Skip to content

Month: October 2018

Reading for a New Understanding of the Origins of the Modern Age

Charles Burris provides some background on the “origins of modern science, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and their roots in esoteric knowledge and occult traditions with the religious, philosophical and political implications which are largely unknown to the general public. These scholarly works have revolutionized and transformed how we view the history of the past 500 years and the beginnings of the Modern Age to the present.” Articles and books that also include the ideological and intellectual background on America’s founding.

The Enslavements of Socialism and “Social Justice”

As a follow-up to my recent post on the ignorant socialists on both sides of the same statist coin, liberal and conservative, I wanted to bring up the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle and self-ownership. You own yourself and your life and morally if we want a peaceful, civilized society, then be peaceful, don’t initiate aggression against others. And a part of all that is private property rights. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, as well as don’t commit acts of aggression against others.

But socialism is when the government takes ownership of the means of production, industry and property, and actually consists of the violation of the individual and is when one’s life and labor do not exist for one’s own benefit (or for the benefit of those of one’s voluntary choosing) but for the benefit of others as determined by bureaucrats, by the rulers, against the will of the people. In contrast, actual free-markets (or free-market “capitalism”) consist of not just privately-owned property and industry but voluntary exchange, in which you own your own life and labor. As I wrote in a post that I recently linked to,

“Owning people” doesn’t fit into capitalism. “Owning people” is what the State does under socialism. If by “capitalism” you mean “free market capitalism,” then the “capitalists” do not “own” — nor can claim any kind of ownership of — their workers, their employees. In actual free-market capitalism, no one is forced to have any association with or to do any labor for any employer one doesn’t want to work for. In free-market capitalism, your contracts with other associates or your employers are voluntary, and you are free to go work elsewhere if you don’t like that employer. In a free system, you own yourself.

Claiming actual ownership of others is the enslavement of them. And that’s what socialism does, by the State’s (regardless of its using the rhetorical guise “the public”) seizing ownership of industries, wealth and “the means of production,” which includes the people. The people are the most important amongst the means of production.

And by the State’s “seizing ownership of industries,” I am referring also to control. If the State takes control over your supposedly privately owned business or property (with regulations, mandates, restrictions, etc.) then that is the indirect way of the State’s seizing ownership. If you don’t fully control your own property, and another entity has forcibly seized control over it, then you don’t really own it.

Besides the purpose of forced redistribution of wealth in the name of equalizing inequality, socialism is also used to forcibly advance a social agenda. So some people won’t like my examples here, but that’s because a lot of people have been indoctrinated with social “justice” propaganda, but here goes:

One example is the civil rights stuff that now has expanded to include LGBT “rights” against “discrimination” as well as by race or sex. In recent years we have heard about same-sex couples suing photographers, florists and bakers who didn’t want to do work for the couples’ weddings.

Now, why does the baker or florist have a right to not do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with? Because his business is his own private property. He owns the business, not the government, and not the “public.” The “civil rights” laws say that the business is a “public accommodation,” but the public does not own the business. And therefore members of the public do not have a right to order the owner of the business to serve those he doesn’t want to do extra labor to serve. It has to do with private property rights and freedom of association.

And it has nothing to do with the religion of the Christian baker, for example, and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. It has to do with the self-centered couples using the armed powers of government courts to force the businesspeople to show an acceptance of the customers’ lifestyles. These have been cases of extreme narcissists who believe that they have a right to force others to do extra labor to serve them, period, in my view.

Unfortunately, many conservatives, who have been opposed to the LGBT agenda and have been supporting the private businesses who don’t want to serve same-sex couples, don’t understand the principles of private property rights and freedom of association, and freedom of thought and conscience behind all these cases. It seems to me that the conservatives have also been covetous when it comes to using the powers of government to advance their social agendas.

The conservatives believe that the businesspeople’s religious beliefs are what need to be protected here, and that is not the case. What if an atheist baker refused to serve a Christian couple? I don’t believe the conservatives would support the baker. They would probably support the Christian couple. So the conservatives also believe that in some cases people have a right to use government courts to force businesspeople to serve others they don’t want to serve. No, it has to do with private property rights and freedom of association. If you’re an atheist baker and don’t want to serve a Christian couple, then of course you have a right to refuse to serve them. It’s your business, not theirs.

Another example is the transgender bathroom/shower controversy. Some states now allow someone who is male but thinks he’s a female to go into the ladies room, and vice versa. In some states, if you complain about it (that is, if you are a lady who doesn’t want males in the ladies room while you’re in there, or if you’re a parent who doesn’t want an obvious male going into the ladies room while your little girl is in there, and so on), you could be fined a lot of money and even arrested and thrown in jail.

And that is just how narcissistic some people are. You see, someone who has this confusion with his gender, he’s a male and thinks he’s a female but rather than causing him to feel uncomfortable going into the men’s room he now has the power to make a bunch of women and girls feel uncomfortable while he goes into their ladies room. So by law they must accept his gender confusion that he has. They must accommodate him.

And all that stuff, as well as all those “civil rights” laws, applies to privately owned property as well as public property or government buildings. So yes, these policies are another aspect of socialism, in which the government is essentially stealing ownership of private property away from the owners-on-paper.

Incidentally, in Massachusetts there is a ballot question this November to repeal such a law that Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu also signed a similar bill into law. Sununu is up for reelection as is Charlie Half-Baker.

The same kinds of enslavements occur in other areas of life, such as medical care. Do you have a right to force a medical doctor or private hospital to care for you? No, of course you don’t. No one has a “right” to health care. If you have a right to have something provided to you, then you have a right to demand that producers must do extra labor to serve you.

As I wrote in a 2012 article, “If someone chooses to be a medical doctor, devotes hours and hours every day and years of intensive study and labor toward training to become a medical doctor, then who is it that owns such efforts, labor, energy and the actual career itself? That doctor? One’s neighbors? The government?” I hope the question answers itself.

And why is medical care so expensive, anyway? When did it really start to become expensive? Well, after Medicare and Medicaid were imposed on the people by bureaucrats who wanted to solve a problem that didn’t exist, that’s when!

So here is a list of articles on why socialized medicine doesn’t work, and never will work, and is immoral as well. And they will help to explain why Bernie Sanders’s plans or Evita Ocasio-Cortez’s plans for “single payer”also will not work. Just study the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and, worst of all, the U.K.

And if the government doesn’t outright own all the means of production and industry as in socialist societies, a word for the public’s or government’s seizing control over privately owned property or businesses is “fascism.”

However, as I mentioned above, if you don’t have control over something you supposedly “own,” then you don’t really own it. So the above cases are really varieties of socialism, in which the government has a de facto ownership of all property. Check out Lew Rockwell’s book, Fascism versus Capitalism, as well as Socialism: an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises.

The conservatives and nationalists, by the way, also do not understand, or they have an outright contempt for, private property and free markets like the people on the left. With the immigration issue, the anti-immigration crowd says that businesspeople, professionals and laborers must get a government bureaucrat’s permission to move about to get work or establish voluntary contracts to make a living.

So, with such controls in the name of “protecting the nation,” the government has a de facto ownership over people’s lives, property, and contracts. And, like the so-called “progressives” and social activists, these nationalistic anti-property, anti-freedom policies are also out of envy and covetousness.

And that applies to the trade issue as well. Donald Trump and his sheeple are anti-free trade, and they want the U.S. government to determine who may buy what and for how much and from whom. So this government-controlled trade stuff is also fascist, and thus a part of socialism. You don’t really own your money or your contract that you would have with a seller, the seller doesn’t really own his goods or services that he’s selling. The government has the ultimate, de facto ownership.

Otherwise, in a free society without those governmental intrusions, you would buy something from Sweden, China or Iran and at whatever price the seller is selling it for, and no third party interferes with that contract. That’s the free market, baby. Crony protectionists like Donald Trump don’t like that kind of freedom.

And by the way, if American producers don’t like consumers buying stuff from other countries, then produce better stuff and lower your prices! And if the prices have to be higher to afford the costs of production because the government imposes taxes and regulations, then tell the government to remove those taxes and regulations!

The consumers are essentially enslaved by the bureaucrats in charge and their cronies whose profits are protected by the armed force of government.

Are We Doomed?

Thanks to the government’s monopoly in the education business it is now a racket, in which the product at the end of K-12 is a lot of dumb, ignorant kids who know nothing about everyday life. Not only do they not know history, how to read or do everyday math, but many of them can’t think critically. And in addition to all that is the activist teachers indoctrinate the kids with “social justice” fanaticism, enviro-wacko pseudo-science voodoo mysticism, and government worship.

Unfortunately, for a century the schools have been indoctrinating kids with government worship, usually now referred to as nationalism. We hear it all the time on the radio with Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., and of course, the big dumb nationalist himself, Trump. But unlike Trump, the conservative nationalists say they oppose the above “social justice” stuff, the enviro-wacko stuff and use a lot of free market rhetoric.

Both sides, though, are socialists. We know about the Bernie-Ocasio-Cortez-college snowflake socialists, who want “free stuff,” and who believe that if some male says he is a female he may very well go into the ladies room, and you had better not object. But the Trump-Limbaugh crowd worships their own government central planning in immigration controls, national security and police, and drug controls, all socialist schemes.

What is socialism? Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry and property. That’s my view on that. If you own a business here in Amerika you have to be obedient sheeple to whatever the dictators in government tell you to do, regarding your employment and payment matters, reporting everything to the commissars, and so on. So, you don’t really “own” your business. What the “socialists” here in Amerika want is for the government to seize all the businesses like in health care, finance and everything else. Because they are ignorant of history, they know nothing of how that turned out in Soviet Union, Cuba, and because they don’t pay attention to what’s going on in current times, they either don’t know or don’t care about what’s going on in North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

In Venezuela, the government seized the means of food production and distribution. Because government bureaucrats don’t know how to run things (except into the ground), such seizures and military enforcements of such seizures have caused shortages, empty store shelves, long lines, starvation, sickness, and death. Government takeovers, price controls and wage controls cause distortions, shortages, and chaos. That’s a fact of history.

So, when “socialists” want free health care, free education, etc., why aren’t they saying they want free FOOD? Isn’t food more important than health care? But we see what happens when government takes over the food business. And when government has been attempting to take over the health care industry, bureaucrats have been causing chaos! What is health care, anyway? And “education”? Look what government control over education has done to Amerika! (Why do you think it’s spelled with a “k” now, anyway?)

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal has a post describing some of his experiences at the “Politicon” in Los Angeles, in which he is saying “The socialists are everywhere.” He attended a session, “Medicare For All” including Ana Kasparian, Bill Kristol, Dr. Drew Pinsky and George Halvorson. I know who Bill Kristol is. Why is Bill Kristol at a discussion on Medicare? Perhaps because he is in his mid-60s and wants Medicare. Who knows?

Wenzel writes:

But this crowd wasn’t interested in facts from a generally sympathetic panelist. They wanted 100% calls for universal healthcare immediately and nothing else.

Later in the day, I stopped in on the panel discussion, “Should We Be Socialist?”, the audience was once again large and loud, cheering loudly as every panelist was introduced.

The first three panelists all stated that they were in favor of significant intervention in the economy but all seemed to agree that “complete government takeover of all property” was not necessary. The audience cheered everyone of these panelists with their different takes on how government should control the economy.

And why NOT “complete government takeover of all property”? You might as well. So Wenzel writes,

If this is any indication of what is going on in America, there is a lot of trouble ahead. The socialists are everywhere. They are loud, aggressive and don’t want to listen to any kind of analysis. They just want power now to rule all of us so that they can declare free everything.

I think a lot of ignorant young people (and old people as well) are brainwashed and they like the idea of robbing their neighbors, although getting their beloved, worshiped bureaucrats to do the robbing for them. And getting free stuff.

But combine all this with the brainwashed narcissists wanting to force their perverted beliefs of “social justice,” irrational transgenderism, and race-obsessions onto the rest of us, by law and by force, and their wanting to use the armed power of police to suppress anyone’s objections to being subjugated in such ways, economically, personally and politically.

Not good.

More Cognitive Dissonance with Republicans and Talk Radio Ditto-Heads

In last night’s scream fest brawl debate between Elizabeth Warren and her Republican challenger Geoff Diehl (that they wouldn’t let Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai participate in), once again the Rethug Diehl shows more cognitive dissonance.

According to the Boston Glob, “The debate also highlighted the stark differences between the two candidates on a range of issues, including… the Republican-passed tax cuts (Warren called them a giveaway to billionaires and giant corporations, while Diehl defended them as a boon to the Massachusetts economy)…”

But at one point, according to the Globe,

During a testy debate on taxes, Warren and Diehl talked over each other several times, with Warren charging that Republicans were targeting Social Security to balance the red ink caused by the Republican-backed tax cuts. Diehl said that was a suggestion by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.

“I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican,” Diehl said. “I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans.”

Warren quickly cut in. “Sorry, so when was it exactly that you called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?”

“I think I’m doing it right now,” Diehl shot back, talking over the Cambridge Democrat. “I think I’m doing it right now, Senator Warren.”

So, when Diehl says, “I am not a Mitch McConnell Republican … I am a Massachusetts Republican that has worked with Democrats and Republicans,” I think he means he’s a Republicrat or a Demopublican. (Or perhaps he’s a Rethuglicrat, who knows.)

And when Warren asks when Diehl “called out Mitch McConnell on this and said you were opposed to a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax cuts for billionaires?” Diehl’s response is, “I think I’m doing it right now,” and he repeats that so we know he is against tax cuts, “I think I’m doing it right now, Senator Warren.”

So, he’s either for the tax cuts as the article on the debate pointed out, or he’s against the tax cuts. Another Romney.

And more cognitive dissonance from radio ditto-heads as well. Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Hannity was pointing out polls and criticizing the Indiana Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Lucy Brenton, for allegedly taking votes away from Hannity’s favored Rethuglican challenger, Mike Braun, in their challenge against incumbent Democretin Joe Donnelly. (The two Establishment party candidates included Libertarian Lucy in the debate, by the way.)

Awww, poor Hannity, he doesn’t like third party challenges, just like the fascists in Massachusetts who won’t let the Independent candidate Shiva Ayyadurai participate in the debates between Liz Warren and Geoff Diehl. Just another sign that, like the other hypocrite talk radio blabbermouths, Hannity is just another shill for the Establishment. We can’t have third parties elbowing their way in. God forbid.

Republican challengers like Braun and Diehl want to get a seat at the table, but what we need is someone who will get into Washington and knock the table over! I think that Trump was in some way one of those people — and previously, Ron Paul tried to be.

And also, I looked online at Indiana Libertarian Party candidate Lucy Benton‘s views and she’s very good on most issues. However, her stand on “illegal immigration” is the only one that’s not good, a bit mealy-mouthed, not particularly “libertarian.” She is concerned about immigrants getting here to get on welfare. The libertarian answer, and the real moral and practical answer, is to completely abolish the entire welfare state system, especially the racket that is run out of Washington. “Conservatives” never support that. They are as much welfare statists as the Democrats.

“Pay Up Or the Earth Gets It!”

James Corbett has this edition of Propaganda Watch on the IPCC’s use of not science and scientists but political officials to determine how threatening global warming and/or climate change is to us, and to decide just how much of your earnings the “concerned” environmentalists would like to steal from you, in the name of stopping global warming, or climate change, or whatever the latest label is.

More Recent Articles

Retired law professor Butler Shaffer writes about helping others to learn.

Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou describes how the FBI silences whistleblowers.

Glenn Greenwald’s updated article on the Washington Post‘s paying and publishing Saudi lobbyists and regime propagandists.

Gary Galles says that rent control and minimum wage laws harm those who are supposed to benefit.

Ludwig von Mises comments on positivism and behaviorism.

Adam Weinstein discusses the real largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Tho Bishop on Elizabeth Warren’s other Cherokee scandal: her fight against tribal sovereignty.

And Richard Ebeling on out-of-control government: how, why, and what to do.

Elizabeth Warren Has an Independent Challenger: A “Real Indian”

Besides dingbat Elizabeth Warren running for reelection now, there are two other candidates. The Republican is Geoff Diehl, a droolingly anti-immigration, anti-foreigner Trump supporter. Diehl was the Massachusetts chairman for the Trump for President campaign in 2016. But despite his ignorance on immigration, Diehl has been good on taxes, having headed the successful campaign to repeal the gas tax increase that would have been indexed to inflation (but not to deflation!).

But there is an Independent candidate also challenging Pocahontas, Shiva Ayyadurai, who, as far as I have read up to now, actually agrees with Trump and Diehl on the immigration issue, and probably other issues. Ayyadurai is a former Republican who re-registered as an Independent so he could run against Warren and Diehl.

But I think voters in Massachusetts who hate Elizabeth Warren should consider voting for Ayyadurai, because he has the kind of “I don’t care who I offend” attitude in his calling people “racist” and other words targeting those who might disagree with him. He is definitely politically incorrect. And wouldn’t we rather have someone who isn’t afraid of being politically incorrect, rather than the usual mealy-mouthed statist Democretins and Republicrats? He may actually be a dark-skinned version of Donald Trump, if you can imagine that. (I know, that’s politically incorrect, but whatever.)

For instance, Ayyadurai has a campaign bus that has a big poster along the side, stating, “Only a REAL INDIAN Can Defeat the Fake Indian.” The City of Cambridge told him to remove the sign, and he sued the city and took it to court, and he won.

Photo from Shiva for Senate website

Now, in an article today the Boston Globe writes:

Ayyadurai calls Senator Elizabeth Warren a “Fake Indian,” a reference to her controversial claims of Native American heritage. He’s called her a “Racist Demonic Fake Indian.” A “fascist.” A “scumbag” “lawyer-lobbyist.” Geoff Diehl, who won the Republican primary for the race, is a “Fake Trumper,” “Dirty Diehl,” and “a moron.”

His preferred epithet for just about everyone who disagrees with him is “racist.” Warren’s supporters are racist. She is racist, he says, at least in part because — he claims — she said she was Native American to get ahead in her career…

The Republican Party is racist because it “is still so insular that it can’t accept a dark-skinned, independent-minded, accomplished MIT PhD, who started seven successful companies in Massachusetts,” Ayyadurai, who first declared his intention to run for the GOP nomination last year, wrote on his campaign website before switching to run as an independent.

This reporter, The Boston Globe, and the media more broadly are racist for not paying much attention to his candidacy. (Three recent polls showed Ayyadurai with support in the single digits.)

Well, Globe, could his polling numbers be so low because Establishment-biased mainstream media outlets won’t cover his campaign? Ya think? And look at the comments on the article, too. The statists for Warren and Diehl are out there. They don’t seem to get the big picture.

The Globe also notes:

In late May, he freely tossed around the n-word during a podcast that was hosted by someone that People for the American Way, a liberal group, describes as an “open white nationalist.” Ayyadurai was discussing a tweet he sent a few weeks earlier declaring that “we’re all [n-word] on the White Liberal Deep State Reservation! Only when we break free and be Independent of both Establishment parties, are we truly free.”

The Globe article linked to this article on Rightwingwatch.org, in which Ayyadurai elaborated his tweet in context.

(WARNING to snowflakes: The “n-word” is spelled out in the following quote of Ayyadurai only because it’s a QUOTE of someone using that word. Just to be clear. I hope the SPLC censors understand that. I shouldn’t have to even write this disclaimer, it’s so ridiculous!)

So here is Ayyadurai’s explanation of his twitter argument:

“Someone called me a curry nigger, OK? And I’m going to use that word. Let me tell you why I think he said, ‘This guy is a sellout curry Indian nigger.’ So, I tweeted back, ‘We’re all niggers on the white liberal deep state reservation,” he said.

“You see, what the white liberals have done is they have drawn a very nice bounded box of what is racism. So if you use the word ‘nigger’ or if you change the name so you don’t use that word, and if you change the names of things, suddenly you’ve solved racism. You see what I’m saying? And the truth is we’re all niggers on the white liberal deep state reservation,” Ayyadurai said.

He continued, “And that word, we should all embrace and use. And this is why I think we should embrace it, because it goes at the true heart of racism. Racism is not ceremonial things of stopping using words, changing names, it’s addressing the fundamental economic issues, which is we’re all on a plantation of white liberalism, of neo-liberalism, and the epicenter of that is Harvard University.”

In July Ayyadurai was taunting a bunch of Elizabeth Warren fans waiting in line to see one of her events, with a megaphone. He was calling them “racist,” and saying “racist, racist, racist” repeatedly directed at one of them who was wearing a shirt that apparently read, “Liberal” on the front. The good “liberal” pushed the megaphone into Ayyadurai’s face and the “liberal” was arrested for assault.

I guess the “liberal” learned that violence is the way to handle disagreements, as Rand Paul’s deranged neighbor believes, as well as the murderous psychopath who shot at the baseball-playing congressmen and severely injured Rep. Steve Scalise.

Here is Ayyadurai’s video of the incident.

Even if Ayyadurai’s teasing of the “liberal” could have been considered “fightin’ words” and a provocation, I see it more as just teasing, albeit in an obnoxious, amplified way with the megaphone.

But the 74-year-old angry “liberal” received “nine months’ probation and a 10-week anger management course for the assault and battery charge, and a $150 maximum fine and 60 days’ probation for a disorderly conduct charge,” according to the Berkshire Eagle.

Included in his Victim Impact Statement, Ayyadurai wrote,

As someone who loves this country & is running for US SENATE as an Independent candidate, I do not believe VIOLENCE is the answer.

Discourse, speaking to one another, free speech, non-violent civil disobedience & protest, what I learned from Gandhi, the great non-violent leader, who MLK emulated himself after, is what leads to truth and real understanding. This is particularly important for us to be reminded of, yesterday Aug. 15 your honor, was the anniversary of Indian Independence Day.

Violence individually as occurred to me on July 22 or as in Charlottesville a year ago is NOT the answer.

We need discourse & free speech to discuss important issues such as RACE & RACISM, as Americans. For far too in long America, those claiming to fight racism, liberal or otherwise, have monopolized that discourse and have no right to use violence to suppress opposing views.

Yes, freedom of speech is important. But Ayyadurai is not totally consistent on the free speech issue, given that he has sued quite a few people for libel and defamation. Whatever.

And Ayyadurai has sued the University of Massachusetts who is sponsoring debates between Elizabeth Warren and Geoff Diehl that exclude Ayyadurai. On his campaign website, Ayyadurai notes that Independent Massachusetts candidates were allowed to participate in debates in 2010 and 2014. We will see if the court views tax-funded universities who are sponsoring election debates as obligated to include ALL candidates on the ballot in their debates.

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.