entire medical system.

In a new article, Laurence Vance says that Social Security is in dire straits, and discusses the most recent problems with it in detail. And he then writes:

What, then, should be done to prevent Social Security from going over a fiscal cliff?

From a libertarian perspective, because Social Security is an intergenerational wealth-redistribution scheme, the program should be ended, its taxes eliminated, its offices closed, its bureaucrats laid off, and its de facto national ID cards voided.

Although Social Security is also a welfare program that fosters dependency on the government, crowds out real charity, shifts responsibility from the individual to society, shifts responsibility from families to the state, and contributes to class warfare, those things are not first on the list of why Social Security should be ended.

Most important, it is neither constitutional nor the proper role of government to have a retirement, disability, insurance, or investment program; provide a safety net; help those who cannot help themselves; keep widows, orphans, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled out of poverty; or take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t.

Social Security doesn’t need to be “saved”; as the cornerstone of the welfare state, it needs to be abolished if the United States is to be transformed from a welfare state to a free society.

Supreme Court Rules on Case of Baker Refusing to Bake a Cake for Gay Couple

The Supreme Bureaucrats have once again shown what a bunch of gutless wonders they are. They have ruled on a “baker refusing to bake a cake for gay wedding” case.

I didn’t read through the whole opinion, but I heard discussions about it on various talk shows and Nina Totenberg’s report on NPR. (Is she still there?)

From what I heard, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s (Is he still there?) opinion criticized the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its anti-religion, anti-Christian sentiment against the Christian baker. Kennedy et al. seemed to take the case mainly to reprimand the Colorado bureaucracy for not being “inclusive” enough, as the opinion sounded like it was laced with SJW crapola throughout.

But the gutless wonders didn’t really address the “civil rights” laws in question, or the property rights and freedom of association rights of the baker involved in any real way.

The 7-2 opinion, with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, left the important constitutional principles up in the air, with no actual issue being clarified in any way. Two other liberals on the high court, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative majority.

And the Bureaucrats didn’t address the questions of whether business owners have a right to refuse serving customers, or a right to refuse to do extra labor to serve others, involuntarily. Those are the main questions here.

Regardless of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says, yes, free people do have a right to associate with, do business with, establish contracts with, anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. And they also have a right to NOT associate with, NOT do business with, NOT establish contracts with, anyone they DON’T want to. This is because the business in question is privately owned. The owner owns one’s own life, one’s own person, one’s labor, and one’s business or property. Privately owned businesses are not owned by the government, they are not owned by the community, they are not owned by one’s neighbors.

The problem with the Civil Rights Act is that it should only have addressed public property, government-run operations such as the schools, the buses and subways, the parks, etc. Everyone is a part of the “public” and has a right of access to those things. (I know, it should not be that way in a free society, gubmint should not control schools or transportation, but that’s the way it is right now.)

But the Civil Rights Act included privately owned businesses, which made them no longer privately owned (only on paper). Hotels, restaurants, diners, and other like businesses were considered “public accommodations,” so therefore, to the anti-liberty illogic of the U.S. Congress, all of the “public” had a right of access, regardless of what the owners-on-paper wanted.

But now, EVERY business, regardless of its privately-owned status, is a “public accommodation,” including bakeries, photography businesses, and so on. And also now, “Civil Rights” goes beyond just skin color and race, and one’s sex or religious views, but now it includes the “sexual orientation” and “transgender” protected groups.

So the cowardly, ignorant Supreme Bureaucrats are so afraid of recognizing an individual’s right to pick and choose with whom to do business and for any reason, and so afraid of appearing “anti-LGBT,” they came up with this confused ruling (that nevertheless sided with the Christian bakers).

The LGBT activists are getting ready to go to more bakeries, photographers, and florists to threaten with lawsuits to extort money from them, as well as drag the businesspeople’s lives through the courts. And this, even though if refused service the activists will very easily be able to go to other bakeries, photographers, and florists to do work for them, which is what most of the “victims” in these cases were still able to easily do anyway. But the activists felt it important to ruin lives in the name of legally forcing others to show acceptance of their lifestyle.

The LGBT activists’ narcissistic compulsion to force others to accept their lifestyle is what motivates them in these cases. And we can safely conclude that based on most of the people in these cases being able to find plenty of other businesses in their area who will serve their needs, bake them a same-sex wedding cake, take pictures at their wedding, etc.

The bottom line for me: Either the private business people have a right to not do business with anyone and for any reason, or the ones who are refused have a right to force the business people to do extra labor to serve them, involuntarily. That is the choice.

Government Central Planning and the Deep State

Sheldon Richman documents how government interventionism causes further problems, which leads to further government interventions, which cause further problems. In the case of that particular article, the current state of Israel was created by way of government interventionism, and it wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for previous government interventions. The Middle-Eastern conflicts over many decades now wouldn’t have been nearly as bad otherwise. Central planning controls always wreak havoc on a society.

Charles Burris has a post on the “deep state,” that he says is also known as the “secret government,” or the “invisible government,” but which I have said is pretty much the same thing as the “national security state.”

Jacob Hornberger has another post on the assassinations of the Kennedys. To this day, many of the American sheeple still can’t comprehend the possibility that the CIA would assassinate their own leader. (I know some people don’t like my use of the word, “sheeple.” But, if the shoe fits…)

Robert Higgs says that nations don’t gain or lose from trade, individual traders do. (Sadly, collectivist reactionaries like Donald Trump don’t get that.)

And Barry Brownstein discusses 3 myths of socialism debunked by Venezuela’s nightmare.

 

The Mueller Fishing Expedition Conspiracy Continues

This ongoing Mueller sham investigation fishing expedition is really so annoying now, and the mainstream media i.e. government media continue to do their news and discussion in terms of “Russia-Trump collusions” and/or “Russia hacking the election.” I’m sick of it. The NSA director Mike Rogers, James Comey and James Clapper all testified before the Intelligence (sic) Committees that they had not seen any evidence of the aforementioned collusions or election hacking. And Senators who are part of those committees such as Dianne Feinstein told media they had not seen any evidence. There was no evidence of any crime at the very beginning of all this, only emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks and Trump campaign flunkies meeting with foreigners, which campaigns do all the time, and it’s not illegal. FISA warrants were obtained unlawfully by the FBI/DOJ lying to the judge and withholding critical information to get the FISA requests approved. The “collusions” and “hacking or stealing the election” accusations were all based on made-up assertions by those members of the government and the government media who hate Trump and didn’t want to see him be President. The investigation was started not because evidence existed that indicated a crime was committed, but because  members of the “intelligence (sic) community” and the government media hated Trump and wanted to take him down as President. So the process for frame-ups and entrapments thus begun.

And that’s my take on all that. And I’m not a Trump supporter. He’s wrong on trade, immigration, foreign policy, and just about everything else.

Anyway, Zero Hedge has this article on the “London-to-Langley spy (on Trump campaign) ring,” with its roots in the Obama administration. And John Solomon of The Hill has this article attempting to connect some more dots regarding the London connection and the informants/spies we’ve been hearing about just recently. And I’ve already linked to this “collusion against Trump” timeline by Sharyl Attkisson, but I’ll link to it again anyway.

I don’t expect the DOJ under the corrupt moron Jeff Sessions to do anything about all this, and the #2 in charge of the Russia investigation Rod Rosenstein is one of those hacks who signed on to the unlawful FISA warrants. So if Congress doesn’t get moving on its own investigations of the conspiracy against Trump, and if the Democrats take over Congress in November, then these crooks, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, John Brennan, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and more, will get away with their conspiracy and Trump will no doubt be entrapped and impeached on made-up charges.