Skip to content

Month: October 2018

Why Do Conservative Libertarians Support the Immigration Police State?

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has this excellent article pointing out supposedly libertarian conservatives’ cognitive dissonance in their claiming to be libertarians, claiming to believe in private property rights and the non-aggression principle, yet supporting the government immigration controls including the police state along the border (and the police state within the country as well).

Hornberger writes:

Whenever you see an article or a speech advocating immigration controls by a conservative libertarian, you will notice one glaring feature, without exception: the absence of any mention of the death, suffering, and the police state that inevitably accompany a system of immigration controls. There is a good reason for that silence: the conservative libertarians do not want libertarians to know that the system they are advocating for the libertarian movement comes with death, suffering, and a police state.

Hornberger says he is a “limited-government libertarian” (as opposed to a zero-government libertarian or a voluntaryist. I am a voluntaryist).

There actually are prominent libertarians who have been with the libertarian movement for decades and who claim to be “anarcho-capitalists,” but because of their belief in “preserving our culture,” or preserving our American culture, whatever that is now, these so-called anarcho-capitalist and conservative libertarians seem to tacitly support the current immigration police state, government central planning in immigration, and the central planners in Washington and their attempts to control the movements of millions of people, something which central planners can never do. However, those prominent anarcho-capitalists do not openly state their defense of such government controls, but such support is nevertheless implied in their articles and speeches, in my view.

Hornberger lists the several problems with government immigration controls that conservative libertarians seem to be supporting:

1. Fixed highway checkpoints. These are located on domestic highways. Federal agents stop domestic travelers who have never crossed into Mexico. They ask them questions. If people refuse to answer their questions, the agents will break their car window, drag them out of their car, and beat them up…

2. Warrantless trespasses onto farms and ranches within 100 miles of any U.S. border. No search warrants. No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion…

3. Roving Border Patrol checkpoints…

4. Violent government raids on private businesses, ones in which the business owner has decided to use his own money to enter into mutually beneficial labor relations with citizens of foreign countries. That’s what a police state is all about.

5. Forcible governmental separation of children from their parents…

6. Forcible deportations of people who are engaged in purely peaceful acts, such as exercising the fundamental God-given rights of pursuing happiness and entering into mutually beneficial economic relations with others. That’s what a police state is all about.

7. The construction of a Berlin Fence and the proposed construction of a Berlin wall along the U.S.-Mexico border…

8. Border Patrol agents boarding Greyhound buses in cities and towns within 100 miles of any U.S. border, which they are now doing all over the United States. They are targeting Hispanics and anyone else who doesn’t look like a genuine American and demanding to see their papers…

9. Complete searches of body and vehicle at international crossing points, including body cavities after the person is required to completely disrobe in front of federal agents…

In my view, the real answers to the immigration problems in Amerika are ending the drug war, dismantling the welfare state or at least not letting immigrants get government welfare, and, most of all, full decentralization of this entire territory, which, as I have repeatedly stated, is just too damn big a territory to be one single country!

A New Low for Liawatha

It seems that Elizabeth Warren has had a DNA analysis to “prove” that she really is of Native American heritage. The Boston Globe is covering the results thoroughly for her. I don’t think the timing of all this, just three weeks before her reelection bid, has anything to do with it. Nope.

Previous to her 2012 election to the U.S. Senate, Warren finagled her position at Harvard Law School from an intensive affirmative action scheme to get more women on the faculty. According to the Daily Caller, however, Harvard wasn’t too concerned about possible incompetence. In other words, Warren may have benefited primarily from the affirmative action scheme rather than qualifications. The Daily Caller:

In 1991, Rutgers Professor Phillip Schuchman reviewed Warren’s co-authored 1989 book “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America” in the pages of the Rutgers Law Review, a publication Warren once edited. Schuchman found “serious errors” which result in “grossly mistaken functions and comparisons.”

Warren and her co-authors had drawn improper conclusions from “even their flawed findings,” and “made their raw data unavailable” to check, he wrote. “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.”

The work “contains so much exaggeration, so many questionable ploys, and so many incorrect statements that it would be well to check the accuracy of their raw data, as old as it is,” Schuchman added.

Harvard Law School appears to have overlooked that review, in part, because of its commitment to hiring a woman professor…

“We’re clearly trying to add more women to the faculty,” Clark told the Harvard Law Record in March 1994.

“Clark said HLS was engaging ‘affirmative action’ to the extent it was working to increase the number of women considered and interviewed,” wrote the Record’s Greg Stohr. “He also said the Law School would be willing to hire a qualified woman, even if her area of expertise did not fit an immediate need, but he stopped short of saying the school would lower its qualification requirements for women.”

Now, since when do universities lower their qualification requirements or academic standards? That never happens.

And since when do ambitious politicians lie to advance their careers, or to attain higher positions of power? Did Elizabeth Warren just make it up that she’s of Native American heritage just as an excuse to check the “Minority” box on application forms, such as for admittance to the Harvard Law School faculty? Did she really have to do that, given that she knew she could already more easily be hired based on just her female status?

And, according to Legal Insurrection in 2012 when Warren was running for the U.S. Senate,

David Bernstein discovered that in annual reports by the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) from 1986-1994, Warren was listed as a minority faculty member.  Since AALS bases such information solely on what faculty self-reports, the information must have come from Warren herself.  The AALS directories, however, only identify whether the faculty member is “minority,” not what minority status is claimed.

There seems to be some uncertainty in news reports as to whether Warren filled out the AALS forms, and if so, whether she identified as Native American, with the (Scott) Brown campaign demanding that she “come clean.”

I spoke this afternoon with Alethea Harney, Warren’s campaign press secretary, and confirmed several key details.

Harney acknowledged that the minority status reported by Warren to AALS was Native American, and that while Warren does not remember the precise forms, she believes there was a box or other designation to be selected for Native American.

The AALS reporting was the only time Warren self-identified as Native American as far as Warren currently is aware, according to Harney, and Warren never has joined any Native American groups, or asserted any tribal memberships.

And in a subsequent article, Legal Insurrection writes:

… Warren was listed in the (Harvard) Women’s Law Journal on the list of “Women of Color in Legal Academia.”  Where would the student editors have come up with the idea that Warren was a “woman of color”?  Certainly not from looking at her.

The Journal used the 1991-1992 AALS directory list of Minority Law Teachers — on which Warren’s name appeared as we now know based on her claiming Native American status — as a starting point, then gathered other information from other sources, and then sent out confirmation letters.

That Legal Insurrection article also quotes from a Boston Globe article thus:

“But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

“In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.”

And now we’re hearing via Zero Hedge that Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test is really indicating that she is, supposedly, only 1/1024 percent Native American. (I thought this photo on Zero Hedge was hysterical.) So really, she’s a lying fraudster, let’s face it.

But speaking of outright frauds, Elizabeth Warren’s “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” has itself been a fraud. She is the one who met with then-President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 to put this monstrosity together, along with then-Sen. Chris “Countrywide” Dodd (D-Countrywide) and then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-OneUnited, “Hot Bottom”). They were “concerned” about consumer “rights.”

If Warren were serious about protecting consumer rights, she would have pressed for indicting Obama on fraud charges, given that he and his administration flunkies knowingly and repeatedly lied that people would keep their doctors or their current health care plan under ObamaCare.

Socialist Donald Trump and the Socialist Republicans

Laurence Vance writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Year-end data from the September 2018 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the U.S. Government show that the deficit for fiscal year 2018 was $779 billion. The federal government spent $4,107.7 billion in fiscal year 2018 (which ended on Sept. 30, 2018), including $600 billion for defense offense (which is actually much higher if all “defense”-related spending is counted). The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They are 100% to blame for the profligate spending. Republicans are big spenders just like Democrats. The only limited government they seek is a government limited to control by Republicans.

And Dr. Vance also has an article today that explains Donald Trump’s own socialist mentality and policies, in Trump’s love for Medicare, Medicaid and Socialist Security Social Security.

Let’s Hope for Voluntary Secession, Rather Than Wait for Full Societal Collapse

Donald Livingston explains why the Abbeville Institute will hold a conference in Dallas on November 10th on secession and decentralization.

In 1991, 15 states seceded from the Soviet Union. This was the greatest peaceful revolution in modern history. American political elites did not see it coming even though Soviet officials told them what was about to happen. Their minds were so controlled by the notion that a modern state is “one and indivisible” they could not imagine peaceful secession. That Soviet secession occurred peacefully had a ripple effect, and soon after a number of peaceful secessions occurred in Europe and more secession movements have arisen. The result is that secession is now thought of in Europe as a neutral act to be evaluated on its merits rather than as something necessarily bad as Lincoln classified it when he identified it with anarchy and a threat to government as such. Today even Americans are beginning to think of secession in a neutral way, despite Lincoln and the Pledge of Allegiance.

As I have been saying, the territory of this “America” country is just TOO BIG. It’s too big in population and in area from coast to coast and border to border. It’s too big to be all one single country and a single “culture,” whatever that means anymore. I know, the mystical nationalists might intellectually be able to recognize those problems with “America,” but emotionally? Nope. They can’t let go of what they’ve been indoctrinated with their entire lives, starting with their 7 or 8 hours per day sitting in a classroom, standing for the “Pledge,” and their intellectual curiosity and their questioning the authoritarianism of the day being stifled by their authoritarian teachers.

But there are those who aren’t too brainwashed in the cult of America worship, and perhaps those people can be reached with a dose of reality. I hope.

Mainstream Media (i.e. Government Media) Not Giving the Whole Story on Saudi Journalist Khashoggi

California State University political science professor As`ad AbuKhalil says that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was not a real critic of the Saudi regime, as news accounts have been suggesting, but really a “loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus.”

And international affairs writer Finian Cunningham asks, Did Saudis, CIA fear a Khashoggi 9/11 bombshell?

More Articles

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute says, You want to make America great again? Start by making America free again. “If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public sidewalk and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window: pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.”

James Bovard on “believe women”: Apply the Christine Blasey Ford test to TSA’s female victims.

Jacob Hornberger with some lessons from Khashoggi’s disappearance, including that the U.S. government needs to end all foreign aid, or its “government-to-government bribe to ensure loyalty.”

Laurence Vance asks, What should be illegal?

Justin Raimondo on the Saudi collapse.

And Zero Hedge with an article on the FBI concealing evidence that “directly refutes” the premise of Trump-Russia probe.

Will Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Pappas Debate on October 17th?

I’m only writing about this one because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so popular as well as controversial in her campaign proposals. Ocasio-Cortez is the Democrat candidate for Congress for congressional district 14 in New York, New York, New York. She is the one who wants to spend tens of trillions of taxpayer dollars on “free” health care, “free” education and so on.

According to Rasmussen, that district’s race is “Strong Dem,” with an odometer- or speedometer-like image with the arrow pointing to the far left in blue. I guess if it were the fuel gauge it would be pointing to almost empty. But while that is obviously the case philosophically and intellectually, the Republican candidate, Anthony Pappas, is also running on empty, in my view.

Pappas (Is he related to Ike Pappas, CBS News?) is an “associate professor of economics and finance at St. John’s University,” according to this WNYC article.

I checked the Internet for whatever his actual views are, and it’s difficult to find. However, according to Pappas’s website, there is a debate scheduled between the two on October 17 at PS 69 School auditorium in Queens. Maybe we’ll find out at that time. On his website he considers himself a “moderate, independent Republican with a motto of producing ‘sensible solutions for a kinder, caring world’.” (Oh yeah, how so?)

Pappas is critical of Ocasio-Cortez’s far-left, “bizarre” ideas. He is repeatedly critical of her socialist proposals. But the WNYC article states that Pappas “calls himself a compassionate conservative who supports progressive taxation and lower government spending.” Hmm, “progressive taxation”? Sounds like a socialist to me. A Republican socialist as well.

Well, I wonder if he will suggest any kind of decentralization and de-monopolization away from governmental controls and tax-thefts, repealing the income tax, ending the drug war, or any kind of dismantling of the welfare state that continues to keep the masses in chains by Big Government. Probably not. Will they actually have the debate? I can’t find any other reference to the scheduled debate online except for on his own website.

And if there is a debate, will debate moderators or Ocasio-Cortez ask Pappas about his bitter 14-year-long divorce and his wife’s accusations of abuse, and his suing the judge and the courts? I wouldn’t be surprised, given just recently the circus at Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings, in which a lady’s accusations against him was discussed and discussed and argued, with yelling and screaming, but not much mention of his ignorance of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and his earlier rulings which will unleash brutal government tyrants on innocent people. (I wonder if Pappas has any views on the Bill of Rights.)

Dow Crashing? Don’t Panic. Trump Can Cut It Out with the Trade Nonsense

So the stock market fell a little bit yesterday, the Dow went down about 831 points, and some people are panicking. No, I don’t think it’s anything like in 2008, it’s just a “correction.” And I don’t think that it has anything to do with the Fed raising interest rates. Some analysts are saying it’s being caused by the tech sector. I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.

There was a worse downturn in February. At that time I wrote,

Following last Friday’s big 665.75 point decline, Dow Jones Industrial Average then plummeted another 1175 points yesterday. At the opening bell this morning it fell another 600 points but is already up 30 points as I’m writing this. I don’t expect this decline to be an indication of a repeat of 2008. It’s just going through some adjustments, that’s all. Nothing to worry about.

For what it’s worth, 2015 was the worst year since 2008, up to December 2015. In July 2015, the DJIA was at 17,568, in August it went down to 15,781, in November back up to 17,910, in January 2016 back down to 15,944, and in April 2016 back up to 17,900 and it has continued to mainly go up since then. You can look at any number of interactive charts to see the numbers over these recent years.

But what’s going on now? Some say it’s technological issues, although there are other factors. I don’t know if Donald Trump’s State of the Onion last week had anything to do with it, or the release on Friday of the Republican FISA memo.

But it is clear that the Trump tax cuts, without any significant cuts in government spending, will have a variety of effects on things. The government is completely out of control, spending like drunken sailors, and Donald Trump is clueless about that. And the Federal Reserve also plays a role.

Today’s Dow is going up and down, very negative, then in the positive territory, and negative again. It could get worse over the next week, like in February. Besides the tech stocks I think that people are “concerned” over Donald Trump’s trade idiocy. His intrusions into the American people’s economic and trade matters are what could cause a further downturn.

The problem with protectionists like the economic ignoramus egomaniac Donald Trump is that they are control freaks who just don’t want to let people be free to do what they want. Just let the consumers buy whatever they want, from wherever and whomever they want, and let producers buy whatever capital goods they need and from wherever and from whomever they want. It’s called freedom, Donald. And prosperity, as well. More freedom has led to more prosperity throughout history, no?

When the government intrudes and imposes the wants and desires of control-freak bureaucrats like Trump and his cohorts and cronies, such intrusions cause distortions in the markets, price distortions and even higher unemployment as well, in the long run. And of course Wall Street will react to the monkey wrench the Control-Freak-in-Chief is throwing into what could have been a stronger economy.