Skip to content

Month: February 2020

Doh! Conservatives Reject Free Market Capitalism and LOVE Government Central Planning!

Especially in the immigration issue.

I was listening to one of the conservative/ultra-nationalist talk radio ditto-heads this morning, and he was once again foaming at the mouth over the immigration issue. The talk host was in full support of Donald Trump’s stepping up the nazi-like immigration police state, in which ICE and “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” storm troopers will take their S.W.A.T. goons into “sanctuary cities” to harass, terrorize, arrest or assault innocent people who have exercised their unalienable rights to freedom of movement and their right to find a better life for themselves and their families.

Regarding government-operated or funded “sanctuary cities,” they shouldn’t exist, because their operation is funded by taxpayers, i.e. involuntarily.

Instead, there should be freedom, in which volunteer organizations, charities, churches, businesses and residents should have the freedom to take people in if they want to. And they would be expected to take responsibility for their refugees, new workers, guests, etc. As long as people are peaceful. As long as no one is violating the persons or property of others, and that’s it.

When there is freedom, such sponsors, employers or benefactors would not be required to ask the government for permission, and their workers or refugees are not required to get government authorization to go to where they want to go. That is what socialist societies (such as Amerika) do. Alas, that is what “conservatives” want.

The police-state supporting conservatives are concerned about immigrants getting on government welfare. But, a society of freedom and free markets would have no government-imposed redistribution-of-wealth schemes. So the newcomers would not get on welfare, because there would be no government welfare redistribution schemes or handouts!

But most conservatives seem to be socialists, and love income taxation and redistribution just as much as liberals and progressives.

And they seem to love government central planning when it comes to labor and employment. In the immigration issue, conservatives are opposed to free markets, and love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control who works where, and who may not work in Amerika or where they may not work, and whom employers may employ and may not employ.

So conservatives, at least the ones I hear on ditto-head radio, love the idea of government central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people. Which is impossible. As Perry Como might say, it’s just impossible.

For them, foreign people have to get government authorization to enter “our” country. But that’s socialism, not freedom.

Only in a socialist society are people required to get government authorization to live their lives, have a business and employ anyone they want to employ, or to move somewhere or to work somewhere.

Contrary to what the socialist conservatives want, in a free society you just do what you want and you live wherever you want, and you buy or sell property, rent a home or work at a place of employment, as long as you are peaceful. Just don’t trespass onto the private property of others.

But conservatives say that immigrants are “breaking into our country,” and compare the whole territory to a parcel of private property. Someone coming into “our” country without government authorization is “trespassing.”

But the territory as a whole is not a parcel of private property. No one owns the territory.

However, some people say that “we” the “citizens” are the owners. No, such an assertion is a myth and just not true. if someone owns the territory, then where is the deed with our names on it? Where in the Constitution or any law is it written that “citizens” are the owners of the territory as a whole?

And who would be the actual owners? Just taxpayers? Well, what about people who work but don’t make enough to be required to pay income taxes? What about foreign non-citizens who are here and who work but do pay income taxes? Do they share in such “ownership”?

The problem with such an assertion of this communistic territorial ownership by the “citizens” (or by the government on their behalf) is that, if it really were the case, then that would negate the principle of private property. You do not really own your private property if it exists on territory that is owned by a larger population. The parcels of property are no longer individual parcels of private property, and you the “owner” have to obey the orders of the larger community as far as what you may or may not do with or on “your” property.

Therefore, the anti-immigration conservatives are big on government central planning, some kind of communal ownership of property and the police state to enforce it, and not big at all on individualism, private property rights, free markets and voluntary exchange.

So what should conservatives really support in order to extract their irrationality from their hypocritical old noggins?

If the anti-foreigner nationalist conservatives are really concerned about “illegals” getting into “our” country, or criminal gangs such as MS-13, then first get rid of all foreign aid. No more federal tax-funded aid to any other countries or governments. That means no more U.S. funding of terrorist-sympathizing or drug lord-cahooting governments in Central or South America, from which many immigrants are fleeing.

And second, end the drug war. Drug prohibition causes the black market which incentivizes low-lifes to try to get people addicted to drugs and incentivizes such low-lifes to become drug pushers and drug traffickers, and the prohibition is what creates the drug lords, the cartels, the turf wars and gangs and violence that are driving innocent people and victims in those areas to flee to the U.S. Ending the war on drugs puts all that to a stop. No more drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug lords, cartels, turf wars and gangs.

And no more drug war police state, no more immigration police state, and no more Constitution-free borders.

I wish that conservatives would get with it as far as the freedom thing goes. Re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And maybe some other points I made in this post might help them. But, their support of the police state and socialist government central planning and their opposition to and contempt for freedom is really something we can do without.

News and Commentary

Richard Ebeling looks back at the last 30 years in Amerika.

Joshua Cho: No. 1 sponsor of terrorism? U.S. media name Iran, but overlook a candidate closer to home.

Matthew Ehret: Neo-McCarthyite witch hunters hypocritically mourn the death of Kirk Douglas.

Caitlin Johnstone: Trump supporters are George W. Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters.

Becky Akers on the government Thieves and Sexual Assailants.

John Whitehead: How young girls are being groomed by sexual predators.

Jacob Hornberger: Socialism in education.

Dr. Joseph Mercola asks, Will Google’s social credit system determine your future?

Aaron Kesel on India and U.K. laws ordering social media companies to disclose user identities.

Jacob Sullum: FBI agents put innocent men on “No Fly List” to punish them for not being informants.

Jon Rappoport: CDC begins testing Americans for the Coronavirus — but how?

Dmitry Orlov: A most convenient virus.

Sheldon Richman: Anti-BDS laws violate our freedom.

The Rutherford Institute fights against a law criminalizing speech that “encourages” immigrants to remain in the country, saying the law is so broad that it could be used to punish anti-government speech.

Jonathan Turley: Juror 1261 in Roger Stone’s case: was justice undone?

Ron Paul: Democrats ignore Trump’s real violations.

Aaron Maté: New leaks shatter OPCW’s attacks on Douma whistleblowers.

Ray McGovern: German TV exposes the lies that entrapped Julian Assange.

Zero Hedge asks, Why did Twitter just “lockdown” WikiLeaks account?

Laurence Vance on Citizens United revisited, and free expression and property rights.

Robert Murphy: The theory and brief history of money and banking.

Kelley Vlahos: West Point prof pens blistering takedown of U.S. military academies.

Pat Buchanan: If Duterte wants us out, let’s go.

Tom Engelhardt: War Addicts, Inc.

Gary Barnett: Conscription is slavery: I know because I was drafted.

Michael Rozeff on the corrupt Andrew McCabe.

Dom Armentano asks, Are rising ocean levels an existential threat?

And Paul Craig Roberts: PBS assaults white Americans.

What’s the Story Behind the Story with Coronavirus in China?

Mac Slavo of “SHTF Plan” posts that authoritarian communist China is now censoring critics of coronavirus propaganda in the U.S., or those in the U.S. trying to tell family members still in China about what’s going on.

VICE News spoke to dozens of WeChat users in the U.S. and Canada, as well as some users in the U.K., France, Spain, Australia, Germany, and Malaysia, who reported identical problems with their accounts as they tried to share information with their family and friends in China.

The restrictions will prevent international users from sending any information to contacts in China.  In some cases, they have also had their accounts suspended or blocked completely and accused of “spreading malicious rumors.” In many cases, the censorship means their only communication link to people inside China has been cut off completely, according to a report by VICE News.

If someone attempts to get information that is not approved by the Chinese government to people living under the tyranny there, they will likely be silenced, if not punished.

WeChat is a unit of Tencent, one of China’s largest tech companies, which also happens to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Now users in the U.S. are calling for Congress to intervene to preserve their freedom of speech, however, free speech is all but dead in the U.S. too.  And the politicians claiming authority over the rest of us are unlikely to do much if anything about it.

“Tencent is the evil helper of a totalitarian government that suppresses freedom of speech and democracy,” one WeChat user who lives in Philadelphia and wanted to remain anonymous due to fears of retribution, told VICE News.They delete or block your posts if they think it promotes democracy and challenges the government. It violates my civil rights as a U.S. citizen. I came to the U.S. for freedom. I thought I escaped from the threat of the Communist Party. But I’m wrong, I still live in terror because Tencent is monitoring my WeChat and may report me to the Chinese authorities.”

Things aren’t much better in the U.S. where companies like Facebook, Google, and YouTube delete or censor information that isn’t government-approved. In fact, the World Health Organization and Google have been working together to censor coronavirus information.

As I noted yesterday, the liberty-hating Chinese rulers are stepping up their numbers of “confirmed” coronavirus cases by using CT scans to find signs of pneumonia, regardless of whether such patients tested positive for coronavirus. As Jon Rappoport has pointed out which I linked to yesterday, China has a huge air pollution problem, which compromises the respiratory systems of the people there (as well as their immune systems). That would probably make people more vulnerable to pneumonia. So it seems that the Chinese rulers are assuming that people showing signs of pneumonia (through CT scans) therefore have the coronavirus. (No, that doesn’t “confirm” anything! People who actually have pneumonia do not necessarily have it via coronavirus.)

Now I see an article on a Hong Kong news website that the horrible, anti-liberty authoritarian Chinese rulers are confiscating “private” property in the name of attempting to prevent spread of the coronavirus. So, given that there is reason to be skeptical of the occurrence of coronavirus that they claim is in the tens of thousands like “44,000 confirmed cases,” but only 1,177 deaths (compare to the millions of cases of the flu and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide each year), it could be that the whole coronavirus scare is for China to regress back to their good old days of no private property, no private ownership and full communism. We know they want it, because the Chinese rulers love power and control, just like the rulers in the U.S. and their rulers-wannabe such as commies Bernie and Liawatha.

However, I could be wrong, given that China’s economic activity is nearly ground to a halt. They’re not THAT extreme now, are they? (Wait, they’re communists!)

By the way, I found those articles on Wendy McElroy’s blog, which I highly recommend.

UPDATE: Additionally, the authoritarian Chinese central planners now want to take much of their existing paper cash out of circulation, and either disinfect it or replace it. So, they could be exploiting this epidemic to try to get rid of cash altogether, which many freedom-hating authoritarians in Amerika also want to do.

Higher Number of Coronavirus Cases in China?

The big increase recently in coronavirus cases in China is now due to their now testing by giving people a CT scan, and the government and medical bureaucrats are diagnosing people as having pneumonia, even though the patients haven’t actually tested positive (or been tested at all) for coronavirus! So they are finding cases of patients with pneumonia (or signs of pneumonia as seen with CT scan), but calling those cases “coronavirus” even though they aren’t necessarily cases of coronavirus! As Jon Rappoport writes, it’s absurd. It’s nuts. But, why are the Chinese rulers doing this? And will the U.S. rulers start doing this as well in the U.S.?

News and Commentary

Jon Rappoport has some good news on the mandatory vaccine issue in South Dakota.

Doug Casey with advice on how to survive the “deep state.”

Daniel McAdams says the Koch-Soros Quincy Project is a train wreck of neocon and “humanitarian” interventionists.

Sam Jacobs asks, How did Pete Buttigieg end up in the military without going through basic training?

Judge Napolitano with a primer on domestic spying.

And Martin Capages says that climate change is not a problem, unless we make it one.

Do Politicians’ Policies of Aggression Reflect Private Behaviors?

What is it with these politicians and candidates who promote mainly policies of aggression, interventionism, and government theft of private wealth and property? We had the Bushes starting wars of aggression against countries that didn’t attack us and invasive police-state policies, and Obama and Trump who continue the policies.

There do not seem to be any candidates, Democrat or Republican, who want to liberate the American people, make the government stop stealing from the people, and end the invasions, bombings, and occupations overseas that do nothing but provoke foreigners.

But now that I am reading more about the current bunch of morons running for President (to replace the incumbent moron), I am seeing how these people behave in their private lives or behind the scenes, and how some of them are abusive.

But not all of them treat others badly, of course. For instance, so far we haven’t heard about Pete Buttigieg being abusive or acting like a criminal, but we have heard that his campaign is filled with nutty loony-tunes, like their attempting to expose “microaggressions” within the campaign. (Some black campaign workers report being interrupted in conversation  — Ooooh! — and being called the name of another staffer of the same race.) So, the nutsos try to go the opposite of being “abusive.”

But some of these politicians, especially those who advocate more interventions, more aggressions, more tax-thefts, and so on, seem to be treating others pretty badly.

A few days ago I asked if this Amy Klobuchar person might be the worst of the worst, because she combines the DC swampy interventionist foreign policy and warmongering with the leftist climate fanaticism and ObamaCare intrusions. She’s the worst of everything, a statist if there ever was one. And I wrote that she’s turning out to be a lot like Hillary, in those aforementioned ways. Here is what I wrote about that:

Robert Wenzel has this summary of Amy Klobuchar’s views and legislation she supports. She’s big on U.S. government interventionism around the world, loves the UN and NATO, supports NSA collection of private data without reasonable suspicion and votes in favor of FISA warrantless surveillance (i.e.. contempt for the 4th Amendment – Oh, that old thing?), wants the government to have authority over Facebook, Google and Amazon and other tech companies (anti-First Amendment, fascist), supports trade tariffs (against free trade and free markets), says regime change ops are on the table especially Venezuela, supports eco-fascism in climate change legislation and “Green New Deal” (i.e. crony Green Wheeling and Dealing). Thus, she combines the worst of warmongering, foreign interventionism, fascist anti-civil liberties and government spying on innocent people, with socialist tax-thefts in the name of irrational fanatical crusades. Very much like Hillary, in other words.

Yes, very much like Hillary Clinton, loving foreign interventionism and warmongering, and at the same time advocating far-left intrusions in the economy. The Democrats may nominate Klobuchar for President, and they may even have a brokered convention and insert Hillary to lose a second time.

And to remind us how Hillary Clinton has been over the years, Gary Byrne, a former Secret Service officer assigned to President Bubba Clinton during the 1990s, wrote about the Clintons’ behavior in the White House, Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate, and the book included parts about Hillary’s tirades.

According to Page Six from a 2016 article, Byrne’s book “claims she repeatedly screamed obscenities at her husband, Secret Service personnel and White House staffers — all of whom lived in terror of her next tirade.”

Page Six quotes from the book: “From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. And with Hillary’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style — volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else — hasn’t changed a bit.”

And also from the Page Six article,

Byrne describes arriving for work one day in 1995 following a loud fight between the Clintons the night before.

The dust-up, he says, left a light blue vase “smashed to bits” and Bill sporting a “real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye.”

And more recently in 2016, during the year that Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary who was supposed to “break the glass ceiling” but didn’t, Hillary and Bubba had a “screaming match only days before her election loss,” according to WND.

But now we are hearing that Amy Klobuchar is like Hillary not only in their statist policies but in other ways, mainly the bad temper and treating staff with abuse. For instance, according to Vanity Fair,

Klobuchar’s alleged temper was not unknown in Washington. Last year, The New York Times noted that, “On Capitol Hill, Ms. Klobuchar’s reputation is not all sweetness and light.” A March 2018 article in Politico described Klobuchar as among the “worst bosses in Congress,” with the highest office turnover rate in the Senate. But the new details reported by BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, if true, are particularly damning. BuzzFeed reviewed e-mails, often sent between 1 and 4 in the morning, in which Klobuchar “regularly berated employees, often in all capital letters, over minor mistakes, misunderstandings, and misplaced commas. Klobuchar, in the e-mails, which were mostly sent over the past few years, referred to her staff’s work as ‘the worst in . . . years,’ and ‘the worst in my life.’”

…multiple sources alleged that Klobuchar’s mistreatment of office staff began more than a decade ago, and that in 2015, then Senate minority leader Harry Reid told her privately that she had to change her behavior.

And there’s this New York Post article, Amy Klobuchar reportedly threw office supplies at employees during outbursts.

Okay, that’s enough.

So it seems that Klobuchar really is a lot like Hillary.

Now, what is it with these politicians? Do the more power hungry ones, like Amy and Hillary, just have psychopathic personalities?

If for some reason the Democrats make Amy Klawbutcher their nominee, when she loses to The Donald will we see if she goes crazy like the angry Hitlery?

And I don’t see why anyone would vote for Democrats or Republicans anymore, when those two statist parties are what caused the country’s mess in the first place. More and more government stealing from the people, draconian laws and police state with the drug war and failed attempts to address immigration and “terrorism” issues.

What we really need is someone who proposes to liberate the people of America, by dismantling all those terrible laws and policies and dismantling the national security state and foreign military bases, ending the drug war and stop stealing from the American people. (For example, Jacob Hornberger who is a Libertarian Party candidate for President. I’m sure he doesn’t lose his temper and throw things at people like those other politicians do.)

Another Scheme to Oust Trump: Roger Stone Exaggerated Prison Sentence

I’m not a big fan of Roger Stone, but once again, we see that a Trump flunky is being used to manipulate and set up Donald Trump toward another investigation fiasco or impeachment farce. The prosecutors who have railroaded Stone on process crimes, just like with the other Trump flunkies, are recommending that Stone be given 7 to 9 years in prison. For lying to Congress.

But they won’t charge others for lying to Congress, such as James Comey, John Brennan or James Clapper, and obviously for political reasons. Those were on the Hillary-Obama team! DC swamp creatures get away with murder, as well as “process” crimes!

So, the requested sentence for Stone of 7-9 years in prison is deliberately so extreme, they must be doing it as a means to elicit a reaction from Trump, which they have gotten, and using the extreme sentence as a way to get the attorney general to want to reduce the sentence, which is how William Barr has reacted. (And the ultra-biased jury foreman was probably helpful to them as well, no?)

And I believe it’s all planned and on purpose. WHY would 4 prosecutors react so strongly to Barr’s disagreeing with their request of 7 to 9 years that those prosecutors would actually resign? Just because one of their victims might get a reduced sentence? The prosecutors are THAT serious with process crimes? Doh!

So it sounds like a pre-planned scheme, and just part 3 of the many-parts plan of the Warshington Swamp and Democrats to try to get rid of Trump, the first part being the whole Russia-collusions fiasco, and the second part being the impeachment farce. Those two parts of the plan didn’t work, obviously. So now they’re trying to get Trump with the Roger Stone case.

And already Nancy Lugosi and others have called on Trump and the DOJ to be investigated for wanting to see Stone’s sentence of 7-9 years reduced. And people are talking about bringing another case of impeachment against Trump based on this now (even though their guy Obama did the same thing, many times!). The impeachment shenanigans will obviously continue for the next 5 years.

And this means that if a candidate is elected President that the other party doesn’t like, rather than wait until the next election they will use the impeachment process to try to get rid of him. As I wrote recently, they are the Undemocratic Party.

But they don’t care about impeaching someone for the right reasons, such as the drone strikes that kill mainly innocent civilians that their buddy Obama continued and escalated after Bush, and that Trump has escalated even more, killing even more civilians overseas. And Trump’s assassinations without due process. All war crimes, or … “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The reason that “Democrats” won’t go after Trump for those actual crimes is because their guy Obama did the same thing, and because they agree with due process-free drone strikes and assassinations!

Those DOJ prosecutors who resigned and the FBI “dirty cops” and the Undemocrats in CONgress who have been trying to take down Trump with made-up “crimes” that weren’t crimes or with taking things out of context, are doing so because they just HATE Trump! And that’s IT!

Amy Klobuchar: Worst of the Worst?

Robert Wenzel has this summary of Amy Klobuchar’s views and legislation she supports. She’s big on U.S. government interventionism around the world, loves the UN and NATO, supports NSA collection of private data without reasonable suspicion and votes in favor of FISA warrantless surveillance (i.e.. contempt for the 4th Amendment – Oh, that old thing?), wants the government to have authority over Facebook, Google and Amazon and other tech companies (anti-First Amendment, fascist), supports trade tariffs (against free trade and free markets), says regime change ops are on the table especially Venezuela, supports eco-fascism in climate change legislation and “Green New Deal” (i.e. crony Green Wheeling and Dealing). Thus, she combines the worst of warmongering, foreign interventionism, fascist anti-civil liberties and government spying on innocent people, with socialist tax-thefts in the name of irrational fanatical crusades. Very much like Hillary, in other words.

Who Would Want to Sabotage the 2020 U.S. Elections?

Certainly not Israel. Whitney Webb has a very lengthy article on the U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. government foreign policy apparatchiks giving dire warnings about how vulnerable this year’s elections are with no evidence, with such warnings unthinkingly parroted by the mainstream news media. However, at the same time Israel has a lot of connections to hacking and vulnerabilities, and for some reason intelligence (sic) hooligans seem to want to cause chaos in our elections in the name of further building up totalitarian government impositions.

Jacob Hornberger Has Won the Libertarian Party’s Iowa Caucus

Joseph Howe of the Iowa Libertarian Party writes:

The Libertarian Party of Iowa is pleased to announce the results of our first ever Libertarian Presidential Preference Poll. Libertarians gathered across the state at county level caucuses and conventions to elect officers, build county committees and select delegates to the 2020 LPIA State Convention. Additionally, The LPIA conducted a Virtual Caucus, ensuring the greatest possible participation and inclusion for Libertarians across the state. The LPIA, in the tradition of the Iowa Caucuses, held a Presidential Straw Poll to signal registered Libertarians preference for our Presidential nomination. We are pleased to announce the winner: Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who took a commanding 47.52% of the vote. Rounding out the top five are former Rhode Island Governor and U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee, 1996 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee Jo Jorgensen, Veterans Against the Iraq War founder Adam Kokesh and software engineer and entrepreneur Daniel Behrman.

Candidate Total Percent
Jacob Hornberger 134 47.52%
Lincoln Chafee 36 12.77%
Jo Jorgensen 18 6.38%
Adam Kokesh 17 6.03%
Daniel Behrman 14 4.96%
John McAfee 10 3.55%
Vermin Supreme 9 3.19%
Other (Write In) 8 2.84%
NOTA 8 2.84%
Sam Robb 7 2.48%
Max Abramson 6 2.13%
Mark Whitney 4 1.42%
Arvin Vorha 3 1.06%
Ken Armstrong 2 0.71%
Keenan Wallace Dunham 2 0.71%
Souraya Faas 2 0.71%
Benjamin Leder 1 0.35%
John Monds 1 0.35%
Daniel Christman 0 0.00%
James Ogle 0 0.00%
Steve Richey 0 0.00%
Total Votes 282 100.00%

Congratulations!