Skip to content

Tag: harassment

More on the Mueller Inquisition

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

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

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

Prisoners of the National Security State And Corrupt Prosecutors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More News and Commentary

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

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

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

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

The Mueller Crime Spree Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the “Capitalism vs. Socialism” Debate, Freedom Is Found in Capitalism, Not Socialism

George Reisman has 13 illustrations of the benevolence of capitalism. It is a must read, in my view.

It is quite lengthy, but here are some excerpts that caught my eye:

(6) … in a market economy … private ownership of the means of production operates to the benefit of everyone, the nonowners, as well as owners. The nonowners obtain the benefit of the means of production owned by other people. They obtain this benefit as and when they buy the products of those means of production. To get the benefit of General Motors’ factories and their equipment, or the benefit of Exxon’s oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, I do not have to be a stockholder or a bondholder in those firms. I merely have to be in a position to buy an automobile, or gasoline, or whatever, that they produce.

Moreover, thanks to the dynamic, progressive aspect of the uniformity-of-rate-of-profit or rate-of-return principle that I explained a moment ago, the general benefit from privately owned means of production to the nonowners continually increases, as they are enabled to buy ever more and better products at progressively falling real prices. It cannot be stressed too strongly that these progressive gains, and the generally rising living standards that they translate into, vitally depend on the capitalist institutions of private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and economic competition, and would not be possible without them. It is these that underlie motivated, effective individual initiative in raising the standard of living.

(10 ) … capitalism is in actuality as thoroughly and rationally planned an economic system as it is possible to have. The planning that goes on under capitalism, without hardly ever being recognized as such, is the planning of each individual participant in the economic system. Every individual who thinks about a course of economic activity that would be of benefit to him and how to carry it out is engaged in economic planning. Individuals plan to buy homes, automobiles, appliances, and, indeed, even groceries. They plan what jobs to train for and where to offer and apply the abilities they possess. Business firms plan to introduce new products or discontinue existing products; they plan to change their methods of production or continue to use the methods they presently use; they plan to open branches or close branches; they plan to hire new workers or layoff workers they presently employ; they plan to add to their inventories or reduce their inventories.

Ironically … socialism, as Mises has shown, is incapable of rational economic planning. In destroying the price system and its foundations, namely, private ownership of the means of production, the profit motive, and competition, socialism destroys the intellectual division of labor that is essential to rational economic planning. It makes the impossible demand that the planning of the economic system be carried out as an indivisible whole in a single mind that only an omniscient deity could possess.

What socialism represents is so far from rational economic planning that it is actually the prohibition of rational economic planning. In the first instance, by its very nature, it is a prohibition of economic planning by everyone except the dictator and the other members of the central planning board. They are to enjoy a monopoly privilege on planning, in the absurd, virtually insane belief that their brains can achieve the all-seeing, all-knowing capabilities of  omniscient deities. They cannot. Thus, what socialism actually represents is the attempt to substitute the thinking and planning of one man, or at most of a mere handful of men, for the thinking and planning of tens and hundreds of millions, indeed, of billions of men. By its nature, this attempt to make the brains of so few meet the needs of so many has no more prospect of success than would an attempt to make the legs of so few the vehicle for carrying the weight of so many.

But as Dr. Reisman notes at the beginning of the essay, freedom is the essential element in free-market capitalism. So, I will add that besides economic freedom which is necessary to raise the standard of living for all, there also needs to be personal and political freedom as well. The freedom of speech and the Press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and the right to be secure in one’s person, papers, houses and effects are important freedoms for a prosperous as well as free and civilized society.

In the U.S. we seem to be losing more and more of those personal and political freedoms, as well as the economic freedom that existed here prior to World War I and the imposition of the income tax-theft.

In Orwellian China, what they have now is some sort of “Social Credit Score,” in which almost everything the people do is monitored by the government. Their traveling behaviors, the trains they take or their behavior as a pedestrian following or not following the street lights, their social media expressions, and so on.

If they get a score of “untrustworthy,” those people are barred from trains and planes, and are “unable to move even a single step,” as the bureaucrats have stated. So I assume that the people of China are not or will not be able to “vote with their feet,” if they are not physically able to travel out of the country. How will they be able to travel out of such a tyrannical dictatorship hellhole? The former East Germany would shoot people trying to escape. Those trying to leave the former Soviet Union were considered deserters and traitors, according to Wikipedia.

Hmm, not being able to “vote with their feet” to leave tyranny reminds me of the uncapitalistic national socialist Donald Trump, except his restrictions and the government Wall he wants to surround his utopian closed society are presumably to keep people out and prevent foreigners from going to a better place as they attempt to flee tyranny. (But what will future Washington administrations use the Wall for, Donald? Hmmm?)

So, despite whatever capitalistic reforms China has attempted to make in recent years, it seems to want to become more like North Korea, rather than more like the U.S. (I want to say, “the former U.S.,” given how down the totalitarian drain Amerika has gone. Oh, well. We have the college campus craziness with the suppression of dissent from PC idiocy, and the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the world who want to turn America into a socialist utopia, which, if you read the above Reisman article you will understand how such a utopia is literally impossible and historically always failed.)

If Donald Trump really wants to have the U.S. compete with China, he should dismantle all impediments to Americans’ freedom, especially economic freedom, not increase such impediments as he keeps threatening to do. Dump the tariff-taxes, get rid of the unconstitutional bureaucracies whose purpose is mainly to live high off the hog on the wealth those bureaucrats suck away from the workers and producers of society. Just as the area around Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest part of the country (because of all the parasites associated with U.S. government and all the wealth they siphon off the actual producers of America), the bureaucrats in China are also of great wealth.

As far as the increasing Orwellian government surveillance and molestation of the people and their private lives and movements in the U.S., what we need to do is have some sort of private agency, or agencies, to make government bureaucrats, including all lawmakers, law enforcers, judges, and executives like governors and Presidents, report all their activities and submit to 24-7 monitoring by the people, rather than the other way around. We really need to make it very uncomfortable and unprofitable for anyone to be a government official of any kind, which should help to ensure a freer and healthier society.

Will the Trump Regime Go After Julian Assange?

James Bovard says that Julian Assange deserves a Medal of Freedom, not a secret indictment. The gubmint is pointing to the 2010 WikiLeaks releases as I mentioned in this post. I’m sure that the confused authoritarian Donald Trump will side with these deep state operators who want to indict Assange, the same deep state operatives who abused the DOJ and FBI FISA spying to go after Trump. (Which Trump wouldn’t know about if it weren’t for WikiLeaks!)

On Harassing Government Parasites Who Destroy Liberty

It appears that elections in Florida from Tuesday are still undecided and there will be more counting, more recounting, and more making up new votes out of thin air in the name of cheating. And I thought that this new phenomenon of “early voting,” a.k.a. “early cheating,” was bad enough.

Florida’s incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Nelson is winning/losing razor-thin against current Gov. Rick Scott. Now, I hope this undecidedness continues for months and months, I want to see lawsuits, “hanging chads,” “butterfly chads,” etc., and I want to see it be so stressful a situation for both Nelson and Scott that they have medical issues because of it. They both deserve it, in my view. Their actions, both of them, have been resulting in either voting for new bad “laws” or signing bills into law in which terrible orders, mandates, tax-thefts, or otherwise intrusions are imposed onto innocent people.

You see, through their actions as government “authorities,” they are literally siccing government enforcers on innocent people, people who hadn’t harmed anyone but may have disobeyed an unjust government order or prohibition.

And this thing with protesters harassing government workers such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell, I think that’s just fine in public places like along a sidewalk or at the Capitol parking lot or outside the White House. It is also just fine at private property location such as restaurants or malls as long as the owners allow it. These government officials such as Ted Scruz and Mitch McConjob vote on legislation that mainly results in the violation of the lives and liberty of innocent people. And Ms. Sanders is the chief White House propagandist who promotes the evil actions of these bureaucrats. If they don’t like being harassed, get out of doing evil government “work” and try the private sector for a change. Most of the people in Washington are life-long parasites, and/or apologists for the State’s evil, including Ms. Sanders!

This is in total contrast to the communist thugs harassing and terrorizing Tucker Carlson’s family at his home, as I referred to yesterday. In some ways Carlson is a propagandist for the State, but he is merely a TV news host, and working in the private sector. He is not on the government payroll. So, there is still a big difference between the two.

Yes, government is evil. The State is evil. Robert Wenzel had a good post on what the State is really doing in the immigration issue, for example. It’s a matter of the free market versus central planners, The Donald being the evil and ignorant central planner. Anti-immigration screamers don’t seem to understand that.

Wenzel also posts about the isolation torture being inflicted on Ross Ulbricht, who had not violated the persons or property of anyone, but was sentenced to life by an evil judge and is now in solitary confinement because he refused to get involved in a fight. These are the things the State and its agents do to innocent people. Those who want to risk the State’s punishments by harassing and protesting the bureaucrats and enforcers should do so, at their own risk.

And conservatives, of all people, who shout the loudest about “moral values,” who support things like the drug war, and all those other bureaucratic schemes they support, shame on conservatives for supporting evil. And please shut up about “moral values,” given their own moral relativism. Jacob Hornberger writes about those conservatives, listing the evil government programs and schemes they support. (I’m not saying that conservatives in general should be harassed, only the government-employed ones, who should know better, as well as the liberal-communist ones.)

In this old video, protesters follow and harass former CIA director and Gen. David Petraeus calling him a war criminal, which is true, given his participation in all the criminal wars the U.S. government started against various places and peoples overseas, for no good reason, as well as his role as CIA director and the war crimes the CIA commits daily. I think there are other videos like this online with protesters harassing other criminal government bureaucrats (sorry for the redundancy). But I think this is acceptable, in a society in which the sheeple allow themselves to be ruled by a monopoly apparatus in Washington that shouldn’t exist. Remember, the First Amendment protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Merely Unhinged? Nope. Literally CRAZY? Yup.

The conservatives and nationalists are bad enough, with their anti-immigration and anti-free market ignorance and idiocy, and their mystical “American Exceptionalism” religion. But the people on the left are beyond “unhinged.” Many of the people on the left are literally crazy people now. It’s not just “irrational” and “hysterical,” but demented, deranged, loony-tunes.

Paul Craig Roberts says that the “presstitutes” have abandoned journalism for political activism. But that’s nothing new. Way back in 2009, I wrote, “today’s journalism schools are no longer teaching the students and future news writers and editors and anchors, reporters and producers to seek answers to who, what, why, when, where and how. Now, a career in journalism means being an activist, and a do-gooder. Use your role as a reporter to show what a good thing it is to have everything done by the government, and smear and crush anyone who criticizes that agenda.”

As Roberts made reference to, the “liberal” media are actually getting their fans and fellow Trump-haters to protest the firing of attorney general Jeff Sessions! Rachel Maddcow is leading the charge. They are organizing protests all over the country to defend the racist, fascist drug warrior Sessions, the anti-immigration police statist Sessions, and the thieving corrupt “civil asset forfeiture” crook Jeff Sessions! And they’re doing all this because they HATE Donald Trump! So, they’re beyond “unhinged,” “irrational” and “hysterical” now, these people are just plain NUTS! They are literally crazy people.

At least the anti-immigration idiots on the other side are just ignorant, but not particularly crazy. But the people on the left? And this is thanks in large part to their dumb teachers in the public schools, a.k.a. government schools, and their college professors who, without government tax-thefts and government hand-outs to the colleges, would not be working at colleges and universities. Can you image if the schools and higher education were all run on the free market? We would not have the beyond stupidity we have now. We have a society of psychologically unstable people, thanks to government-controlled education.

The schools and universities are literally brainwashing the young with utter nonsense, made-up mythologies and fanatical dogmas, such as “transgender” in which if someone who is a male but thinks he’s a female is a female and others must be compelled to agree with it. And now someone who is age 69 wants to be legally viewed as 49 because that’s how old he feels.

And the youngins are being brainwashed to obediently follow the acceptable, politically correct ideologies of race-obsession, gender-obsession, sexual perversions and the necessity of intolerance and silencing those who are not on the race-obsessed, gender-obsessed, sexual perversions bandwagon.

Not just intolerance, but the young now seem to be trained to act violently against others. On the college campuses these same people are silencing and shouting down and in some cases physically assaulting those with whom they disagree.

The antifa-like mob who charged Tucker Carlson’s home this week are another example of the craziness. Not only do they want Carlson and other conservatives censored, as has already been the case via Twitter, Facebook and Google, but the deranged lunatics are going to the victims’ homes, harassing their spouses and children, posting their addresses online, and those of the victims’ siblings as well.

As Thomas DiLorenzo wrote on LRC blog,

This of course is just the latest episode in the Bolshevik Left’s attack on free speech, taking their cue from the late German Marxist Herbert Marcuse (a “celebrated” academic after coming to America, naturally), who popularized the notion in commie/Leftist circles back in the ’60s that only “the oppressed” (i.e., fellow Marxists) deserve tolerance and free speech, and “the oppressors” (people like the evil Tucker Carlson, or Yours Truly) do not.

The tactic of appearing at peoples’ homes to terrorize their families is right out of the Obama “community organizing” handbook, inspired by Obama/Hillary Clinton idol and inspiration Saul Alinsky and originally used by the union goon movement, but now part and parcel of Democrat Party strategy in general.

So, going to people’s homes. Carlson’s wife was there and called 911. One of the deranged mobsters was actually attempting to ram the front door and did cause it to crack. Do you think that if “protesters” go to someone’s home and criminally threaten the people inside with an attempted break-in that maybe the ones inside should assume that their lives are really in danger, and should shoot at the marauding invaders? It may have to come to that.

George Wallace was of a similar mentality to those anti-freedom mobs, but in some ways Wallace had the “fighting back” attitude backwards. Wallace said, “when we get to be the president and some anarchist lies down in front of our car, it will be the last car he’ll ever lie down in front of,” and he probably was serious. Except he was the thug who was being protested. He wasn’t someone who just spoke his ignorant mind (like Carlson), but was a public official who wanted to impose his anti-freedom ideas onto others. In those times, protesters really were protesting government thuggery.

George Wallace actually was a “racist.” As governor and Presidential candidate he wanted to have a governmentally-imposed segregated society, at the expense of private property and freedom of association, and including not allowing black students to enroll in public, taxpayer-funded schools and universities. But in the 1960s and ’70s did the protesters go to George Wallace’s home and try to break into his front door? Nope. Although he was shot and paralyzed by a wacko loony-tunes, not particularly by someone who expressed opinions about racism or politics.

But now, the “anti-racists” are just brainwashed with race-obsession ideology. Their protests are now irrational and fanatical. They are going to the home of a TV news host and threatening violence? He’s not even a government official.

And while “protesters” accuse Tucker Carlson of being a “Nazi,” a “racist” and a “hater,” he is the one who actually has political opponents, minorities and controversial figures on his TV show and interviews them to hear what they have to say. But the fanatical crazies on the left only want to SILENCE! their opponents. (Who’s the real “Nazi” now, hmmm?)

And many of these crazy, unhinged hysterical fanatics really believe that Donald Trump is also a “racist,” and a “Nazi,” because they don’t even know what those words really mean, or what Donald Trump’s actual views are, because they don’t read, or pay attention to the news. They are just hysterical.

The hysterical loony-tunes don’t know that Trump supports transgender bathroom laws, affirmative action laws, and favors single payer healthcare and “taxing the rich”  because he himself is an ignoramus just as they are. And you would think that these people on the left would support Trump and his love of eminent domain (government theft of private property), given how much they love the government being empowered to steal private property from others. But I digress.

Anyway, so these people on the left are not only very ignorant and irrational now, but also very dangerous and threatening. They do not seem to understand that their right to free speech (but not violence) is protected, but they also have to respect other people’s right to free speech.

Violence should never be tolerated. Can you imagine all the marches and protests that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had during the 1960s, if all those people went to the homes of “racists” (who actually were racists at the time, like George Wallace) and threatened them, such as the politicians who were passing Jim Crow-type of laws, and so on?

But now with so many of the young people being trained to act hysterically and violently by irrational high school teachers, college professors, news media activists and social justice warriors, they go after TV news people like Tucker Carlson, but they don’t criticize or protest the CIA, Pentacon, the DEA and IRS (i.e. actual criminals working within government violence), and they are protesting the firing of Jeff Sessions, the very racist government thug they should WANT to be fired! Nutsos!

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.

More Recent Articles

Retired law professor Butler Shaffer writes about helping others to learn.

Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou describes how the FBI silences whistleblowers.

Glenn Greenwald’s updated article on the Washington Post‘s paying and publishing Saudi lobbyists and regime propagandists.

Gary Galles says that rent control and minimum wage laws harm those who are supposed to benefit.

Ludwig von Mises comments on positivism and behaviorism.

Adam Weinstein discusses the real largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Tho Bishop on Elizabeth Warren’s other Cherokee scandal: her fight against tribal sovereignty.

And Richard Ebeling on out-of-control government: how, why, and what to do.