Skip to content

Month: August 2019

How Will Authoritarians (e.g. Donald Trump) Use “Red Flag” Laws?

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has some commentary on the calls for “Red Flag” laws, in which people are urged to report to the police someone they think might be “dangerous,” and the police will then confiscate that person’s guns, if he or she has guns. Chuck Baldwin writes:

If law-abiding gun owners don’t call their U.S. senators en masse, and I mean posthaste, you are very likely to wake up one morning around 4am to the sound of a SWAT team breaking down your door to confiscate your guns, prepared to kill you or any member of your family who resists. Why? Perhaps because a gun-hating neighbor hates you having guns or a relative doesn’t like you and is looking for any way to “teach you a lesson” or your ex-spouse is looking for any way to “get even” with you or an anti-gun cop with a grudge wants to send a political message or a family doctor or school teacher overheard one of your children talk about how many guns daddy has and became alarmed, etc., ad infinitum.

Plus, the FBI has just recently stated that if you believe in “conspiracy theories,” you are a “domestic terrorist threat.” That statement is from an FBI intelligence bulletin from the bureau’s Phoenix field office, dated May 30, 2019. That FBI designation alone could very easily precipitate a “red flag” gun confiscation order being rendered against you.

And Donald Trump himself recently demonstrated how dangerous “red flag” laws are. In a tweet on August 13, President Trump said,

“Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!”

Are you paying attention? Donald Trump was threatening to use a “red flag” law to authorize police agencies to take away an American citizen’s Natural God-given right of self-defense simply because Trump didn’t like what the citizen said—about him.

Folks, don’t you see? Those in authority can use “red flag” gun confiscation laws against ANYONE they want and for ANY REASON they want.

In other words, there doesn’t have to be a reason. Under “red flag” laws, all it takes for police to come and seize your guns is for someone to make a “red flag” accusation against you. That’s it. And, yes, it really IS that easy.

“Red flag” laws not only eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 7th Amendment and 8th Amendment.

All this most recent hysteria is in response to two mass shootings, in El Paso and in Dayton. The hysterical masses are calling for “common sense gun laws,” yet their proposals are not common sense. They are irrational, knee-jerk responses.

We do not seem to be hearing the non-hysterical, rational responses to those shootings. Why aren’t people bringing up the points that actually are “common sense” points?

Such as, if someone at the El Paso Walmart had been armed, that person could have disabled the shooter early on and saved many lives. Why do we never or rarely hear that point being made? I don’t even hear the “conservative” talk radio ditto-heads say that, quite frankly.

Speaking of the talk radio ditto-heads, Daniel McAdams (of the Ron Paul Institute) stated that he has been banned from Twitter permanently, because he called Sean Hannity “retarded,” even though it is actually the truth. Searching Twitter for “retarded” will find many results by other people using that term. But I digress.

Back to the gun rights issue. Another point that we don’t hear being made is that most of these mass shootings, I think it’s about 98%, occur at “gun-free zones.” The psychopaths prefer gun-free zones because they know that there is little to no chance that someone might shoot back at him.

But no, let’s continue to be irrational and play little games with people’s lives, because the people on the left love power and control. And they want to disarm others and make them defenseless because it’s easier for communists, fascists, and other totalitarians to impose their orders and diktats onto others who can’t defend themselves.

And further compromise people’s security by making “Red Flag” laws so that disgruntled neighbors and ex-wives can take revenge.

More News and Commentary

John Whitehead gives the many reasons why people need to resist the American gulag.

James Bovard discusses the 2002 landmarks on the road to “1984” Orwellian hell.

Bretigne Shaffer asks, Are anti-vaxxers violent extremists?

Paul Craig Roberts says that in America emotion rules reason.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Donald Trump’s dictatorial order to Americans to stop doing business in China.

Trieu Nguyen explains why socialist calculation is always impossible.

Jacob Hornberger analyzes the mainstream Press’s deference to authority on the death of Jeffrey Epstein. (The news media are mostly very dumb people now, in my view. They uncritically accept any government bureaucrat’s word as the truth and repeat it without any investigation or digging for the truth. They are pathetic now.)

John Kiriakou on the FBI’s Russiagate entrapment of Maria Butina.

Thomas DiLorenzo asks, Godless Yankees?

Robert Wenzel asks, Should the “Business Roundtable” change its name to “The Profit-Haters Roundtable”?

And Larry Beane on the Black Cat Workers Collective.

Lew Rockwell on Rothbard and War

Lew Rockwell gave an important antiwar speech, discussing Murray Rothbard’s antiwar views, at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s conference on “Breaking Washington’s Addiction to War.”

I especially liked these passages, which describe Rothbard’s basic point of view on war:

War distorts our sense of what service to others truly means. Only to members of the military are we urged to say, “Thank you for your service.” Toward the great entrepreneurs who extend our lives and make them more fulfilling, we are taught to be envious and resentful. They are most certainly not thanked for their service.

The state is able to get away with its aggression thanks in part to its manipulation of language. A soldier who perished in the Iraq war was said to have been “serving his country.” What could that mean? The war was launched on preposterous pretexts against a leader who had not harmed Americans and was incapable of doing so. If the war was in the service of anything, it was the imperial ambitions of a small ruling group. By no means did such a mission, which diverted vast resources away from civilian use, “serve the country.”

War distorts reality itself. Schoolchildren are taught to believe that the American soldier purchased their freedom by his sacrifices. Blasphemous bumper stickers compare the American soldier to Jesus Christ. But in what way was American freedom threatened by Iraq, or Panama, or Somalia? For that matter, how could any 20th-century adversary have managed an invasion of North America, given that even the Germans couldn’t cross the English Channel?

But this carefully cultivated mythology helps keep the racket going. It increases the superstitious reverence people have for past and present members of the military. It puts critics of war on the defensive. Indeed, how can we criticize war and intervention when these things have kept us free?

In short, war is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. Wrapped in the trappings of patriotism, home, songs, and flags, the state deludes people into despising a leader and a country that until that point they had barely even heard of, much less had an informed opinion about, and it teaches its subjects to cheer the maiming and death of fellow human beings who have never done them any harm.

And I like the individualistic view Lew Rockwell gives here:

If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.

The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say “we” when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of “we” when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.(4) Never use “we” when speaking of the government.

But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!

Likewise, the use of “we” feeds into war fever. “We” have to get “them.” People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, “they” can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice “we” dispense to them.

The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes “we” have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.

Now, it would be nice if he would apply such individualism philosophy to the immigration issue!

More Articles

Richard Ebeling discusses the personal State.

Zero Hedge with an article on celebrities passing off fake pictures of Amazon fires, here’s what the fires actually look like.

Ron Paul asks, Who are the real extremists?

Jacob Hornberger on the Guardian’s angry and nasty attack on David Koch.

Kerry McDonald explains how government ruined childhood.

Michael Snyder on incredibly sick, federally-funded experiments happening all over America.

Gary Barnett says that U.S. government sanctions are meant to cause deliberate human suffering.

Whitney Webb on Jeffrey Epstein, CIA, and Bill Clinton.

J.D. Tuccille comments on the revolving door between government and cable news.

Mac Slavo discusses Charles Koch and George Soros uniting and conniving to censor the Internet.

And Doug Bandow says, Forget annexing Greenland, start breaking up America.

More News and Commentary

Alex Knight has the real reasons why the people on the left are so hysterical over guns.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Trump NSA wants to continue spying on innocent Americans without suspicion or warrant.

Jacob Hornberger says to look to China to learn about America (see above).

John Solomon with an article on another FBI failure involving the Clintons and James Comey.

Elias Marat on a new study revealing how ADHD drugs alter the structure of children’s brains.

Matt Agorist on a mom thrown in jail and her child stolen, to punish her for treating child’s cancer with CBD oil.

Robert Murphy with a study finding that planting trees reduces carbon better than carbon taxes.

Jon Rappoport on Scuzzball Twitter, Inc.

Murray Rothbard on the impossibility of equality.

And Randall Holcombe with three assumptions the people on the left make about economic inequality.

More News And Commentary

John Solomon with an article at The Hill on 10 declassified “Russia collusion” revelations that could rock Washington.

Mike Maharrey: There is no “but” in “shall not be infringed.”

Walter Williams asks, What will kids learn at college these days?

David Stockman says, Not MAGA: The Donald’s visible economy scam.

Ted Galen Carpenter: Bring the troops home.

James Bovard on U.S. military’s benevolent bombing of Serbia.

Jacob Hornberger says end foreign aid to Israel and everyone else.

Ron Paul asks, Are recessions inevitable?

And Barbara Boland on U.S. gubmint seizing Iranian tanker.

Which Is Worse: The Left? Or the State?

Well, it appears that Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell will publish a new book that he describes in his article this week, Against the Left.

I think it’s a good thing to expose and critique those on the Left for their hypocrisy and ignorance, and their favoring violence over peace, and their favoring State control over freedom.

But sometimes, especially in my reading LewRockwell.com every day for years now, it seems that recently perhaps Lew has become more “Against the Left” than he is “Against the State.” It’s just my own perception, but that’s how it seems, especially with the immigration issue.

So, I’ll get my more critical points out of the way at the beginning here.

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out many times, most recently here, the closed-border “libertarians” seem to endorse the police state on the border when it comes to immigration. What happened to free-market capitalism? And private property rights, in which a private property owner has the freedom to invite whomever he wishes onto his own private property?

And what happened to the principle of individualism? If this individual over here is not suspected of having violated the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. Period. Wha happen? Now, immigration “invasions” seem to be turning people into collectivists. (Maybe Lew has been listening to too much ditto-head talk radio?)

The closed-border libertarians don’t seem to want to bring up the reasons why there are caravans from Central America going to the southern U.S. border, which include mainly the U.S. government’s evil “War on Drugs” and the U.S. government’s aid to Central American governments who have been tyrannizing innocents in those parts.

Yes, LewRockwell.com and Lew’s own LRC blog and “Political Theatre” have had plenty of articles on the U.S. government’s prohibition of drugs and the police state that goes with it, but they seem to not make a linkage between the immigration problem and those statist policies.

And by the way, Rebecca Gordon has written on Tom Dispatch a somewhat decent article on those main causes of people fleeing those Central American countries. But an extra, made-up cause she wants to throw in there, to completely ruin her article, is “climate change.” Yes, besides the “War on Drugs” and U.S. government aid to tyrants, climate change is making people flee Central America and want to come to the U.S. And Gordon throws in this lie, citing the New York Times, that the U.S. is the “biggest carbon polluter in history,” when we know that the U.S. has become one of the least of the polluters (with a few specific exceptions like Los Angeles), certainly not as bad as China and India. But I digress.

It’s too bad the people on the Left can be very good in their anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, anti-war views, yet still cling to propaganda when it comes to their anti-capitalism, anti-progress agenda. And that’s all the “climate change” fanaticism is all about: envy, and using the powers of government to steal even more from the workers and producers of society.

So, there definitely are still some things I agree with, in Lew Rockwell’s critiques of the Left. But he doesn’t define what “the Left” actually is. I’m sure he does this in his new book that is yet to be published.

And what actually is “the Left”? And what is the “right”? I used to see it as collectivism versus individualism. But many people on the “right” today are against individualism, against the free market, and against private property. They endorse the statist drug war and its police state, the war on immigration and its police state, they love and worship government police and military (which are products of socialism, not capitalism, by the way), and they also endorse and love huge socialist government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In his article, regarding education Lew Rockwell mentions that the “young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good!…”

I think he means that the young people are not taught about the evils of socialism or communism, i.e. the State. (Maybe “the Left” = socialism?) And on LRC he posted a link to an article by Lawrence Ludlow on how much worse the government schools are now than they were 30 years ago. The emphasis is now on grade curving regardless of performance.

Education being centralized, bureaucratized and run by the government are why we have so many dumb and ignorant students being graduated from the government schools, and why so many government teachers are also dumb and ignorant. In that article, Ludlow didn’t mention affirmative action or higher education, but we see just how bad affirmative action is when a con artist like Elizabeth Warren — white as a ghost — can scam Harvard University Law School into hiring her as a professor based on her checking the “minority” box and claiming to be Native American. She should have been criminally charged with fraud.

And Ludlow did mention the transgender phenomenon. In schools, the teachers and students are encouraged or even required to use plural pronouns such as “they” instead of “he,” “him,” “her” and “she.” But this is incorrect grammar. These are schools?

No, the schools are leftist cult indoctrination centers. The evil leftists, or “cultural Marxists,” are using very personal and private sexual matters to manipulate and twist the very young people’s sense of self worth and individual identity, as well as destroy their critical thinking skills and keep them ignorant of facts, truth, knowledge and history, and attempting to prevent the young people from going on to live a healthy, functional life.

And back to Lew Rockwell. And this is probably just a minor issue, really, with Lew. In this recent interview with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist, Rockwell said, regarding Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh and his recent confirmation battle, “And also it’s important to see the feminists defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed…”

Well, Kavanaugh may have won the seat on the Supremes, and defeated the feminazis who made things up to falsely accuse him of sexual assaults, but he is NOT anti-feminist, or anti-SJW. He is one of them. As I wrote here, Kavanaugh had stated at the beginning of his confirmation hearings, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.”

What? That’s how Kavanaugh sees the “legacy” of Title IX? Are you kidding me? The true legacy of Title IX is many false accusations against innocent men at universities and colleges, professors being demoted or fired, employees being harassed or fired at workplaces…And Kavanaugh has NO idea of all this, because he spends too much time at his Washington cocktail parties, the bubble baths, and he himself has now been a VICTIM last Fall of the “legacy of Title IX”!

So, sometimes I wonder if Lew is more anti-Left than he is anti-State. He is glad that Kavanaugh was confirmed even though Kavanaugh is himself a leftist, a Big Government police statist combined with being an SJW. The worst of the worst.

Someone who is more anti-State than anti-Left would hope for Kavanaugh to be defeated, regardless of the false accusations against him.

In my view, if we had to choose between the Left or the State, I would say that we don’t need the State, and in fact we need to get rid of it, or at least the centralized State especially the U.S. government in Washington.

We need to persuade people to see the Leviathan in Washington for what it is. Even letting the fifty states have their sovereignty and independence as nation states, by way of peaceful, voluntary decentralization, would be a MUCH better start than the tyranny of enslavement we live in now.

And without the Regime in Washington, the Left would not have any power. So, we can live with a “Left” in our society, especially when those people have no power structure to grab onto and to use as an implement of totalitarian power and control over the rest of us.

And speaking of that, I also wanted to address some things in this other recent interview of Lew Rockwell by Atilla Mert Sulker. Lew says he’s “pro-nationalism.” And he says, “It’s only recently that you’re supposed to hate your homeland, and turn it over to whoever wants to come in on welfare.”

Well, I think he’s distorting things. Personally, I don’t “hate” my homeland, USA. I’m indifferent, because this “homeland” country is too big. I have no feelings toward most people in California, for example, me being from New England. (But I DO hate Connecticut, not the people, but the state in which I grew up. Now it is a communist, tax-thieving torture chamber. Who in his right mind would live there? Should I consider that my “homeland”? And love it?)

But the centralized “homeland” USA needs to be decentralized, in my view. And turning our society over “to whoever wants to come in on welfare”? This is a case against the welfare state, not against freedom of movement and people finding a better life. With no welfare state (and no income tax thefts, etc.), there would be no incentive for any would-be layabout parasites to come here.

But Rockwell also says, “And also, I notice that all the bad people in society hate nationalism, and are always denouncing it, whether it’s the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or academics, or left wingers…”

Excuse me, I am not a nationalist, and I am constantly criticizing the idea of nationalism, which is a form of authoritarian collectivism, by the way. Does that mean I’m “bad”? But I’m peaceful, a voluntaryist. I’m in my mid-50s and have never committed any criminal or violent acts against others. I’m not exactly a “left-winger” in my support of voluntary exchange, private property rights, and ending government schools.

And I do agree with Lew in that interview regarding the Libertarian Party, which has gone down hill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Lew said, “But I must say that I don’t think the L.P.’s strategy of reaching out to the far left- you have to, for example, be a feminist, to be a libertarian, or all these other things. That’s just ridiculous. But they’re much more concerned with leftism, than they are with freedom.”

Sadly, the Libertarian Partly has become the party of “social justice warriors” in which just about everything is “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. So it’s “Racist, racist, racist!” (and “Russia, Russia, Russia!” too, now) with many of those brainwashed, government school-“educated” sheeple. Just like the progressives and Democrats. The Libertarian Party needs to become the party of freedom once again, not just another party of the Left, like the Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Socialists. And that means being 100% against foreign interventionism, income taxation-theft or wealth taxation-theft, and being 100% supportive of private property rights, voluntary and free exchange, voluntary contracts, and the idea of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

Anyway, the Left is very bad. But the State is worse. And the Left could not do nearly as much damage to us were it not for the unnecessary existence of the State, especially the evil centralized State in Washington. But a book titled Against the Left by Lew Rockwell is probably something to look forward to reading.

Time for Voluntary Decentralization

Jacob Hornberger asks, Should libertarians support Trump’s immigration raids?

Laurence Vance says we should eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). And when we’re finished doing that, eliminate CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, DHS, ICE, FTC, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and all the other crap in Warshington.

WND with an article on Nellie Ohr serving anti-Trump to DOJ.

Robert Wenzel on Trump’s hypocrisy with Israel/BDS movement, yet Trump imposes sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

And Michael Rozeff comments on university sources of gender and other sexual madness in our schools.

More Articles

Donald Boudreaux on Trump’s trade destruction.

Richard Ebeling asks, How much damage will come from this trade war?

Jacob Hornberger on Maduro brutality and U.S. government brutality.

John Whitehead asks, Who inflicts the most gun violence in America?

Matt Agorist says, In a single tweet, Trump unwittingly showed how “red flag” laws will be abused.

Judge Napolitano on government gun-grabbing and “red flag” laws.

B.N. Frank says that whistleblowers report new cars vulnerable to hacking.

Aaron Kesel on intelligence (sic) agencies recruiting high school students.

Ray McGovern says that Seth Rich’s ghost haunts the courts.

Martin Armstrong discusses Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to “The Club” of manipulators.

Charles Hugh Smith asks, Who protected Epstein for decades, and why?

And William Astore says that military strength is Amerika’s national religion.

Jeffrey Epstein and the Dishonest Media Labeling Others “Conspiracy Theorists”

Now that Jeffrey Epstein is either dead from murder or suicide, or been taken off to escape justice or be interrogated by goons, we are getting the usual “conspiracy theorist” label by those who are either very dishonest or just plain dumb, naive or ignorant.

Especially with those in the media as well as apparatchiks, we get a good view as to who someone really is when they immediately label someone as “conspiracy theorist” when that person isn’t obediently and gullibly believing every word that “officials” and their media stenographers tell us.

Perhaps there are those who immediately call someone a “conspiracy theorist” for merely questioning the official narrative, because the alternative explanations (with facts or circumstantial evidence given) cause the labelers anguish. For example, we’d rather not hear about someone such as allegedly Epstein sexually exploiting or abusing teenage girls. But further, it is more distressing when it turns out to be an elaborate scheme that involves many, many people, well-known or not, and that a lot of innocent young girls are being abused by all those scum.

I have a feeling that some of the high-profile people who have been involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s escapades include people in the news media, as well as politicians, Wall Street cronies and other very well-known personalities not involved in finance or politics. Craig Murray analyzes whether some events in the past involving Bill Clinton and Epstein are mere coincidences.

And Caitlin Johnstone writes about the labeling of people as “conspiracy theorist,” and about an NBC reporter Ken Dilanian who warns of “conspiracy theorists” who aren’t buying the official narrative. Apparently Dilanian is also a known CIA asset. So who is the real “conspiracy theorist” here?

There are many obedient sheeple in the news media now, either just out of authoritarian devotion to their rulers in Washington, or just out of a naive and gullible simpleton mentality. Some of them will literally repeat word for word whatever government officials tell them in their “news” reports.

As I wrote in this post last December,

For example, Glenn Greenwald pointed to court historian Douglas Brinkley’s fawning interview of Barack Obama, and that “journalists joyously dance with top officials, swing on their tires, are creepily grateful when they’re sprayed in the face by their squirt guns, and play fun beach games with the very campaign officials they’re ostensibly covering.”

…some examples provided by Greenwald have included Bob Schieffer kissing up to former NSA directer Michael Hayden, and Bob Shieffer hatchet-jobbing Ron Paul on foreign policy. And Scott Pelley’s “13 uninterrupted minutes of drooling propaganda” interview of Obama defense secretary Leon Panetta, how Wired manipulated chat logs to aid and abet the government’s persecution of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning, and Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross’s anti-Iran fear-mongering (things haven’t changed much).

We have just gone through more than two years of “Trump-Russia collusions” conspiracy theory, and it was all theory because not only was there never any evidence for such collusion or Trump-Russia conspiracy, and the Mueller Report says just that, but there has been no evidence that the DNC computers or emails were actually hacked.

But the “Trump-Russia collusions” and “Russian election meddling” false narratives i.e. “fake news” propaganda were being disseminated by the news media over and over and over, so many Americans really believed it all. Now, not so much.

So we don’t really have a “news media” now, we have a government media, the propaganda wing of the U.S. government. And it’s not just the national media, but many or most local news media outlets throughout the U.S. That’s because a lot of people are just easily propagandized.

But also a lot of people in the media are too damn lazy to do actual fact-checking, actual investigative research, and instead they tend to take information that a government official gives them as the word of God.

So this “conspiracy theorist” label being thrown around and directed toward those who question the official narrative is distressing, especially, as Johnstone pointed out in her article, when our beloved yet decrepit FBI tells us that “conspiracy theorists” are the new “domestic terrorism” threat.

And that is distressing because we now live in an age false accusation, an era of ignorance and hysteria regarding many issues, including the paranoid and triggered college snowflakes, and the climate fanatics who call people “deniers” and who want to jail or kill the “deniers.” And an era of false accusation now being the norm, such as with Title IX abuse. The accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were false accusations with NO evidence to back them up. And I detest Kavanaugh, if you didn’t know, but I still think the truth is important.

And the whole “Russia collusions” matter was a false accusation against a political candidate and then sitting President.

Charles Burris posted two posts on eugenics on the LRC blog. I’m not sure if it was because of the Epstein case now in the news, because we have heard that Jeffrey Epstein was into eugenics. The Burris posts are The Eugenics Crusade and Selling Murder: The Killing Films of the Third Reich.

In the 2nd Burris post, he writes about the “documentary Selling Murder: The Killing Films of the Third Reich, the single most important film about the Nazi’s Aktion T-4 euthanasia program.” He says “It shows exactly how the Nazis marginalized people with disabilities and mental illnesses by making them less and less until it became acceptable to exterminate them.”

That reminded me of the climate fanatics calling people “deniers” and wanting to jail them or have the “deniers” killed. Have you heard that?

But, speaking of references to the “mentally ill,” we are hearing of the importance of gun-buying background checks, using FBI or otherwise government databases, of course. And people want to take guns away from those labeled “mentally ill,” because the gun-grabbers want to disarm already more vulnerable people and make them even more defenseless.

However, the problem here is how “mentally ill” will be defined, and by whom. Given that the U.S. is becoming more like a USSA, an American Soviet Union, it seems to me that civilians or “any non-government employee” who owns an illegal gun will eventually be determined to be a “danger” or a “terrorist” by the “authorities.” Or determined to be “mentally ill” by our whacked out Xanaxized society and by the gubmint in Washington. But not just gun owners, also people who don’t share the “transgender” ideology, people who support the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, people who live “off the grid,” etc., etc. Yeah, those “mentally ill” people.

And, oh yes, “conspiracy theorists.”