Skip to content

Tag: police state

Mainstream Media (i.e. Government Media) Not Giving the Whole Story on Saudi Journalist Khashoggi

California State University political science professor As`ad AbuKhalil says that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was not a real critic of the Saudi regime, as news accounts have been suggesting, but really a “loyal member of the Saudi propaganda apparatus.”

And international affairs writer Finian Cunningham asks, Did Saudis, CIA fear a Khashoggi 9/11 bombshell?

More Articles

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute says, You want to make America great again? Start by making America free again. “If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public sidewalk and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window: pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.”

James Bovard on “believe women”: Apply the Christine Blasey Ford test to TSA’s female victims.

Jacob Hornberger with some lessons from Khashoggi’s disappearance, including that the U.S. government needs to end all foreign aid, or its “government-to-government bribe to ensure loyalty.”

Laurence Vance asks, What should be illegal?

Justin Raimondo on the Saudi collapse.

And Zero Hedge with an article on the FBI concealing evidence that “directly refutes” the premise of Trump-Russia probe.

More on the New Authoritarian “Justice,” and Sexual Assault, Civil Unrest

Donald Trump continues to make campaign appearances on behalf of Republican candidates. In a recent appearance he was declaring how great his new Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh is, with his supporters cheering enthusiastically. Now, those cheering supporters are either ignorant of Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions, or they agree with them, which is probably the case.

And no, Kavanaugh is not “brilliant,” he is himself ignorant (or really dumb). As I have written several times now, Kavanaugh imagines that the Fourth Amendment has things in it that just aren’t there. He wrote, “The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need’…” such as involving drugs or border checkpoints. Okay, Justice (sic), where does it say those things in the Fourth Amendment?

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

I don’t see …”unless the government demonstrates a sufficient ‘special need'” or any listing of exceptions, such as “drugs.” So, like most authoritarians who just want to empower the government police to raid the homes and businesses of innocent people for specious reasons, Kavanaugh is just making things up in his rubber-stamping of the police state to satisfy his own ideological leanings. An authoritarian is someone who believes that specific rules that are set for those in power may be broken based on the whim of the enforcers.

And it’s amazing the talk radio ditto-heads who have been complaining about the Obama FBI and DOJ abusing their FISA spying authority to go after political opponents, and repeatedly citing the “Fourth Amendment,” yet having wet dreams over their newest police-statist Kavanaugh that they love so much. So please Sean Hannity (and Rand Paul, too!) shut up about the “Fourth Amendment.” These “conservatives” generally support police “stop-and-frisk” policies without suspicion of an individual, policies that Trump was recently extolling to the cheers of rabid government police chiefs from across the country.

Now, given that Kavanaugh supports such an authoritarian police state and rubber-stamps the unconstitutional Guantanamo prison that exists so the feds can sidestep the Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend, it would not surprise me if he really was the one who Christine Ford Blasey was victimized by of sexual assault. Of course, I’m not accusing him, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me, given his supporting brute force by government against innocent people, by police against presumably innocent people without suspicion, and so on.

And that’s another thing. All this about sexual assault and the idea that one teenage boy might do that to a teenage girl. If that ever does happen, I think that parents need to raise their girls to bravely go and report such violence against them to the police, at that time. And not wait years later. I know that they were drunk and the victim might not remember, and repressed memories until years later and all that. But if the victim is aware at that time, she needs to report the assailant.

Another thing parents need to do is raise their girls with knowledge of self-defense. Whether learning karate or judo, or having mace or a gun, or even poking an assailant in the eyes. Am I all wrong on this? I might be.

And speaking of self-defense, in the alternative news (that the fake news mainstream media sweeps under the rug), we are hearing about antifa thugs going into streets and harassing motorists and pedestrians, and maybe even worse than just harassing. If someone is the victim of an assault the victim needs to know how to fight back. I am very distressed hearing about these antifa thugs targeting innocent people, and hope to hear about someone fighting back, or even shooting back to protect themselves. Glenn Beck this morning played some audio of those things, and he’s saying it might be the beginning of a “civil war.” I hope not. Because if so, those people who are fighting back (against the ones who are initiating the aggression) will be the government’s victims in its arms confiscations, its police breaking into and entering private homes and stealing weapons to make innocent people defenseless. And Brett Kavanaugh will rubber-stamp all that, given his record of neanderthal authoritarianism.

Amerikan Loony-Tunes

Well, we now have another authoritarian neanderthal on the U.S. Supreme Parasites, Brett Kavanaugh, who loves the Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA spying on innocent people, TSA groping and molesting, warrantless and thus illegal police searches, and who is a drug warrior and militarist who will do what he can to help to strengthen the police state and the criminal national security state.

The people who hate Kavanaugh actually don’t care about the police state, illegal searches and seizures, and about the use of surveillance against political opponents. Many of them are aware that their fellow travelers from the Obama administration abused such powers and they actually endorse that. Left-wing activists are NOT a friend of civil liberties.

No, what the anti-Kavanaugh screechers care most about is abortion, gender and race, and the LGBT agenda. They want the federal government to have a lot of power including rubber-stampers on the Supreme Court to impose the social activists’ ways of life onto the rest of us or impose an acceptance of their deviancy and indecency. Imposing onto others is the activists’ main agenda. By the force of law.

So the leftists are going to try to impeach Kavanaugh, based on perjury or whatever they can do, just as they will try to impeach Donald Trump if the Democrats take control of Congress. They will continue following their opponents in elevators, restaurants, malls and offices and harassing them.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is seriously looking at possible perjury charges against Kavanaugh’s high school-years accuser Christine Blasey Ford.

Now, there are those who don’t believe the “conspiracy theories” about Blasey Ford’s possible involvement with the CIA. But given her years and years of extensive psychological research into mind control and hypnosis, as well as her allegedly helping people to beat a polygraph test based on such research and experience, I don’t doubt it. Or she could be a useful idiot for the CIA as well as a useful idiot for the “MeToo” movement.

The skeptical Jacob Hornberger asks, “Why in the world would the CIA want to block the appointment of someone who, based on his conservative background and ideology, could reasonably be relied upon to rubber-stamp anything and everything the CIA and the rest of the national-security establishment do?

Well, we know that the CIA in general is not rational. They have been fixated Cold Warriors who can’t let go of the “Soviet threat,” who have been involved in Gitmo torture to get false confessions from innocent and uninvolved detainees even though the outcome is that such tortured detainees then join the militant forces against the U.S. for the first time. And we know that many apparatchiks in CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. didn’t like Donald Trump’s criticizing them and their wars abroad during the campaign and they have been trying feverishly to get him out of the White House. They are very irrational parasites who will do anything to keep their grasp on government powers and the public trough. So, they would try to prevent Trump from getting more Justices (sic) on the “High” Court, just in the name of being obsessively anti-Trump, even if it goes against their agenda.

I hope the activists do impeach Brett Kavanaugh, and then they can get Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, John “Comrade” Roberts, and all the rest of them.

Sen. Rand Paul: Ignoramus? Hypocrite?

Sen. Rand Paul had already stated that he will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Bureaucrats, and he has reiterated that support. Dr. Paul declares, “The preponderance of evidence from hundreds of people who knew him and worked with him indicates he is a good man with a good reputation for integrity and character.”

Now, what planet is Rand Paul living on? It’s not planet reality, that’s for sure. For someone who has spent hours and hours, speech after speech, and his 2016 Presidential debates defending the Fourth Amendment and its set rules that government must follow regarding searches and seizures, Rand Paul is either a total hypocrite or he is extremely forgetful already at the young age of 55.

Doesn’t Dr. Paul know that as a judge Brett Kavanaugh has trashed the Fourth Amendment? Kavanaugh reads into the 4th as stating that there are exceptions to the rules.

The Fourth Amendment rules that must be followed are that government and enforcers must have reasonable suspicion, probable cause and a warrant signed by a judge to search anyone’s person, houses, papers or effects. Kavanaugh imagines some kind of “special need” of the government to pry and invade regardless of the rules, regardless of the law that enforcers must obey, in the name of validating the police state and further empowering the feds’ surveillance of innocent non-suspects.

The Fourth Amendment says nothing about exceptions. It says nothing about “exigent circumstances.” And the reasons Kavanaugh has for allowing police and NSA spies to break the law and violate their Constitutional oaths? Because of drugs, airport security, i.e. issues where government has no Constitutional authority.

Where in the Fourth Amendment does it list ANY exceptions? So Kavanaugh imagines those made-up exceptions out of thin air. Is he one of those who says, “well the Founders didn’t have to deal with the issues we face today”? Like the people on the Left who believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and all that crapola.

Besides the Fourth Amendment, Kavanaugh totally eviscerates the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments with his rubber-stamping of the Guantanamo prison in Cuba, its illegal and criminal torture regime, and detaining innocent people without charges.

And he rubber-stamps CIA secrecy, sweeping the truth about its criminality under the rug.

More recently, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote about his personal experiences with Brett Kavanaugh, showing the extent to which Kavanaugh is nothing more than a government apparatchik, an enmeshed appendage of the State itself. Donald Trump is NOT “draining the swamp” when he appoints a swamp creature to the “High” Court.

So, Rand Paul has no knowledge of Kavanaugh’s actual record? The Fourth Amendment no longer matters? The Constitution, and our liberty, no longer matter? So, is Dr. Paul just really ignorant of Brett Kavanaugh’s rulings, or is Rand a total hypocrite and is more concerned with pleasing Mitch McConnell and keeping his membership on Senate committees? Has Rand Paul just become a clone of Donald Trump?

And also, because the anti-Kavanaugh screaming from the Left has nothing to do with liberty, the Bill of Rights or illegal surveillance and searches, and instead has everything to do with “social justice,” gender and race politics, is this why Rand Paul and conservatives and Republicans are all in with Brett Kavanaugh?

Don’t they know that Kavanaugh, too, is a “Social Justice Warrior”? The whole thing is Bizarro World, quite frankly.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: CIA Flunky and Possible Perjurer

Besides Brett Kavanaugh being an entrenched government apparatchik bureaucrat and rubber-stamper of the national security state, the police state, and the surveillance state, it appears that his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is also an apparatchik, of the CIA and its shenanigans, as well as having close ties to the FBI.

This article from principia-scientific.org, that was linked by the Lew Rockwell “Political Theatre,” tells us that the Republican-linked prosecutor at the Dr. Christine Blasey Senate hearings may have intentionally led Blasey Ford into a perjury trap. Good! Among other alleged lies that Dr. Blasey Ford told under oath, she stated that she never gave anyone tips on how to take a polygraph, even though her former boyfriend stated in a sworn statement that she did do that.

And it’s even more involved than that. From the Principia Scientific article:

In our previous article we revealed that Professor Blasey-Ford’s scientific research at Stanford University includes running a “CIA undergraduate internship program” which is described in full at this Stanford.edu recruitment page. 

Also, it is alleged other Ford family members have ties with the CIA. President Donald Trump has accused the CIA of long being part of the ‘Deep State.’

We also were able to confirm that Christine Blasey Ford was a co-author of the 2008 mind control study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology…

This study openly discusses altering behavior and beliefs through the application of neurotechnology  “inference-control loops” that “hijack” human anatomy to control minds.  The technique is eerily similar to the notorious CIA MKUltra project.

It is also alleged Blasey-Ford has affiliation with one of the developers of the MKUltra program at Stanford, Dr Frederick Melges, along with her being a student recruiter for CIA programs at the University.

And according to Zero Hedge, Blasey Ford’s family is closely a part of the CIA.

But, because there is a two-tier system of justice in Amerika, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury for lying under oath at their Senate hearings. Because they are both apparatchiks of the “deep state,” or the permanent national security state, they will get away with whatever they want.

More Articles

John Solomon at the Hill has this collusion bombshell about DNC lawyers who met with FBI on Russia allegations before their surveillance warrant.

Jacob Hornberger has these comments on Brett Kavanaugh and the looming degradation of the Supreme Court. (Looming? I thought it was already here.)

And Zuri Davis at Reason on new Texas schools requirement that all schools teach kids how to interact with cops during traffic stops and survive. (This is necessary in a police state, in which hysterical loony-tunes mistake reaching for your license as reaching for a gun. Remember, always comply, never argue. You vill follow orders!)

Why Conservatives Are Socialists

I have written quite a few posts and articles on the immigration issue now. More recently I responded to Lew Rockwell’s reiteration of his and Hans Hoppe’s claim that “taxpayers own public property.”

But I wanted to clarify here how the nationalists who oppose freedom in immigration, labor and employment are really socialists in their wanting central planners to take charge over who is “allowed” to enter the territory, regardless of what private property owners want.

The nationalists such as Donald Trump and conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh want to require that people have citizenship in the U.S. to qualify for this or that, or to work, etc. And my contention is that you can’t have both a “free market” and a requirement of citizenship at the same time. It’s either one or the other.

You see, the nationalists and conservatives want to continue keeping foreigners from entering “our” country without the permission of the central planners in Washington. And they say that you don’t “belong” in the country unless you have citizenship. So this citizenship thing really is an authorization.

But I thought all human beings had “unalienable rights,” among them the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those are rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which preexist the formation of a country as well. Right?

Do people have a right to exist and live their lives as granted to them by the ruling bureaucrats? Or do they have a right to exist and live their lives, period? As long as one is peaceful, of course. As Leonard Read would say, Anything that’s peaceful (.pdf).

In the rights to life and liberty one has a natural right to self-ownership. And for those who reject the idea of natural rights, I get that, and will say that we have freedom, period. Until someone comes along and violates that freedom.

And what is the “free market”? It is a market that is free of external intrusions or violations, i.e. governmental restrictions, prohibitions, mandates, controls, reporting requirements, tax-thefts, etc. It is also a market that is not restricted by a government-drawn border. If this person over here wants to trade with that person over there, they trade. As long as they are peaceful. That’s the “free market.” And third parties may not intrude.

But the “citizenship” requirement makes the traders not self-owners but owned by the government. You may not even be in the territory unless you have “authorization,” that is, no longer a self-owner. And that is a part of the nationalists’ belief in some kind of communal ownership of the entire territory by the citizens (or by “taxpayers”). But, if you have a communal ownership of an entire territory, then those who think they own “private” property within the territory are mistaken. Because with the idea of “authorized citizens” who communally own the territory is their ownership (or control) of all “private” property within the territory, each business, residence, etc. In my view, control is a de facto ownership.

And all this is what socialism is. Another example is the drug war that most conservatives love. When the government dictates what you may or may not put into your own body, then the government has a de facto ownership of your body. One of the most important means of production is the people, which includes their physical bodies. When there is private ownership of the means of production the individual owns one’s own body. And that is where the principle of non-aggression comes from, by the way. The individual has self-ownership and the physical aggression against one’s body by others is a violation — but, in statist theory, not entirely a violation if the aggressor claims to be the actual owner, such as the government in its enforcement of dictating to you what drugs or foods you may or may not put into your own body. The drug war is a socialist crusade by intrusive social activists who covet the lives and bodies of others, in my view.

In regards to the immigration issue and trade and commerce, the collectivist conservatives and nationalists want to arrest “unauthorized entrants” even if they are acting peacefully, and the collectivists want to arrest businessmen who employ the peaceful, non-criminal workers even if the employers are being peaceful. This is not an example of the “free market.” This is a socialist utopia. It is utopia because this scheme of government control doesn’t even work!

A free market is not under the control of the community, as though the community in general takes part in the ownership of each business or each worker’s life within the community. A free market is not under the control of government bureaucrats or their armed enforcers. A free market is controlled by the legitimate owners who own the property being traded, including the businesses and the labor of the workers. Free traders do not need permission from outsiders or third parties who are not a part of the voluntary contracts established by the traders. And again, traders also include people selling their labor to others.

And this doesn’t just apply to the immigration issue. Any kind of trade, or peaceful, mutually beneficial activity.

The anti-market people on the nationalism side are advocating socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production. The private ownership of the means of production is not divided by government borders. The separation or dividing up of the means of production by that which is within the border and that which is outside the border is socialism, because those in charge (government rulers and bureaucrats) have seized control (i.e. ownership) over the means of production. In their dictating to businesses whom the businesses may or may not hire the bureaucrats are seizing control (i.e. ownership) over the businesses.

In a free market, business owners hire whomever they want. They are the authorities over their own businesses, not bureaucrats. No need for government authorization. And I think there is a kind of envy going on with the police-statists’ desire to arrest honest businesspeople for hiring “unauthorized workers.” That’s just my view on that.

As far as what is causing so many people to take the nationalist-collectivist view, and in a deeply emotional way? Who knows? And it’s definitely an emotional thing. Nationalism does not seem to be rational, in my view.

The American Founders were not nationalists, by the way. They were individualists. They (supposedly) believed in individual liberty and private property, not some kind of collective ownership of property.  And they were not authoritarians in the political sense. They believed in bottom-up rule, not top-down rule. Those who were nationalists at the time of the American Revolution were loyal to their nation at the time, the British regime. They were the ones who turned in “traitors” (i.e. the Revolutionaries). As written in the Declaration of Independence, the early Americans wanted immigrants to come and they complained about the British King’s interference in that matter.

Note: This post was slightly edited (with 3 words added) since originally posted.

Brett Kavanaugh: Corrupt Bureaucrat

There is a new article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the U.K. Telegraph, reposted on Yahoo, that shows just what an apparatchik of the bureaucracy and the national security state Brett Kavanaugh is. As I have written many times now, Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court or any court, and for these reasons, not because he engaged in drunken shenanigans when he was in high school or college. (Most bureaucrats and judges did those things in high school or college, and many of them are still drunks or drug abusers today, believe it or not. No wonder most of them are such statists, and clueless about liberty and what America was supposed to be all about.)

Orwellian: Dr. Blasey Ford vs. Judge Kavanaugh

I heard quite a bit of the hysterical circus otherwise known as the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings yesterday on the radio. I’m sure that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford really did experience a sexual assault during high school, maybe more than once, and maybe during college or after as well. I don’t think she’s making it up.

Jacob Hornberger says he believes Ford and that Judge Kavanaugh’s demeanor was shocking and that he seemed engaged in bluster. Meanwhile Robert Wenzel reluctantly thinks Kavanaugh should still be approved to the Supreme Court, as a way to expose the hysteria and true colors on the Left, even though Kavanaugh is an Establishment elitist and authoritarian Patriot Act supporter.

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Shady Pines) withholding the initial Ford complaint letter for over a month until after all the hearings, and after her own interviewing of Kavanaugh, was a disgrace. Feinstein needs to be censured by the Senate, and maybe even brought up on charges of obstruction of justice. And Sen. Tricky Dick Durbin and Sen. Kamala Harris telling Kavanaugh that he himself ask for an FBI investigation, when they themselves can very well do that, like, he should want the same FBI to investigate him who illicitly cleared Hillary Clinton for political reasons and who fabricated a whole “Russia collusions” case to frame up a candidate or President.

Anyway, there are a lot of discrepancies in this whole case. It wouldn’t surprise me if Kavanaugh really did do what he is accused of doing. Through his opinions as a judge he shows someone who believes in dominance and authoritarian government power, not liberty, not in a check on government power. And also, given all the drinking he apparently did as a youngin and supposedly still loves beer, and given that alcohol kills brain cells, I can see how his thinking has been affected over the years. Is that fair of me to bring up that point? I think so.

But regardless of all that, I really don’t care any more if Kavanaugh becomes another member of the Supreme Parasites. Even the “liberals” on the High court rubber stamp the hysterical post-9/11 police state. One violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments after another. And they approve of police power, as does Kavanaugh. In one 8-1 decision by the Supremes, with at least 3 “liberals” among the 8, they approved of police criminally breaking into a home because they smelled marijuana, and/or they heard a toilet flushing inside, indicating that “evidence” was being flushed down the toilet. Evidence of WHAT, you morons? A NON-CRIME! And where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize the U.S. government to get involved with DRUGS?

The Supreme Bureaucrats merely reflect the statists who appoint them, who reflect the authoritarian sheeple who elect the statists who appoint such judges. So Judge Kavanaugh can join the other ignoramuses on the High Court. In one opinion, he wrote,

The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. […] The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States.

Huh? The Fourth Amendment mentions that exceptions are allowed when the government can demonstrate a “special need”? Where does it say that in the Fourth Amendment? And NSA spying on Americans “prevents terrorist attacks”? How so, Judge Beerbelly?

I know, I know. I shouldn’t call him, “Judge Beerbelly.” But we might as well.

And I am not at all surprised that Kavanaugh has the authoritarian statist mentality that he has, given that he grew up in the center of elitist privilege, in the Washington, D.C. area, with a judge mother. He might as well be a Kennedy.

And I disagree with Wenzel regarding Kavanaugh’s presence on the Supreme Court helping to further expose the irrational zombies on the Left as is going on now. ANY conservative now will do that. Perhaps Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be more acceptable. At least she’s more attractive. (What? I’m not supposed to say that?) Isn’t she the one that DiFi attacked in her religious beliefs? Let’s see that again, DiFi.

And yes, Roe v. Wade should be overturned, because it’s a bad decision. Kavanaugh knows this, but he is a coward who is afraid to tell the truth, like most politicians. Nine robed parasites drawing a line on the life span of an unborn human being and saying, “Prior to this stage of growth and development it’s okay to kill the baby,” but after this stage of growth and development it’s not okay.” (So we can use that as “precedent” to later on draw a line at, say, age 75, and say the same thing.) THAT is the mentality of the abortion cult/death cult fanatics on the Left.