Skip to content

Month: December 2018

More “Climate Change” Analysis

Robert Murphy on how government bureaucrats and the New York Times are misleading the public about climate change. Murphy discusses the “National Climate Assessment.”

(I’ve already said what I have to say about climate change. The climate has been changing since the world began. Nothing we can do about it. But there are millions of hysterical alarmists who obediently go along with the agenda of the politicians and bureaucrats worldwide, whose main goal is to get bureaucratic control over all wealth and industry, and steal as much as possible from the people, and that’s it.)

Some Thought-Provoking Commentary

Wendy McElroy says the “Violence Against Women Act” is an insult to fairness, because the statistics of violence show that men are also victims of violence, and she cites a statistic that “‘55.5 percent’ of women and ‘43.2 percent’ of men ‘have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner’.”

Meanwhile, Jason Brennan with a controversial article discussing the use of violence in self-defense against agents of the State, i.e. government police.

Tom Mullen has the best argument against minimum wage laws: you don’t own other people.

Donald Trump’s Nominee for Attorney General, William Barr

After all his criticisms of the “deep state,” the Mueller Russia-collusions “witch hunt” and rhetorically raking the Establishment over the coals, Donald Trump has nominated former Bush41 AG and CIA flunky the authoritarian statist William Barr to be the next attorney general. The reason Trump picked Barr is because Trump is impressed with someone with the credentials Barr has. (Hmm, Robert Mueller has good credentials, too. And Dick Cheney. And … James Comey, and…Hillary….Clinton…)

According to Wikipedia, Barr was with the CIA for four years. That in and of itself should disqualify him! During the George H.W. Bush administration, as an assistant AG Barr advised that the U.S. feds could invade another country to apprehend a suspect for extradition, such as invading Panama to grab Manuel Noriega, whose drug trafficking was excused by U.S. feds in exchange for his cooperation for the CIA in the CIA’s Latin America coups and regime change ops.

Really disgusting stuff, in other words. Further, as attorney general under Bush Sr., Barr advised that Bush pardon former Defense (sic) Secretary Caspar Weinberger, because a possible Weinberger trial involving the Iran-Contra scandal might have implicated Bush himself. (Bush has done worse, believe me.)

Barr is also anti-immigration, just like Donald Trump and former AG Jeff Sessions. If you’re going to be anti-immigration like these socialist clowns, should you really be in America? (How about these schmucks instead go to other countries that don’t have a Declaration of Independence or a Bill of Rights? Hmmm?)

Unsurprisingly, Barr is a drug fascist. Barr’s daughter Mary Daly is a DOJ official, in charge of drug policy, apparently. She and her father Bill Barr are supporters of the war on drugs. For them it is a criminal matter. People buying, selling, possessing or using certain drugs prohibited by the gubmint are criminals, according to these fascists. (But don’t touch the drug warriors’ precious booze, right? Right.)

According to WaPo, Barr sent a letter to U.S. Senators telling them not to reform the sentencing system, writing, “Our system of justice is not broken. Mandatory minimums and proactive law enforcement measures have caused a dramatic reduction in crime over the past 25 years, an achievement we cannot afford to give back.”

Clueless.

Proactive law enforcement measures”? So pre-crime? Thus, not only does Barr believe that the government has the authority to prohibit this or that by law, like drugs, but he doesn’t believe in presumption of innocence and due process.

Presumption of innocence is: leave people alone who are peaceful and not suspected of harming others or violating the persons or property of others, and so on. But, Barr doesn’t get that.

And then I saw this. Law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Barr is “one of the most brilliant lawyers I have known” and that Barr is the “perfect choice” for attorney general. More cluelessness, this. I think a lot of U.S. senators will obediently follow this line of thinking, and they will probably unanimously vote to confirm Barr as attorney general. I’m sure even Rand Paul will vote for him. No surprise there.

If confirmed, given his “law-and-order” authoritarianism the statist William Barr will probably rubber-stamp the police state: the drug war, asset forfeiture, all the unconstitutional post-9/11 policies including NDAA and indefinite detention, warrantless searches, warrantless wiretapping and warrantless spying, and more.

Even though Barr has expressed support for investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, I still don’t believe that Barr will come to the side of transparency when it comes to the Mueller fishing expedition. I don’t think he will side with those in and out of Congress who have presented evidence against certain FBI and DOJ employees showing that they illicitly cleared Hillary Clinton from wrongdoing and these same FBI and DOJ flunkies then went on to conspire to frame Donald Trump in made-up Russia collusions involving the apparatchiks’ FISA abuses to spy on the Trump campaign (apparatchiks including, allegedly, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Sally Yates).

In the end, I believe, AG Barr will come to the defense of the national security state and all its criminality and corruption in regards to “Russia-gate” and the Mueller fiasco. I’ll be surprised if the outcome is otherwise, and if Barr actually encourages Trump to order the FISA warrants or FISA warrant applications declassified, and lets the truth be known to the general public, and if Barr actually demands that Comey et al. (including John Brennan as well) be indicted. And will AG Barr open a new investigation of the Clintons? I rather doubt it. Call me cynical.

On Questioning the Official 9/11 Narrative

One reason why many people dismiss skeptics of the official 9/11 narrative is because many people get their news mostly from mainstream news media, who mostly repeat what government officials tell them, i.e. the news media act as stenographers for the rulers.

Most people tend to not look into these matters further. If the Congress had a commission and “investigated” 9/11, then their conclusions are good enough for me, most people say. And then when others question or challenge the mainstream media and congressional committee’s conclusions, and even bring forth evidence which refutes such conclusions, then those challengers and skeptics are to be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” tinfoil hat wearers, and crackpots. That is the extent to which many people have obedient faith in their rulers and in government investigations of catastrophes that are mainly caused by government’s own actions especially abroad, and by government’s failures.

And that brings me to this extensive article by Elias Davidsson, in which he critiques a HuffPo article aiming to discredit a professor and others’ legitimate questioning of the official 9/11 narrative. The Davidsson article is quite extensive and gives quite a bit detailed information on the “investigation” following 9/11.

Davidsson is also the author of Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence. People with open minds should check these things out.

More on the Mueller Inquisition

Ray McGovern says that Donald Trump’s timidity is letting James Comey off the hook.

John Solomon on an FBI email chain that may provide the most damning evidence of FISA abuse yet.

Comey and the smirking FBI agent Peter Strzok let Hillary Clinton off the hook as well in her email illegalities, by changing the wording in Comey’s report to “decriminalize” her criminal actions. And then there’s Hillary’s corruption with her Clinton Foundation. Now, as John Solomon also reports, the feds received whistleblower evidence in 2017 alleging Clinton Foundation wrongdoing. Mueller has to investigate all these matters as well as the made-up “Trump-Russia collusions” fishing expedition, because it’s all related.

Prisoners of the National Security State And Corrupt Prosecutors

Law professor Jonathan Turley blogged about conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi’s being pursued by “special counsel” Robert Mueller, and noted that Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Herr Mueller for attempting to pressure Corsi to intentionally give false testimony.

Turley writes, “There is no strong legal basis for such a challenge.” Hmm, you mean it’s illegal to lie under oath, but it’s not illegal to lie under oath if the prosecutors threaten you otherwise? Is that what Turley is saying here?

Turley concludes, “Prosecutors and police will often push witnesses with accusations and demands. However, if the charge is based on independent grounds, courts are leery of speculating on motive. After all, if Mueller’s team truly believes that Corsi was a critical player with Wikileaks, they are allowed to press a witness on that theory.”

Some of the commenters wrote, “Come on Turley, if you had any reasoned compassion (or stones), you’d see the justice in hunting the wolf and the routine injustice done by federal prosecutors.” And, “Yep. Looks like Turley pulled back the curtain and gives inside baseball type look at our criminal justice system: if persecutors have theories then they can move with unfettered zealotry on potential witnesses with culture of defense attorneys and judges turning blind eye on this type of abusive behavior.” And, “The truly sad reality is how comfortable our constitutional scholar host is at describing how lawfare works without a hint of the injustice of it.”

Some of the commenters then go on to say that Turley’s initial description of Corsi might be biased.

I have a feeling that liberal progressive Turley could be more sympathetic to Corsi and less sympathetic to the prosecutors if Corsi were not a conservative. But I could be wrong. I probably am wrong, because Turley has generally been quite objective in defense of those who are the victims of government overreach or of prosecutorial misconduct.

On those issues, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote about Trump campaign minion Paul Manafort and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and about Trump current lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments on the Mueller fishing expedition.

After summarizing Giuliani’s record as a sleazy, corrupt prosecutor in New York during the 1980s, and noting some of Giuliani’s grandiose and frankly deranged treatment of his victims at the time, Judge Napolitano then writes, “The courts have ruled many times that prosecutors, FBI agents and police may lie, cheat, threaten, intimidate, coerce and deceive to extract cooperation and obtain evidence from witnesses. This is the dark side of the criminal justice system. It requires a strong stomach. It can be used against even the president.”

And by “to extract cooperation and obtain evidence” he probably means obtain false confessions or false testimony against others in exchange for leniency, or based on threats of false prosecution, probably for made-up crimes such as “insider trading” or “process crimes,” such as “lying to prosecutors” for merely recalling something inaccurately.

Government judicial system apparatchiks use the system to go after someone they don’t like, or based on political differences, such as the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing already unconstitutional FISA spying authority to either find dirt on their political opponents of the Trump campaign or make it all up, such as with the Steele dossier. That is what this whole made-up “Russia collusions/hacking the election” is all about.

Government apparatchiks, with a monopoly over the administration of justice, also go after innocent people for reasons other than political ones, including advancing an agenda of bamboozling the public to accept more governmental intrusions into their lives and a police state. Such as the FBI infiltrating mosques to motivate young Muslim males to want to commit “jihad” in order for the FBI to thwart terrorist plots that the FBI themselves concoct.

Or the CIA using software to not only hide their own cyber “fingerprints” but to leave fake fingerprints, such as spoofed IP addesses, etc. to make it look like Russians or others did the hacking, phishing, or otherwise computer intrusions.

Or NSA stealing industry secrets, and NSA or Britain’s GCHQ in an “information ops” campaign to “manipulate, deceive, and destroy reputations,” using made-up stuff to discredit individuals and companies.

Sadly, because of our government’s apparatchiks exploiting what James Bovard has called “Battered Citizen Syndrome,” the people continue to blindly accept the criminal racket in Washington. Any one of us could be the next victim of bureaucrats’ political witch hunts and crusades.

The current national security state- and Democrat-led “witch hunt” fiasco is yet another example why letting our lives be ruled by elites with a monopoly in “justice” is not good. We should probably dismantle the whole thing.

More News and Commentary

Paul Craig Roberts comments on Meghan Murphy’s banishment from Twitter for writing that “Men are not women.” And, “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?” Twitter called that “hateful conduct.” And this is what feminists get when they engage in extreme identity politics. So now, we are not allowed to say that someone who is a male is a male even though he insists he is a female even though he actually is a male. We’re just not allowed to say that. i.e. saying the actual, scientifically proven truth is “bad” now.

James Bovard says that George H.W. Bush was worse than Trump as far as trade protectionism was concerned, as well as obstructing a special counsel and escalating the fascist drug war.

Bush and Trump should have listened to Frank Chodorov when it comes to free will and the marketplace.

And Bill Sardi looks at the alarming rise in polio-like infections in children.

The Mueller Crime Spree Continues

Is the Mueller Inquisition still going on? I can’t believe it. The latest is that conservative investigative reporter Jerome Corsi is being pursued by Mueller, as well as Roger Stone. All this bunch of stuff is involving Corsi and Stone’s alleged communications with WikiLeaks hacker Julian Assange.

The national security state and the fake news media are really after Assange because of his providing an apparatus for government whistleblowers to expose government criminality. The criminals of the national security state don’t like that!

Corsi is now alleging that Mueller was trying to coerce him into deliberately and knowingly lie in testimony in exchange for, I don’t know, a “lighter sentence” or whatever, and Corsi says he won’t do that and is in fact going to sue Mueller and his cohorts.

This reminds me of how CIA Gitmo torturers have been torturing innocent, uninvolved victims as a way to get false confessions and to falsely justify a 2nd invasion of Iraq, in 2003. So, while the criminals of the national security state entrap someone for “lying” to FBI or to Congress, it is they the government criminals who want people to lie when it benefits their agenda, or who want to criminally invade another country based on lies.

Besides the latest in the news with Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone, I heard some of the John Batchelor Show this week and he interviewed a Larry Johnson regarding so-called “Individual 2” of the Mueller Inquisition, “Individual 2” being a Russian FBI informant named Felix Sater who had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003, according to what was said on the show. Sater supposedly had been an FBI informant since 1998.

According to the Examiner, Sater was a childhood friend of Michael Cohen, the scummy former Trump lawyer and flipper-on-Trump. Sater has also gotten into bar fights, was a stock broker and was involved with the Mafia. And it appears that Mueller wants to make use of Sater’s business dealings with Trump over the past 15 years to try to get Trump. Supposedly Sater’s association with Trump’s organization over the years as an FBI informant was mainly to help the FBI go after “organized crime.” (Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.)

So the FBI really has had an agenda of getting Trump since 2003? (Or earlier?)

These bureaucrats of the FBI and other national security state (or “deep state”) operatives, as well as many in politics and pop culture since 2016, are obsessed with getting Trump and impeaching and removing him from office.

It was not like that with George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, even though many on the left hated those two while they were President. But then, they were not nearly as successful businessmen as apparently Donald Trump has been all these years.

So I think this Mueller-Comey-Brennan conspiracy of going after Trump fits the typical pattern of government bureaucrats going after private businesspeople, whether it’s Rudy Giuliani targeting Michael Milken, James Comey targeting Martha Stewart, and many, many other bureaucrats targeting those in the private sector who had been successful entrepreneurs prospering with their talents and abilities through the process of voluntary exchange to serve the needs of others.

Bureaucrat prosecutors who are life-long government employees (or following government employment continuing in crony lobbying or or consulting firms) are the opposite of the entrepreneurs who serve the consumers. The bureaucrats are parasites who go through life siphoning off the fruits of other people’s labor as well as shooting down their victims using the judicial branch of government to do it.

As I wrote in this post, the real motivation of those who want to get Trump is out of envy and covetousness. Bureaucrats and their supporters in the media and “intelligentsia” are haters of the successful, haters of the “greedy capitalists.” The haters have what Ludwig von Mises called an “anti-capitalistic mentality.” [Also see Mises’s Bureaucracy (.pdf)]

More Articles

The Daily Caller with an article on FBI raiding the home of whistleblower on Clinton Foundation. Typical.

Aaron Kesel on Amazon’s Facial Rekognition software.

Gary Barnett on selling murder as the greater good.

Christina England with an article on 20 million schoolchildren being prescribed psychiatric drugs known for causing suicidal thoughts.

Moon of Alabama on the Guardian fake news story proving that mainstream media can’t be trusted.

And Sheldon Richman on the cruel tear-gassing of asylum seekers.

On Saving Lives

Karen De Coster writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful. Three single Detroit ladies going out to their car on the way to church Sunday morning were confronted in their driveway by a piece-of-**** lurking around. When they managed to escape to the house – sensing something was very wrong – the piece-of-**** got into their house behind them. The 55-year-old woman grabbed her gun and killed the SOB on the spot. A perfectly aimed chest shot. Yes, I celebrate this occasion. I celebrate the lives of three good and peaceful women saved by a gun (and one diligent woman). Imagine what might have happened to these ladies had they been without The Equalizer?

And yet, I’ve lost (real) friendships from friends who live in La-La Land and consistently exclaim no need for a gun because they choose to spin the wheel of fortune with their lives, like Bambis-in-the-Woods. And they could not, and can not, come to grips with my intelligent, educated, rational defense of the right to bear arms, any arms – unlicensed, unregistered, and unencumbered by special interests or bureaucrats elected by The Mob. I’ve stood my ground and lost friendships. And that is perfectly acceptable to me. And these folks never – ever – have a response for these occasions. They won’t dare touch these instances because they can only resort to uneducated, anti-gun ranting and emoting that cannot justify their position.