Skip to content

Category: Bureaucracy

Steven Mnuchin and Marxine Waters Duke It Out

Here is a totally bizarre bickering between treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and Rep. Marxine Waters, the chairwomanperson of this useless committee. Her facial expressions are at times just plain cartoon-like. They are arguing over whether he can leave the hearing, and he says he has a scheduled important meeting, she says he can very well leave. I heard Glenn Beck mention this on his radio show this morning. I didn’t realize that Mnuchin is asking for formal dismissal and gavel-bang from the chairwomanperson. Apparently, according to what I heard on the Beck show, if Mnuchin were to just walk out without formal dismissal he can be charged with “contempt of Congress.” Is this true? (Frankly, it is CONgress who consistently shows contempt for the American people and the U.S. Constitution!)

Washington Is Filled with Morons, Psychopaths, and Ignoramuses

What is wrong with Donald Trump? And all his followers. Why are they so much against freedom?

Trump wants to close the border. That’s ridiculous. America is supposed to be about freedom, free markets, free trade, not government restrictions on everybody’s freedom.

The Authoritarian-In-Chief now wants to impose a “Border Czar,” or “Immigration Czar,” apparently in the same way that Ronald Reagan appointed a “Drug Czar.” That sure worked out well. The “Drug Czar” put a stop to all those druggies and potheads out there, for sure.

The police state dingbats will do the same with immigration, you betcha.

And why all the short-sightedness from Trump and others? They are hysterical regarding the problems at the border. The “crisis.”

Hysterical loony-tunes panic and call for closing the border altogether, as well as escalating their police state.

“Oh, all the drugs coming through the border.”

Actually, it’s the war on drugs that’s mainly to blame for that “crisis.” Your nanny state dictating to the people what chemicals they may or may not put into their own bodies.

You’re not going to stop people from getting their goddamn drugs.

It’s 50+ years of the drug war now, people including teens are still getting all the drugs they want. It’s your prohibition that’s causing the black market that incentivizes the low-lifes to want to profit from the weaknesses and vices of others, as the black market in drugs creates the drug pushers who get people addicted and the drug traffickers who profit from the black market, the drug lords and drug cartels.

Another cause of the immigration crisis is the U.S. government’s foreign interventionism in Central and South America. Cut it out.

And America’s welfare state. Are there immigrants coming to the U.S. and getting on welfare? Welfare is a truly immoral policy, because it is not funded voluntarily. Welfare is funded involuntarily by the government’s stealing earnings from the workers and producers of society. Stealing is immoral, and criminal. Please Donald shut up about crime coming from “illegal” immigrants, when you preside over the largest crime syndicate ever in the history of man, the U.S. government. Stop stealing from the people.

But he wants to close down the border, rather than end the criminality, corruption, stealing, and the police state coming right out of Washington.

What else is The Donald doing that’s stupid, criminal or evil? He is now saying that Republicans will be the “party of healthcare.” What? Are they doctors? How will Republicans do anything in healthcare? They’re politicians (i.e. morons).

And now he’s saying that he will wait until after the 2020 election to do something with healthcare. “We’ll pass the bill and then we’ll find out what’s in it.”

In other words, he’s doing a Nixon: I have a secret plan to end the war. But really Trump has a secret plan to end our healthcare completely, by caving and giving in to the socialists who want total government-run healthcare. But isn’t that what Trump has been calling for all this time?

And the idiots are so concerned about people with pre-existing conditions, they really want to force insurers to go out of business. The Rethugs are either just dishonest or they actually don’t understand that forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions will cause such coverage to get progressively worse for those with pre-existing conditions.

I hove no doubt that Trump does not understand that, as well as many other things in healthcare, government, and life.

And yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio show, Rep. Steve Scalise was pushing his born-alive abortion bill. There are people, mainly Democrats, who want to allow people to murder a newly born baby, because the mother has changed her mind. How sick is that? But Scalise and other Rethugs in CONgress love the wars and sanctions and detaining peaceful people traveling to find a better life for themselves and their families. The Rs are just as bad as the Ds, quite frankly.

And then we have women complaining about Joe Biden. He likes to be “affectionate.” No, he likes to touch and feel and grope and be intrusive on others, just as any other pathological narcissist likes to do. Which is to say, most politicians. They love to have the powers of government, and the apparatus of spying and intruding, making the people have to report to the bureaucrats the details of their private personal and financial lives, involuntarily. And the Rulers love siccing the government police on people who don’t comply.

More Excellent Articles

Justin Raimondo has returned and writes about defeating the counterrevolution, the conspiracy theory of Trump-Russia collusions and the interference in the 2016 election that wasn’t interfered with. “In Russia-gate we see the real purpose of the system of universal surveillance: to track and control the channels of dissidence in this country…We can and must defeat them by disempowering the instruments of control – the FBI, the CIA, and the entire national security bureaucracy – and making an example in this most egregious case. John Brennan must be charged and prosecuted. The FBI cabal that turned a federal law enforcement agency into an arm of an incipient police state must be held accountable in a court of law.” You betcha!

Dr. Jane Orient asks, What if the government is your doctor? (I think that Dr. Bureaucrat would be very much like McCabe, Comey, Brennan, and Zeke Emanuel. Not good.)

Mark Perry and Ross McKitric on Earth Hour: a celebration of ignorance and poverty. (And April 22 is Earth Day. Keep all the lights on, and your TVs and stereos, space heaters and air conditioners, if you can. Just don’t blow a fuse. Celebrate Earth Day!)

Jacob Hornberger on the incorrigible hypocrisy of the Wall Street Journal and conservatives on foreign policy. (I thought leftists were narcissistic, but conservatives are pretty bad as well in their narcissism when it comes to their rejection of the Golden Rule.)

Bretigne Shaffer has more on the “anti-vaxxer” parents who try to educate the ignorant on the vaccine controversy.

And Gareth Porter explains how the U.S. Navy sold the Vietnam War.

More Articles

John Whitehead with an article on how we’re all lab rats in the government’s secret experiments. Get ready to be grossed out if you aren’t already familiar with some of the sick experiments the degenerate psychopaths in Washington have performed on the people.

Laurence Vance has a lengthy article on your tax dollars at work. Very detailed. And he distinguishes between the typical liberal/conservative statist view on taxes and the libertarian view. Is there somewhere in this piece in which he suggests to get rid of the federal government as a good solution? I didn’t see it. (In fact, that same solution applies to the first link above as well.)

Michael Rozeff says that socialism suppresses entrepreneurship.

And Joseph Mercola on Internet watchdogs and fake fact-checkers, conflicts of interest.

The “Mueller Report”: The Coup Failed. But Will the Real Conspirators See the Hoosegow?

So yesterday I’m listening to these Sunday news shows Meet the Depressed, Fake the Nation and Faux News Sunday, rebroadcast on Bloomberg Radio, and today these local liberal talk radio personalities, and it’s like they’re all living in a different world of non-reality. They are in a world far removed from the truth, especially when it comes to the long-anticipated “Mueller Report,” and attorney general William Barr’s spin on it to Congress.

The media groupies are still clinging to the notion that Trump “obstructed justice” and they’re still talking impeachment, when in reality it was the high-up FBI and DOJ flunkies who “obstructed justice” in their falsely exonerating Hillary Clinton in her rogue email mishandlings, by changing the words “gross negligence” to “extremely careless,” in order to falsely get out of criminally indicting Clinton.

And will the impeachment-obsessed Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiffty look into the “insurance policy” that the high-ups at DOJ and FBI implemented to try to ward off a Trump presidency or to sabotage it if it were to occur? The usage of the Steele dossier that British spy Christopher Steel wrote up on Trump that was filled with made-up allegations with no verification whatsoever?

In fact, Bruce Ohr at the DOJ told senior FBI and DOJ bureaucrats, and obviously the signers of the FISA warrant applications that were used to illicitly spy on Trump campaign people, that the information used for those FISA applications, the “Steele dossier,” was unverified, and the officials then misled FISA court judges who signed the warrants. So, if there are to be indictments for “obstruction of justice” and “conspiracy,” they need to be handed to James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, the officials who submitted FISA warrant applications with unverified information to the FISA judges. I wrote about all that in this article in January.

I have a feeling that, thanks to the propagandists of the mainstream media, most people have never even heard of Bruce Ohr.

So will the Obama-Comey FBI/DOJ spy ring get indicted? That also includes the former director of national intelligence (sic) James Clapper and CIA director John Brennan. Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal called Brennan the “ringmaster” and Giuliani referred to him as the “quarterback.”

Can you imagine if the Bush DOJ and FBI spied on the Obama campaign and attempted to falsely accuse Obama of “collusions with Russia to sway the 2008 election”?

And all those indictments handed down by the Mueller fishing expedition? Nothing to do with “Russia collusions” to change the 2016 election.

The first group of Russians who were indicted were using social media because they were trying to make money. It was a money-making click-bait scheme.

But the second group of Russians from the Russian intelligence GRU, were indicted to do with non-existent “hacking” of the DNC and the Clinton campaign computers, but the indictments were not substantiated with any evidence whatsoever, as we heard from Moon of Alabama and Joe Lauria. The Mueller people just made it all up.

And Paul Manafort’s dealings were with Ukrainians, not Russians, and having nothing to do with the 2016 election, and his tax-related indictments were from years ago, well before the 2016 election! Then there was Mike Flynn’s “guilty” plea for lying to investigators, after having been entrapped by FBI, even though FBI’s top agent Strzok believed that Flynn was not lying.

The whole thing has been a fishing expedition and an attempted frame-up of Trump. And I’m not even a Trump supporter.

The reasons these “national security” apparatchiks went after Trump — joined enthusiastically by the toadies of the media and the rest of the government losers in Washington — wasn’t just because he criticized the national security establishment and their terrible wars.

It was also because he’s a successful entrepreneur. Government losers HATE successful entrepreneurs. So it’s also a part of their ENVY that we are seeing more and more of from government worshipers now. That is part of why government “law enforcement” went after Martha Stewart — and Michael Milken, Aaron Swarz, Joseph Nacchio and John Kinnucan, and others.

And now government “law enforcement” is going after Robert Kraft. The goons can easily go after ANY famous celebrity male patronizing a house of prostitution. So why Robert Kraft, and only weeks after his Patriots won their 6th Super Bowl? I have answered my own question. Duh. There’s that envy again. And that’s why. (And maybe because Kraft is a Trump supporter? Ya think?)

It’s the inherent nature of the government parasite who would never make it in the private sector, or anywhere were it not for the forced redistribution of wealth scheme that’s been financed by the thievery of the income tax for the past century.

And the FBI has been going after The Donald since at least 2003, as we know from Felix Sater. The anti-business FBI has probably been wanting to get Trump since the 1980s, quite frankly.

Medicare and Medicaid: The Root Cause of America’s Healthcare Crisis

Now, many people really believe that government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, were necessary to be imposed on the people to help the people. Many people are indoctrinated to believe that after many years of government-controlled schooling. Those programs are a given, a normal part of everyday life, they have been made to believe.

However, Jacob Hornberger discusses why those programs are the root cause of today’s healthcare crisis. Those are socialist programs, which involve redistribution of wealth to fund them, and government central planning to administer them.

It was a new system of government central planning imposed by political operatives and bureaucrats to replace the old system of freedom and free markets.

Hornberger describes how things used to be in America with healthcare:

The United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world. It was one based on no government involvement in healthcare. It was a free-market healthcare system. Advances in healthcare were occurring at a phenomenal rate. Doctors absolutely loved what they did in life. Healthcare services were reasonably priced.

In fact, hardly anyone had major medical insurance. That’s because healthcare costs were considered just an ordinary part of life, sort of like periodic car repairs. The price of healthcare stayed within reasonable boundaries.

The poor had no problems receiving treatment by both physicians and hospitals. I grew up in Laredo, Texas, which the Census Bureau said was the poorest city in the United States. Every day the doctors’ offices were filled with patients, some from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, which was on the other side of the Rio Grande. The doctors knew that many of them could not pay for the treatment. It didn’t matter. I never heard of a case where doctors turned away anyone for inability to pay. And Laredo doctors were among the richest people in turn, second only to the oil families. They didn’t begrudge giving people free healthcare, especially since they were making so much money from everyone who could pay.

That’s the way things should be: a way of life in which healthcare is based on the free market and where charity is voluntary, not mandated through the force of the IRS or any welfare-state bureaucracy. A free-market healthcare system is precisely why the United States once had the finest healthcare system in the world.

Everything began going south with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s…

And, as Hornberger points out, one socialist intervention after another has been imposed to try to fix the terrible effects of the previous socialist interventions, including ObamaCare, and on and on. Now the socialists want “Medicare for All,” i.e. Soviet-style top-down authoritarian-imposed medicine.

By the way, speaking of Soviet “Medicare for All,” Anna Ebeling, who was born and raised in the Soviet Union, wrote an article on how the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the medical care system of Old Russia in the name of utopia, just like today’s “Democrats” want to do. And look what they did! And former Gorbachev-era Soviet economist and then dissident and defector Yuri Maltsev also tells us what Soviet medicine teaches us.

The Importance of WikiLeaks

As I wrote in a post yesterday, Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, has been jailed for refusing to testify in a secret grand jury hearing on Wikileaks.

In 2010 while still in the Army, Manning downloaded thousands of documents, some “classified,” as well as videos, to WikiLeaks in order to inform the American people of the war crimes being committed by the U.S. military against foreigners, as well as corruption by U.S. and other Western diplomats. Manning was thrown into solitary confinement for 3 years pre-trial (pre-kangaroo trial, that is.) The military over-classifies documents to protect themselves from embarrassing mistakes being made public. The Manning WikiLeaks leaks caused no harm to any Americans or U.S. soldiers, and at worst the disclosures embarrassed the U.S. government. Here are the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan War logs, the diplomatic cable leaks. And of course, the video Collateral Murder, the video of U.S. military shooting at innocents.

But the same conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads who love WikiLeaks for its exposing the Hillary Clinton campaign corruption, the corrupt media, the Clinton Foundation, and the corrupt FBI and DOJ in its illegally spying on the Trump campaign, those same conservatives call Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning, a “traitor” for leaking the unjustifiably classified material to WikiLeaks. Why do the conservatives think that way? Because they are gullible and brainwashed sheeple who believe everything the national security state and the military tell them, without question. Those who expose the national security state and the military’s crimes are “traitors” (unless the people being exposed are Democrats).

I wanted to repost two posts from 2013 to give more insight on those issues, regarding the differences between Bradley Chelsea Manning’s leaks and Edward Snowden’s leaks. So here are those two posts:

The State Wants to Keep Its Crimes a Secret

October 15, 2013

Arthur Silber has a new post, this time regarding Glenn Greenwald’s alleged hypocrisy in his publishing some of the Edward Snowden-leaked documents but withholding others. Silber talks about the power that Greenwald has in his picking and choosing which documents to publish. While Greenwald criticizes the State for its secrecy, Greenwald then goes on to scoff at those who criticize him for not releasing all the documents. We should trust Greenwald’s judgment here, in the same way we should trust the State’s telling us what it wants us to know and not telling us what it doesn’t want us to know.

Silber has previously addressed this Greenwald-Snowden issue in June, in which Silber compared these newer leaks to the WikiLeaks leaks. Then, Silber wrote,

…WikiLeaks provided masses of “raw data”: the original documents themselves, whether they be battle reports, inter- or intra-agency communications, or documents of many other kinds, sometimes with redactions, often complete. And WikiLeaks offered them with no filters whatsoever: no one was going to hold our hand as we read the documents, telling us what was “important” and what wasn’t, and what its significance was, or whether it was significant at all. If we wished to understand the documents and what they revealed, all of us had to do the work ourselves.

What we discovered was that many people didn’t want to do the work. More than that, they resented the fact that such responsibility was demanded of them.

But with the Snowden-leaked documents, journalists specially appointed by Edward Snowden have the privilege of sifting through all the material and picking and choosing what the public should be told and what they shouldn’t be told, what may “harm” some people and what may not, in addition to the many Guardian attorneys who had access to the material. And, as Silber wrote in another essay last June, that is in addition to the many people — government employed and private contractors — who have been given clearances to access so-called classified or “top secret” info. All the more reason to agree with Silber that this “secrecy” stuff is a bunch of BS.

As Silber wrote,

And what “harms” specifically? And to whom — specifically? Harm to those who work for the Death State, perhaps in the intelligence and national security community? Are we concerned about harming them? I surely hope not. Since the Death State claims the right to murder any one of us it chooses, whenever it wants, for any reason it invents, it seems to me that “the public” are the ones who ought to be concerned about being “harmed.” Is it the great unwashed public that these journalists are worried about? Then let them say so. But how would that work? We might be endangered because some of the U.S.’s national security “secrets” might be exposed? The United States is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in the entire history of the human race, with a military capability that could obliterate all of life on the planet many times over. No nation would dream of mounting a serious attack on the U.S. for precisely that reason (and when I say “no nation,” I absolutely include Iran, for all the hysterics who might see this). Moreover, isolated terrorist attacks, no matter how horrifying they may be in themselves, fall far short of an “existential threat” to the U.S., no matter the vast amount of propaganda designed to convince us otherwise. No nation would dare mount a serious attack on the U.S. precisely because they know how powerful the U.S. is — because it is not secret.

The entire edifice of “secrecy,” especially with regard to national security, is a vicious lie from start to finish. Put it all out there. If full disclosure endangers those who work for the Death State, the problem — and the responsibility — is with those who choose to directly advance the Death State’s goals. It is decidedly not with the leaker, or with the journalists.

Whether it’s for “national security” purposes or not, or to protect certain employees of the national security state, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, as far as who is “harmed” by revealing the State’s “secrets,” is this: If you are employed by the national security state and you fear for your life because of Snowden’s or others’ leaks, then don’t work for the national security state. You are at your own risk. Working for the national security state is “risky business.”

Given that the State and its entire national security apparatus is illegitimate (contrary to what many of the indoctrinated and propagandized believe), especially since the end of the Cold War, then all its material, public domain, “classified,” “top secret,” etc., should be a matter of public record. And by the way, the reason the military intentionally over-classifies material is to discourage whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning from revealing the war crimes and other acts of criminality by this so-called “national security” bureaucracy.

What the State wants to be secret is basically its own reckless behavior and its own criminality. That is what it wants to continue to be hidden from the people over whom they rule, the people who employ them and whose coercively-extracted wealth funds the goons’ extravagant paychecks, benefits and pension plans.

So the U.S. government’s national security enterprise and empire overseas has done nothing but provoke foreigners with its wars of aggression and its occupations and destruction. Thus nothing that Snowden or Manning have released and publicized could possibly have compromised Americans’ security nearly as much as the blowback of those criminal actions of the U.S. government, in addition to the thoroughly unconstitutional, immoral and disgusting surveillance state which criminally pries into people’s private lives and gets away with it with impunity.

So, getting back to the first linked post by Arthur Silber from yesterday, Silber wrote regarding Greenwald:

One of the lessons we can draw is the uniformity of the intellectual corruptions that occur when anyone is placed in a position of power — and when he seeks to protect that power, and when he enjoys its exercise. We should note that these kinds of responses to serious questioning are those of someone who can be described as an authoritarian bully (among other terms). As I said, the ironies are numerous, and awful.

And there can be no doubt that Greenwald is enjoying his power over the dissemination of the Snowden documents, and that he keenly appreciates the many values that power confers on him. Not least of those values are the marketing advantages that he seeks to exploit.

And, the 2nd post:

The Gatekeepers and their Controlled, Redacted Leaks

October 24, 2013

Arthur Silber has another post regarding Glenn Greenwald’s control and timing of which Snowden-released documents to reveal and when to reveal them. Silber has stated that if there are documents which reveal the State’s various crimes, they should all be disclosed to us, and immediately. Check out my recent post on Silber’s several posts on Snowden and Greenwald.

And no, there are no “national security” interests to protect by continuing to withhold, censor or redact documents, despite what the State and its flunky pundits try to assert. If you honestly want to protect our national security, then tell our stupid bureaucrats to stop initiating wars of aggression and occupations and provoking foreigners. Duh. These national security bureaucrats are like the dog chasing its tail, and they’re doing it intentionally to continue to “create monsters to destroy” to justify their parasitic bureaucracies.

In Silber’s latest post, he points out how Establishment news writer Richard Cohen of the Washington Post now praises Edward Snowden as “careful” by releasing the NSA information to “responsible” news organizations such as the Guardian and the New York Times, as opposed to “tossing it up in the air” as WikiLeaks had supposedly done. (See Arthur Silber’s post comparing Snowden-Greenwald to WikiLeaks.)

Greenwald’s slowly and “carefully” releasing the redacted documents is being approved by the Ruling class, which also consists of the Rulers’ gatekeepers including Richard Cohen. And now we know whom the “Guardian” is guarding.

As Silber noted, and as I have seen on various blogs now, such as the comments on this post on EPJ, some people seem to have a problem with criticizing Greenwald for his “control” over document releases. “At least he’s informing us as to what the NSA has been up to,” etc., so we shouldn’t criticize him. Well. I happen to believe in calling out those who on the surface are on our side, but who nevertheless give clear signs that, ultimately, the State and the Rulers (and their surveillance agenda) matter most.

In contrast to the “careful” and “responsible” Edward Snowden and Greenwald who do not seem to believe that the information in question belongs to the people but rather to the Rulers, Bradley Chelsea Manning had stated, correctly, that the information is in the “public domain.” And Manning also noted, “… Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

The people don’t need the State’s gatekeepers to sift through material to decide for us what we can or cannot (or may or may not) see. Let it all out now and let the people sift through it all. We own it.

However, in this column just today by Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Judge also brings up the revelations of NSA criminality. The Judge asks, “Where is the outrage?”

Arthur Silber answers that:

The conclusion should be painfully obvious. The manner in which the Snowden leaks are being delivered to us represents no serious threat to the ruling class and the Establishment whatsoever. The ruling class is entirely comfortable with the leak stories. In fact, the ruling class affirmatively benefits from leaks of this kind: Americans are becoming accustomed to a startlingly comprehensive level of surveillance, and they are granting it their approval. That we are surveilled much if not most of the time is barely even “news” any longer. It’s just the way things are. Perhaps we need to make a few adjustments at the outer margins, but basically everything is hunky-dory. Add a little “transparency,” “oversight” and “accountability” and Americans will let the State surveil them 24/7. Don’t you want to be safe? Of course you do.

Immigration, Welfare, and the Nincompoop Republicans

What a week. With the snowstorm and now the deep freeze, and then an Internet outage (it’s back), and everything else that’s going on. And all these annoying things in the news. There’s that new Congresswoman from Minnesota who has sparked a hysterical “We Condemn Anti-Semitism and Hate Language” bill in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi has to scold her. But the former head of Greenpeace has called another new Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “pompous little twit” and criticized her “Green New Deal” as “eco-fascist.” Good.

Anyway, speaking of Ocasio-Cortez, in my post on the socialism of both Ocasio-Cortez and Trump vs. freedom, I mentioned some of the causes of the immigration problem at the southern border. One thing I didn’t mention is that the U.S. has a welfare state, a huge system of welfare handouts that includes Social Security and Medicare. This welfare state is unfortunately one aspect of America that attracts the “undesirables.”

There shouldn’t be handouts to immigrants (or to anyone, quite frankly) that are redistributed from money or earnings stolen from others. The whole system of forcibly taking something from others to give to the “needy,” the elderly, or anyone whose contributors did not give the loot voluntarily, is an immoral system. That is because the ends can’t morally justify the means of taking by force, by coercion, involuntarily. That’s just theft.

But why do conservatives continue to accept this immoral system? I listen to these hypocrites on the radio, the talk radio ditto-heads, and they say nothing about this immoral system of theft and plunder.

Therefore the conservatives love welfare and wealth redistributionism. They love the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid. I know they love it all, because they never say a thing about it or how immoral, dishonest and criminal it is.

Conservatives and Republicans caved when Democrat Wilson pushed the income tax-theft-enslavement on the people. They caved when FDR pushed the socialist/fascist New Deal, and they caved when LBJ pushed the “Great Society,” that turned out to not be so great. (And see Jacob Hornberger’s recent post on the idolization of Nazism.)

And see Laurence Vance on what the Republicans could have done when they had majorities, the Republicans making America socialist again, and, Who are the efficiency experts for the welfare state? Republicans and conservatives.

If Republicans and conservatives are worried about “illegal” immigrants coming into the U.S. and getting on welfare, they have had their chance again and again and again to pass bills to prevent immigrants from receiving welfare. But they dare not do that, because they are devoted welfare statists. (And as I wrote in my earlier post, ending the drug war will solve much of the immigration problem, the gangs and the violence. But dumb Republicans love the drug war and worship the police state.)

Republicans and conservatives are not serious about the immigration problem. They are not serious in their criticism of “socialism,” because they ARE socialists! And Donald Trump isn’t serious, either, in my view. Their neanderthal authoritarianism drives their conservatard mentality, as well as their strong belief in the welfare state and the empowerment of the centralized bureaucracy in Washington.

Should 16-Year-Olds Be Able to Vote?

It appears that Congresswoman Elvis Ayanna Pressley is proposing that we lower the voting age to 16. The measure has failed, of course.

Well, I don’t see why not. There are plenty of people above the age of 18 or 80 who have voted for kooks, gangsters and nincompoops like the Bushes, the Clintons, Bob Dole and Bernie Sanders. We might as well lower the voting age.

But I’m sure there are plenty of 16-year-olds who, if they were informed of the actual truth, would not vote for those aforementioned statists.

How about a choice on the ballot of “None of the Above,” Elvis?  (It would win in most elections!)

Actually, I think that no one should vote. Voting has given 51% of the people the power to use the armed apparatus of government to steal away the earnings of the other 49%, and violate their civil liberties, invade their homes, their businesses, their churches, and their freedom. The system of voting and elections enables the enslavement of some by others. It’s immoral.

So, however old a voter might be will make no difference. And it’s the same thing with a legal drinking age, cigarette smoking age, or whatever. For those other things, it’s the parents who should determine whether their kids may smoke, drink or take drugs, not the State.

Articles on voting and non-voting

Non-Voting, and Is Voting an Act of Violence? by Carl Watner

Non-Voting as an Act of Secession by Hans Sherrer

The Illegality, Immorality and Violence of All Political Action by Robert LeFevre

And The Non-Voter’s Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer

Trump’s Socialism and Cortez’s Socialism vs. a Free Society

There is little difference between Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Both have very limited intellectual abilities, but are talented demagogues who can capture the attention of millions, like a pied piper leading them all into their blissful nirvana. They are both hysterical, and the policies they support are those of hysteria and irrationality.

Sadly, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the leftists’ socialist utopia, in her rhetoric anyway. And The Donald represents today’s collectivist nationalists who do not believe in private property, free markets or individual freedom, despite their rhetoric.

Ocasio-Cortez’s hysteria is regarding climate change. She seems to be one of many, many government-school-brainwashed robots who really believe that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t impose a completely government-controlled society on the entire population.

The main goal of the climate change fanatics and those on the left in general is huge expansion of the size and power of government and the police state to enforce the will of the fanatics.

And control is also why the leftists want “single payer,” i.e. government-run health care. They not only want to steal all the wealth and property and make people have to report all their earnings and just about every aspect of their financial matters, but with socialized medicine you must report every aspect of your health and medical matters. Every aspect of your private life is not private, and you must report to and be accountable to a bureaucrat. Yay!

So the power-grabbers, intruders and gangsters on the left want to impose higher taxes i.e. thefts and impose new taxes on top of the regular taxes. There’s never enough of the people’s wealth and earnings for government power-grabbers to steal.

Actually, you won’t actually own your own earnings. That is how many people feel already. You do a certain amount of labor and whatever earnings the labor produced is actually owned by the government. The authorities will decide how much of the earnings you are deserving of, and they will keep the rest.

So really, the government owns the labor and production of the people. That is what socialism is, government ownership of the means of production, industry and property.

One of the most important means of production is the people. The government owns the people. That means that you are owned by the  government. You are a slave in socialism.

But the Donald Trump robots are not that different. Their big thing now is “illegal immigration,” i.e. “non-citizens” “invading our country.” The nativist anti-foreigner crowd are just as brainwashed in this idea of “citizenship” as the people on the left are brainwashed in their particular form of collectivism.

But what citizenship really means is that you are a government-authorized member of society. If you don’t have government authorization, then you are an outsider. An “invader.” That is how the government-loving sheeple on the nationalism side think.

So, really this idea of “citizenship” is a form of socialism, in which the government really has ownership of the people.

And no, there is no “crisis” or “national emergency” at the border. The nationalists especially the conservatives are responding to news accounts exaggerated by propagandists to justify even further police state at the border. And not just at the border but further bureaucratic police state like “e-verify” and “real ID.”

Like those on the left, the Trump-following nationalists are short-sighted in their totalitarian solutions. The Trump crowd and conservatives are worried about drugs coming through the border. Well, it’s the drug war that causes a black market in drugs that financially incentivizes scum lowlifes to become drug pushers and who want to get people hooked, and so the drug war causes drug traffickers, drug lords, gangs, MS-13, turf wars, and if you just end the drug war (as 1920s Prohibition was ended) then those problems will disappear immediately.

And the U.S. government’s interventions in Central America and supporting evil regimes causes people to flee those areas.

The drug war, the authoritarian bureaucrats in Washington imposing prohibitions on peaceful behaviors and possessions of plants and siccing government police on those who disobey, is a socialist policy, by the way. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry, property, the usurpation of the use of one’s labor, earnings, and trades, and involves government central planning.

One of the most important of means of production is the people, which includes their bodies. When government central planners impose restrictions on what you may or may not put into “your” own body, then it is not your body. You no longer own your body or your life, just as in socialism you no longer own your labor or your earnings or your property. The government is the ultimate owner.

And why are the U.S. government’s violent intrusions in Central and South America (and the Middle East and everywhere else) socialist policies? Because government central planners (State Department, CIA, etc.) in Washington are directing those intrusions and the invaders, coup marauders and otherwise criminals are being paid via tax dollars that are stolen from the workers and producers of America.

Another socialist aspect of such policies is that those imposing them, the government criminals, are in positions of legal authority. They are above the law, because the government is the law.

So Donald Trump loves these authoritarian police state, militarist policies. And like millions of his statist followers, he wants to build a government wall on the border. But a government wall is not what free-market capitalists build. That’s what socialists build.

People who believe in free markets and free trade and the free movements of labor, goods and services not only don’t build government walls, they tear down government walls. They may build private property walls. But that is to keep intruders off privately owned property.

Some people argue that protecting public property borders is the same thing. But no one owns such property. No one owns the territory as a whole. No one owns a country. Not if we believe that the territory contains many parcels of privately owned property. (But Trump is not a big fan of private property rights either. Sorry, I digress.) If you want to believe that the population shares in some kind of ownership of the territory as a whole, then that kind of sounds like communism if you ask me, quite frankly.

But my main point is, neither Donald Trump and all his supporters nor the leftists believe in a free society.

In a free society, you own your own life. You can establish private contracts with anyone, as long as everything is voluntary and mutually consensual. No initiation of aggression against anyone, no coercion. Anything that’s peaceful, as Leonard Read would say.

In a free society, you own your labor until you sell it to a customer, employer or client. And those trades are no one else’s business. No one (such as a government bureaucrat) may demand some kind of tribute or portion of your earnings or profits from you, no one may demand any information from you. No having to report anything to anyone.

In a free society you keep everything you earn and do with it whatever you want, even if you honestly acquire billions of dollars each year. No matter how much or how little you make, it is always yours and no one may steal it from you.

And in a free society, your medical matters are your own private business! And that includes the price of medical care being agreed to between the people and their providers or practitioners.

And in a free society, people can come and go as they please. No reporting to government goons at the border. No passports. No IDs. Presumption of innocence is the rule.

No police state. No totalitarian socialist bureaucrats like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez intruding themselves into the lives of the people, and stealing their livelihoods away.

Sounds good to me.

“What Is Socialism”?

Butler Shaffer writes, in his post, What Is Socialism?:

With so many Democrats now identifying themselves as “Socialists,” and so much public uncertainty as to what this concept means, I thought it might be useful to turn to the words of one of the best-known socialists for clarification.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

– Adolf Hitler  (speech from 1927)
Head of National Socialist German Workers Party