Skip to content

Month: June 2019

Justin Raimondo Has Died

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has died. I have linked to many, many of his articles on this blog. He might be best known for the website he founded, Antiwar.com. He was only 67 and had lung cancer.

Antiwar.com’s obituary of Justin Raimondo.

Kelley Vlahos’s tribute, How Justin Raimondo Made Me a Braver Writer.

And Lew Rockwell’s tribute to Justin.

(Edited): I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days weeks.

Police State, Lying U.S. Gov. Bureaucrats, And Dishonest Big Tech

Matt Agorist on Police State thugs: police detaining an entire bar, sealing off exits, forcing everyone to submit to records checks, with no reason to suspect anyone of anything or any suspicion that any crime has been committed. “Because we can.”

Mac Slavo on mass surveillance: the Pentacon can now ID you by your heartbeat with a laser.

Moon of Alabama on Western news agencies mistranslating Iranian president’s speech, not the first time such “error” happens.

Col. Ann Wright on scenario fulfillment: Why should we believe U.S. gov on location of drone shot down by Iran?

Sayer Ji on Google scrubbing natural health websites form search results.

James Bovard on Democrat debate #2.

Veronique de Rugy says that markets, not politicians, control the law of supply and demand.

And Courtland Culver says, heed James Madison, not Donald Trump and Candace Owens, on free speech. (Incidentally, why do people worship a flag? Just askin’.)

The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Term Is Finally Over (And Don’t Come Back!)

Five fascists on the U.S. Supreme Court, a.k.a. the Supreme Bureaucrats, have decided that the government police do not need a warrant to draw blood from an unconscious person suspected of drunk driving. The arguments against the policy are based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Drawing blood from someone without his consent violates one’s right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers and effects.

The “High Court” cites the “Exigent Circumstances” doctrine. However, the Fourth Amendment does not refer to any “exigent circumstances.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don’t see “exigent circumstances” written in there. In the case argued before the court, the flatfeet arrested a guy who wasn’t even driving but had already parked his van and was walking by a lake. So they were then taking him to a hospital to draw his blood there, apparently, but he passed out in the police car. They had already given him a breathalyzer, which is also unconstitutional because of its unreliability, but wasn’t that good enough for them?

Seizing someone’s blood is a much more invasive seizure. This case is just another “camel’s nose in the tent” thing. (There have been a lot of those in recent years.)

And according to James Bovard, the Supreme Bureaucrats also ruled in favor of government secrecy by allowing certain business records that pertain to government handouts to be kept secret.

In other news, the shrieking imbecilic parasites a.k.a. Democrats had their first debate last night, and their second debate is tonight. Were they asked about the Fourth Amendment? It is doubtful that these politicians know anything about or even care about the Fourth Amendment. We know they have contempt for the First Amendment, with all their fellow leftist comrades banning of speech and shouting down those with opposing points of view, their censorship and fake news. And their contempt for the Second Amendment, with their ignorant calls for even more gun control that we know merely disarms law-abiding citizens and doesn’t prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting their guns anyway, because criminals and psychopaths don’t obey the law, duh.

But this particular group is probably the worst group of very loud, screeching demagogues I’ve ever seen. Eventually, I really believe that people can be convinced to support the libertarian way of life that promotes non-aggression, voluntary contracts and decentralization. Especially with this crowd of communists and the moron Trump. People will REJECT government central planning as the way to have a society. Eventually.

More News and Commentary

John Kiriakou says the CIA is seeking more impunity.

Gareth Porter on Mike Pompeo and John Bolton drooling for war on Iran. (Calling Dr. Hartley. These guys are a couple of Mr. Carlins, that’s for sure.)

Ron Paul asks, Boxed in by neocons and the media, will Trump launch Iran war?

Barbara Boland on arms dealers and lobbyists getting rich as Yemen burns.

Zero Hedge with an article on CBS News analyst and Iran “warmongering maniac” also Raytheon board member.

Ben Norton writes that the New York Times admits it sent story to government for approval. (Oh yeah? And which of those thousands of pre-approved stories is this one?)

Robert Wenzel discusses billionaires calling for a wealth tax, and a libertarian take on student loans.

Jacob Hornberger says that Republicans love socialism too.

Richard Enos with the hidden reason the “Russian collusion” investigation got started.

Zero Hedge with an article on MSM being silent after Google election meddling bombshell; video scrubbed from YouTube.

Dr. Mercola on Google burrying Mercola.com in the latest search engine update, Part 1 and Part 2.

Laurence Vance says, of course it should be legal!

Donald Boudreaux on protectionists in plunderland and wonderland.

Walter Williams discusses reparations for slavery.

MassPrivateI on Gillette Stadium facial recognition.

Jacob Sullum asks, Does the Hatch Act violate Kellyanne Conway’s First Amendment rights?

And Richard Ebeling discusses F.A. Hayek on individual liberty.

More News and Commentary

Kelley Vlahos with a terrific article on the horrible, sick Orwellian nightmare that China is right now.

Jason Ditz on Donald Trump not wanting the Khashoggi murder investigated because it would jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars in Saudi arms sales. How sick is that? I’m sure the merchants of death are pleased, United Technologies Raytheon Northrowup Grumman Dynamics, etc., etc., etc.

Liam Glen says the media echo chamber is silent on the Saudi war on Yemen.

And Eli Clifton writes about the $259 million reason to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (as John McWarmonger would say): Sheldon Adelson et al. (More sick, these people.)

Jacob Sullum on why drug interdiction is doomed to failure.

Stephen Kinzer on who’s responsible for the border crisis. (He says the United States, but really it’s more specifically the U.S. government. Those idiots.)

And Charles Burris has an interesting post on art imitating hard historical reality.

Trump Was “Concerned” About Bombing Iran and Killing Civilians

Donald Trump said that he called off the bombing of Iran just minutes before it was to occur because he was concerned about causing civilian deaths, that he was told would be about “150.” The bombing was to be in response to Iran shooting down the U.S. spy drone.

He’s either very dumb, or really confused, or just a liar (or all of the above). As soon as Trump was inaugurated President of the United State, he immediately began authorizing more drone strikes abroad, most of which killed innocent civilians. So it was over 100 civilians in his first few days as President.

In just the first two months of Trump’s presidency, the drone strikes that kill mostly innocent civilians escalated by 432% more than Obomber’s Obama’s drone strikes. (See U.S. airstrike kills family of eight, U.S. drone strike kills three civilians and four “suspects,” and Trump has killed beautiful babies in four countries.)

But now, in 2+ years Trump’s civilian death toll is in the thousands.

So, Trump’s claim that he was concerned about killing civilians is just not believable. I think he called off the bombing because it was clear that the Iranians were right to shoot down the U.S. drone and that it was flying over Iranian air space.

But now, Mr. “Concerned” is attacking Iran’s computer systems and will increase sanctions against Iran. Government-imposed sanctions are an attack on the civilian population, not their government or rulers.

Gay Pride? “Straight” Pride? How About “MORON Pride”?

I had been going back and forth on whether or not to write this, because I’m sick of the issue by now. But I’ll write it anyway. The issue is what is now being vaguely referred to as “Pride Month,” and the “Pride Parades” in various cities, that used to be referred to as “Gay Pride” and “Gay Pride Parades.” Now, it’s just “Pride.”

So, I’m wondering, why take off the “Gay”? Is it because they aren’t as “proud” as they are of “being gay”? And some people explain that, well, it’s more than just gays and lesbians, there are also the transgenders, the bisexuals, the “queers” and “questioning” and the “non-binary” and “intersex” (huh?), and on and on. And so I’m thinking, well why don’t they just say “LGBT+ Pride,” and put the plus there to refer to ALL the other letters that refer to all the wacky things out there these people can possibly make up?

And, we hear, “it’s not about sex” (or sexual deviancy, or emphasizing nudity, etc.) and so on. Well then why are the parades filled with “drag queens,” sexual paraphernalia, half-undressed people, etc.? Just google the images for 2019 Gay Pride Parade, sorry, just “Pride” Parade. And why do the activists need to get themselves, banners and sexual references and all, into other parades that have nothing to do with LGBT? Why such activism in teaching homosexuality to kids in school? Why the brainwashing? (I doubt that Truman Capote, Leonard Bernstein, and Rock Hudson had to be taught homosexuality in elementary school.)

The activists aside, most people who are homosexual are living their private lives not having to advertise their homosexuality to the rest of the world. It’s nobody else’s business. But the activists have a different agenda than one of privacy and “live and let live.”

And it’s not about “preventing bullying” of gays or transgenders or protecting people from getting beaten up physically “because of who they are.” If it really was about protecting people, then the activists would promote self-defense and that vulnerable people should be armed and educated in self-defense. Unfortunately many of these LGBT activists are just leftists whose agenda includes gun control and the government disarming law-abiding people and making them defenseless. And making vulnerable people defenseless.

No, the activists’ agenda is really about forcing acceptance of homosexuality and gender confusion. Well, someone’s private life is one’s own private business, and I also believe that homosexuals have a right to marry if they want to. But I don’t accept that lifestyle, because I don’t believe that anal intercourse is acceptable, because it’s unsanitary and harmful physically. And the transgender stuff, forcing people to agree with someone who is a male but thinks he is a female, etc. Make it against the law to use the “incorrect gender” pronoun (“misgendering”) when in actuality the scofflaw really is using the correct gender pronoun!

Sadly, in Amerika it seems that everything is sexualized and perverted, like a cult.

And then there are the ones on the other side. the ones who want to have a “Straight Pride” parade. Utter morons, in my view. Who the hell CARES what your sexual orientation or preference is? Those aspects of life are just part of everyday life. As was discussed on the Tom Knapp blog, being “proud” of being “straight” or gay, or tall or short, or white or black is just silly. People should be proud of their achievements or their families, etc.

And why the hell does “straight” refer to heterosexual? What do you mean by “straight” like “not having ED” or something? I think the whole thing is nuts. Those people who are actually going to be in a “Straight Pride” parade might need to have therapy, in my view. But the activists in the LGBT crowd seem more pushy now. I don’t care what you do in your private life, just leave ME alone!

More News and Commentary on the Fascists and Warmongers in Washington

Andrew Kern on the standing army: a threat to peace.

Brett Wilkins on the exceptionally American historical amnesia behind Pompeo’s claim of “40 years of unprovoked Iranian aggression.”

Caitlin Johnstone says, Pause for a moment and think about how many people AREN’T whistleblowing.

Laurence Vance discusses what Robert Reich failed to say about marijuana legalization.

And Jason Ditz comments on the mainstream media faulting Trump for not following through on attacking Iran.

More News and Commentary

John Whitehead says that you can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks, Can government punish twice for the same crime?

Ron Paul on medical IDs, the enemy of privacy, liberty, and health.

Reuters exclusive: Pompeo keeps Saudis off U.S. child soldiers list.

Jack Hunter says that Tom Cotton is a maniac.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers with U.S. foreign policy exposed.

Judicial Watch on the Obama State Department at the center of anti-Trump coup cabal.

Benedict LaRosa on background checks: they violate property rights.

Brian Shilhavy on a government report: $160 million paid so far in 2019 for vaccine injuries and deaths.

William Anderson asks, Why are progressives so bad at governing?

Joe Jarvis says that fake news does more for real journalism than “real journalism.”

Andrew Bacevich calls Brett Stephens a warmonger.

And Walter Williams discusses black education decline.

D-Day and the Greatest Generation (Of “Whoremongers”)

In a review of Mary Louise Roberts’s 2013 book, What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France, Laurence Vance writes about the “Greatest Generation” of U.S. soldiers who invaded Normandy, France on “D-Day” and who “liberated” the French from Nazi occupation. Apparently, those U.S. soldiers were mainly motivated by their sexual desires. “Romance, prostitution, and rape.”

Here is an excerpt of the review:

What Soldiers Do begins with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. In each case, the port city of Le Havre in Normandy is mentioned. In the introduction we read that in 1945, a year after D-Day, thousands of American GIs in Le Havre were waiting for a boat home. The mayor of the city penned a letter to the American regional commander complaining that “the good citizens of his city were unable to take a walk in the park or visit the grave of a loved one without coming across a GI engaged in sex with a prostitute.” At night, “drunken soldiers roamed the street looking for sex, and as a result ‘respectable’ women could not walk alone.” “Scenes contrary to decency” were taking place “day and night.” In the conclusion we read that “GIs were emboldened to believe the nation was theirs for the taking.” In garrison towns like Le Havre, the GI’s “disregard for French social norms meant they had public sex with prostitutes and assaulted women on the streets.”

According to the author, What Soldiers Do “explores how sex was used to negotiate authority” between the United States and France. It focuses on the “three kinds of sex between GIs and French women during the US military presence: romance, prostitution, and rape.” These subjects make up the three sections of the book. The book concludes with almost 80 pages of notes, including many French sources, followed by a very detailed index.

Roberts explains that “with very few exceptions the GIs had no emotional attachment to the French people or the cause of their freedom.” The Normandy campaign was billed as “an erotic adventure.” Sexual fantasies about France motivated “the GI to get off the boat and fight.” However, “such fantasies also unleashed a veritable tsunami of male lust.” Once aroused, “the GI libido proved difficult to contain.” Roberts maintains that “sex was fundamental to how the US military framed, fought, and won the war in Europe.” She contends that “this book presents GI sexual conduct as neither innocent of power nor unimportant in effect.” Military historians, including Stephen Ambrose, “have largely ignored the sexual habits of American soldiers.”

Of course, the way I see it, there wouldn’t have been a World War II and a rise of a Hitler had Woodrow Wilson not decided to needlessly take the U.S. into World War I which extended that war and caused all sorts of further problems.