Skip to content

Tag: SJW

Nullification, Decentralization, Separation, Divorce, Dissolve, Dismiss the Regime

Why are many of the people on the left of such an authoritarian mentality? They are so authoritarian in their worship of the federal government and its illicit powers and feared losing the power so much they disrupted the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and engaged in so much obvious cheating during the recent mid-term elections. (Not that Republicans weren’t engaged in cheating or at least questionable behavior as well, such as in Georgia.)

During the Kavanaugh hearings, Sen. Cruella Harris began interrupting Chairman Grassfed as soon as he began the hearings, and it went downhill from there, especially with “Dr.” Ford who “Must Be Believed At All Times!” and Kavanaugh screaming how much he loves beer and telling us what a moron he is by keeping calendars going back to 1982. (Who does that?)

Meanwhile, informed people with a brain actually objected to Kavanaugh based on his terrible rulings rubber-stamping tyranny, and his being a corrupt bureaucrat. But no, the fanatics on the left are concerned about abortion. That’s what they care about. And “Free Health Care for ALL!”and all that.

The fanatics believe that the Supreme Court is the God of government, that those 9 robed bureaucrats have the absolute final say on our freedom (and our enslavement). So it’s so important that they have to interrupt hearings, harass senators who voted for Kavanaugh, and cheat in elections. What a life.

But, as Tom Woods points out in a recent article, especially in his quoting of James Madison, the federal judicial branch is the final decision-maker on constitutional conflicts only between the branches of the federal government (judicial, legislative and executive), but NOT the final decision-maker on conflicts between the federal government and the states.

As Woods has explained in the past, the states, after all, created the federal government, not the other way around. The people of the states are the “boss” of the feds, and the agents of the federal government are the states’ “employees.” Unfortunately, that has been turned around by authoritarians (especially reinforced by Lincoln) who believe that whatever the federal government says, goes. “You will report to us your earnings, where you work or whom you employ, we will take a portion of your wealth whether you like it or not, we will spy on you and know the personal details of your private life and you will not know what we are up to, we’ll just mark everything ‘classified,’ and so on…”

So that stuff that the bureaucrats in Washington have been doing, that fools like Brett Kavanaugh have been rubber-stamping out of loyalty to the Regime and its racket, is unconstitutional, illicit, and criminal. This is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Which is not very well written, by the way. It should have explicitly stated that the people of the states shall nullify any federal government rule, law or order on them whose enforcement they conclude would be in violation of their liberty, persons or property. Otherwise, the Founders needlessly created a federal government and ratified a questionable Constitution, going against the very principles of their Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson and others endorsed that idea of nullification which many people on the left now ignorantly perceive as having to do with racism or “slavery,” even though some states engaged in nullification during the Civil War period when they nullified Fugitive Slave Laws (which Lincoln strongly endorsed and enforced, by the way).

As Woods wrote in an essay in his Liberty Classroom, “nullification was used against slavery, as when northern states did everything in their power to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive-slave laws, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin going so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and void.  In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the U.S. Supreme Court scolded it for doing so.  In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act.  Who’s defending slavery here?”

But as I wrote in this article, we are now slaves of the federal government.

Incidentally, for those who are interested, Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

Concocting a centralized, ruling federal government was a mistake made by the Revolutionaries. Besides the social fascists and authoritarians on the left, now we have a Donald Trump who claims that his job is “running the country,” which, as Richard Ebeling pointed out in this very informative new article, is a “claim to abrogate the liberty of each and every member of that society to have the freedom to run their own life as they peacefully and honestly see fit in voluntary and mutually agreed-upon association with their fellow human beings for their respective betterment as they define it.”

One of the latest examples of the absurdity of this centralized power apparatus in Washington is that the bureaucrats are going to bring criminal charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because he provided the means for whistleblowers to expose the criminality of the federal bureaucrats and their goons. Whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning with the Iraq War Logs, the Afghanistan War Logs, the diplomatic cables leaks, the “Collateral Murder” video, and all the rest.

As I wrote above, the criminals of the regime classify whatever they can to avoid embarrassing disclosures, evade transparency, get away with murder, and punish whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, by the way, was viciously persecuted by Obama’s regime, not Bush, with 3 years of solitary confinement pre-trial and a kangaroo trial and sentencing. (Although I think the main reason the SJW-in-Chief Barack Obama then commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence was because Manning is a “transgender.” Those are the things Obama et al. really care about.)

You see, as many people have noted now in the Obama DOJ and FBI’s surveillance abuses and how the Obama administration was so bad with civil liberties and freedom of speech and his war on the Press, we now have Cruella Harris and Pocahontas and all their moonbat followers drooling to take the apparatus of power back so THEY can once again use the spying powers against enemies and enforce their beloved police state on the people.

So, as I had written several times now, including this article from 8 years ago, the Amerikan sheeple need to let go of their dependence on the regime in Washington and we must go our separate ways.

The Hysterical Obsession With Futile Elections

On Sundays I have on the radio the TV news shows that are rebroadcast on Bloomberg Radio, including Meet the Oppressed, Fox’s Fake News Sunday, CBS’s Fake the Nation, and ABC News’ Not This Week. These people seem to be obsessed with politics, elections, and government. Upchuck Todd and George Snuffleupagus are the worst. I think Margaret Brennan has been terrific for the past few weeks, particularly because she hasn’t been on for the past few weeks. And everybody seems to praise Chris Wallace as “fair and balanced,” particularly because of all the non-statists and libertarians he has on every week. (Just kidding — we know Chris Wallace would never have anyone on who would truly “rock the boat,” being the gutless wonder that he is, just as are most of the others on mainstream news media.)

But these people are obsessed with elections, and after Tuesday they will immediately be discussing the 2020 Presidential race, because this stuff is their reality. It’s like they know nothing else, or care about nothing else. When they discuss other non-election related news, such as the ongoing Saudi Arabia crisis or dealing with Iran, it’s always in the context of “What will government do about it?” Yet the real answers to those issues are outside of government, and outside of politics. (Don’t tell them I said that.)

On Tuesday’s elections, predictions are that Republicans will lose the House to Democrats but keep the Senate. People think that Democrats will take back the House based on recent polling. But I think a lot of people lie to pollsters, which is what they should do. I’m sick of polls and pollsters. As Marxine Waters might say, “They can all go straight to hell!” and all that.

But listen to all the activists on talk radio, and the aforementioned shows, they are hysterical with these elections. It’s the end of the world if their guy loses, and every single vote counts, and all that crap. No, every single vote does NOT count, sorry about that. And, “If we can just get the right people in those offices, then everything will be better, you’ll see.” People really believe that. And that’s because propaganda influences the masses constantly. The masters run their propaganda pieces on mainstream news media and pop culture to make sure that the sheeple don’t catch on that the system as a whole is inherently flawed and can’t be fixed. (Shh, don’t tell them that, the rulers want them to stay enslaved…)

And a lot of the people who associate their “thinking” with the left, like the college snowflakes and political activists who never had any genuinely significant and meaningful real-life experiences, will be acting worse than hysterically when they hear that Republicans keep control of both houses of Congress. They will be more than hysterical than they were in 2016 when Trump was elected. Many of them may join the violent faction of the SJW crowd, the gender- and race-obsessed, the class-warfare commies. At least, that is what I fear about these irrational and loathsome fanatics on the left.

Worse, the Trump supporters, nationalists and conservatives who will be pleased with Rethuglican gains will be more aggressive themselves. They will support the congressional Rethugs’ continuation and escalation of the surveillance state and the police state, especially with their anti-immigration idiocy and paranoia at the southern border and the drug war. The people on the “right” (who oftentimes are “wrong”) will also be hysterical as they are now with their beloved statism. If these people and their talk radio conservatards were so obediently approving of Brett Kavanaugh regardless of his being a major-league swamp creature, a constitutionally-ignorant moron and a rubber-stamper of the very police state that has empowered the Mueller fishing expedition, then said conservatards will eat anything up, and approve of the worst of the worst. You see, many people go into denial and set principles aside, and they hope for the best, like in a Twilight Zonish, Orwellian kind of way.

I could be wrong, of course, and Democrats really will take over the House. That will mean Speaker Nancy Lugosi again, an end to Republicans’ ability to indict Clinton, Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Brennan, and get the truth out about who really attempted to steal the 2016 election, and an impeachment of Trump for the wrong reasons. (The real reasons would be war crimes. Like that would ever happen.)

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.

Are We Doomed?

Thanks to the government’s monopoly in the education business it is now a racket, in which the product at the end of K-12 is a lot of dumb, ignorant kids who know nothing about everyday life. Not only do they not know history, how to read or do everyday math, but many of them can’t think critically. And in addition to all that is the activist teachers indoctrinate the kids with “social justice” fanaticism, enviro-wacko pseudo-science voodoo mysticism, and government worship.

Unfortunately, for a century the schools have been indoctrinating kids with government worship, usually now referred to as nationalism. We hear it all the time on the radio with Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., and of course, the big dumb nationalist himself, Trump. But unlike Trump, the conservative nationalists say they oppose the above “social justice” stuff, the enviro-wacko stuff and use a lot of free market rhetoric.

Both sides, though, are socialists. We know about the Bernie-Ocasio-Cortez-college snowflake socialists, who want “free stuff,” and who believe that if some male says he is a female he may very well go into the ladies room, and you had better not object. But the Trump-Limbaugh crowd worships their own government central planning in immigration controls, national security and police, and drug controls, all socialist schemes.

What is socialism? Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, industry and property. That’s my view on that. If you own a business here in Amerika you have to be obedient sheeple to whatever the dictators in government tell you to do, regarding your employment and payment matters, reporting everything to the commissars, and so on. So, you don’t really “own” your business. What the “socialists” here in Amerika want is for the government to seize all the businesses like in health care, finance and everything else. Because they are ignorant of history, they know nothing of how that turned out in Soviet Union, Cuba, and because they don’t pay attention to what’s going on in current times, they either don’t know or don’t care about what’s going on in North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

In Venezuela, the government seized the means of food production and distribution. Because government bureaucrats don’t know how to run things (except into the ground), such seizures and military enforcements of such seizures have caused shortages, empty store shelves, long lines, starvation, sickness, and death. Government takeovers, price controls and wage controls cause distortions, shortages, and chaos. That’s a fact of history.

So, when “socialists” want free health care, free education, etc., why aren’t they saying they want free FOOD? Isn’t food more important than health care? But we see what happens when government takes over the food business. And when government has been attempting to take over the health care industry, bureaucrats have been causing chaos! What is health care, anyway? And “education”? Look what government control over education has done to Amerika! (Why do you think it’s spelled with a “k” now, anyway?)

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal has a post describing some of his experiences at the “Politicon” in Los Angeles, in which he is saying “The socialists are everywhere.” He attended a session, “Medicare For All” including Ana Kasparian, Bill Kristol, Dr. Drew Pinsky and George Halvorson. I know who Bill Kristol is. Why is Bill Kristol at a discussion on Medicare? Perhaps because he is in his mid-60s and wants Medicare. Who knows?

Wenzel writes:

But this crowd wasn’t interested in facts from a generally sympathetic panelist. They wanted 100% calls for universal healthcare immediately and nothing else.

Later in the day, I stopped in on the panel discussion, “Should We Be Socialist?”, the audience was once again large and loud, cheering loudly as every panelist was introduced.

The first three panelists all stated that they were in favor of significant intervention in the economy but all seemed to agree that “complete government takeover of all property” was not necessary. The audience cheered everyone of these panelists with their different takes on how government should control the economy.

And why NOT “complete government takeover of all property”? You might as well. So Wenzel writes,

If this is any indication of what is going on in America, there is a lot of trouble ahead. The socialists are everywhere. They are loud, aggressive and don’t want to listen to any kind of analysis. They just want power now to rule all of us so that they can declare free everything.

I think a lot of ignorant young people (and old people as well) are brainwashed and they like the idea of robbing their neighbors, although getting their beloved, worshiped bureaucrats to do the robbing for them. And getting free stuff.

But combine all this with the brainwashed narcissists wanting to force their perverted beliefs of “social justice,” irrational transgenderism, and race-obsessions onto the rest of us, by law and by force, and their wanting to use the armed power of police to suppress anyone’s objections to being subjugated in such ways, economically, personally and politically.

Not good.

The Nobel Prize in Economics for 2018: To Irrational Statists Once Again

On the selection of statist economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics:

Thomas DiLorenzo quotes the Nobel-winning economists:

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

–Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th edition, p. 837.

Samuelson was the first American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1970), awarded by the Swedish central bank and not the Nobel Foundation.  Nordhaus is this year’s recipient.  In the 1989 edition of their textbook they predicted that the Soviet economy would become larger than the U.S. economy somewhere around the year 2000.

And Robert Wenzel writes that “Both are technocrats for state tinkering with the economy,” and that “Nordhaus is an academic child of the current climate change craze.” And, “Paul Romer, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, is off in the, far off, palm reading land of macro modeling, where government tinkering is always needed.”

And also Wenzel notes that Romer is against the idea of private police. (See Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [.pdf] by Murray Rothbard on the privatization of police. For skeptics of private police, Rothbard begins: “In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply ‘police protection,’ as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called ‘police protection’ any more than there is an absolute single commodity called ‘food’ or ‘shelter’.”)

Wenzel quotes Nordhaus on climate change: “The science and economics of global warming are clear. Unless forceful measures are taken the planet will continue to warm.” Wenzel says it’s “Y2K fears on steroids.”

And that’s exactly right. Why doesn’t Nobel Prize winner Nordhaus understand that the planet is warming and will continue to warm no matter what humans do? It is not preventable, because the sun is getting hotter and hotter, in general, and by 1 billion years from now it will have completely dried up everything on Earth, and by 7 billion years it’s all over. Oh, well.

So, the Nobel Prize is given to people mainly on the Left, to people who are ignorant and irrational, and based on the emotional rhetoric involved with these people’s writings and activities. Another example is Barack Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 his first month in office, increasing the CIA drone strikes that have been mostly murdering innocent civilians overseas, and more, throughout his time as President.

Loyola University Professor Walter Block Boycotted by Hysterical Snowflakes

Target Liberty informs us that Loyola University, New Orleans economics professor Walter Block is being boycotted by students, based on their erroneous view that he is “racist” and “sexist,” and based on his being smeared by the New York Times as “pro-slavery.” Walter Block is really anti-slavery, because he is against involuntary labor.

And Dr. Block responds to those hysterical students in this article, responding to their accusation of being “pro-slavery”:

What about slavery? My reputation in this regard is based on an interview with the New York Times. I was trying to explain libertarianism to them. I emphasized that voluntarism was crucially important to the NAP. Rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may look alike, but one is voluntary, the other is not. The same with a punch in the nose. It is legitimate in the boxing ring since both parties consented, but not otherwise. It is the same with slavery. If someone (an adult) assents to it, slavery is legitimate. Actual slavery, of course, was not voluntary, since the victim did not agree to any such thing. It was therefore evil and pernicious. Why might a person volunteer to become a slave? One possibility, extreme masochism (don’t knock this; our Jesuit tradition recommends toleration). Another, to save his child’s life. My son, God forbid, has an illness the cure of which would cost $5 million. I’m poor. If someone offers me that amount of money to become his slave, I’d willingly sell myself to him, since I value my son’s life more than my own freedom.

And in response to the students who want to boycott Walter Block and his classes at Loyola University, Robert Wenzel at the aforementioned Target Liberty writes:

The students boycotting Dr. Block will never do anything impressive on the intellectual front. They will be moved by the intellectual fads of the day. They will be anti-plastic straw today, and who knows, maybe pro-butt tattoos tomorrow. They are in an important way insignificant. The student that takes Dr, Block’s class to challenge him or learn from him is taking the first step toward deep thought, independent thought and maybe original thought. This will be the type of person that may make an intellectual contribution down the road.

Walter Block is considered by some to be a radical libertarian. He believes in the non-aggression principle. So, he’s not really radical. In my view, violence is radical. I’m sure that those who actually do have an open mind will check out some of Walter Block’s publications, which include these:

Defending the Undefendable

The Case for Discrimination

Building Blocks for Liberty

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Elizabeth Warren’s Unwarranted Wage

Labor Relations, Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Political Economic Analysis

Is There a Human Right to Medical Insurance?

Defending the Undefendable II

Other Walter Block Publications

More recently, on the LewRockwell.com blog David Gordon of the Mises Institute congratulates Walter Block on his 100th peer-reviewed journal article he has co-authored with students (not including all the ones he has done alone or with other authors). And Tom Woods does a podcast with Dr. Block on his recent milestone, and lists those 100 papers.

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.

The Modern Irrational “Women’s Rights” Movement That Has Nothing to Do with Women’s Rights

And everything to do with seizing control over the lives of others, and silencing and tormenting innocent people.

Paul Craig Roberts has a column about the modern irrational feminist movement, that goes against common sense and decency. The grammatically correct use of the word “rape” has caused a football coach to be disciplined, while a female college professor wants all males to be tortured and killed but her “freedom of speech” is protected by her university’s diversity commissars. And Roberts gets into the phenomenon of false accusation in Amerika now, and refers to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

I have written quite a bit about all this irrationality and injustice being inflicted by “social justice (sic) warriors” against innocent white people, males and white males. It is especially the hysterical feminazis that are very worrisome. So Roberts’s column reminded me of some of my own past pieces on these subjects.

For instance, in ‘Libertarianism and Privilege,’ Harvard Hypocrites, and the Supreme Court, I wrote:

And just how valid is this “male privilege” stuff now anyway, given the anti-male discrimination, oppression and feminization of America, especially in the schools?

The female-dominated government schools have been banning dodge ball, omitting recess play time, and suspending or arresting little boys who draw pictures of a gun, as well as putting the kids on psychiatric drugs to repress their independence. By college the helicopter moms call their boys every night and argue with the professors over the boys’ grades.

And then there’s the college dorm and classroom “Two Minutes Hate” against males (and white people), the initiation ritual called “Tunnel of Oppression.” Here, the white students are indoctrinated to believe how privileged they are and what “racists” they are because they are white. And the male students are told about the “rape culture,” in which they inherently have the guilt of a rapist, simply because they are male.

Yes, this is the mentality today in what is considered “academics.” The more serious offenses perpetrated by these asinine academic activists include attempts to expel or convict young men of “rape” that actually isn’t rape according to the traditional legal definition, and in fact when, as libertarian feminists have noted, there is no such thing as a “rape culture” in the first place.

And in On the Neurotically Fragile Always-Offended Nudniks, I wrote:

On college campuses, conservative speakers are either shouted down or just banned from campus entirely. That’s nothing new, of course. But more recently, some college campuses are issuing letters urging “civility.” To them, unfortunately, being “civil” means being politically correct. Frankly, the new “civility” really is the stifling of diversity and free expression.

Some colleges are banning the utterances of certain words or phrases, such as the word “freshman” at Elon University. As the College Fix notes, the reason Elon is replacing the word “freshman” with “first year” is because, according to the university’s director of “Inclusive Community Well-Being,” the word “freshman” may imply a hierarchy and may refer to some students as younger and less experienced, and could cause the younger students to be targeted for sexual violence. (I am Not. Making. This. Up.)

So “freshman” implies the younger students, but that word’s replacement, “first year,” does not?

Apparently, if someone uses the word “rape” in such a nonchalant or insensitive manner, such an utterance trivializes that act of sexual violence, and for those who happened to have been victims they feel re-traumatized when hearing certain words and phrases. Such language “triggers” terrible, painful emotions and fear. This has been happening to non-victims as well. But many people are just neurotically over-sensitive now, in my view.

Just what is it with the thin-skinned people now that their merely hearing someone happening to say certain words or phrases — not directed at them, mind you, just happening to be spoken — causes someone to be re-traumatized? If that’s the case, then it is they who may need some further counseling to resolve some issues that they may have, rather than censoring, silencing and stifling someone else’s mere verbal expression, regardless how silly, immature or rude such an expression might be.

I’m sorry if I sound extremely insensitive here, but, seriously, we really have to pussyfoot around and censor ourselves verbally these days, just to protect the overly-sensitive feelings of someone whose fragile being may be harmed emotionally in some way.

In fact, that situation has become so absurd that a male college student, who happened to resemble a rape victim’s assailant, was actually banned from campus and prevented from getting to his classes, and so on. Need I add any further comment to that? (I think not.)

But I wonder how many people who have not been the victims of sexual assault are nevertheless joining in and saying that they, too, feel traumatized by others’ utterances of certain words or phrases? Or are the younger generations now being so indoctrinated to believe that they feel traumatized because that’s the “correct” or socially acceptable reaction that they should be having? Just asking.

And in A Society Perverted by Orwellian Newspeak, Hypersensitivity, and Lack of Clarity, I wrote:

And then there was the young lady who testified before a congressional panel on the issue of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. That was to show the rest of the world that “feminism” now means women being dependent on others to subsidize their lifestyles rather than standing on their own two feet and budgeting their own priorities.

a recent survey asked 1,058 teens and young adults various questions under the subject of sexual violence, and, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the results showed that 10% of the youths admitted to committing an act of sexual violence, and 5% had “attempted or completed rape.”

However, as Prof. Volokh explained, because of the misleading wording and inaccurate definitions of “rape” and “sexual violence” in the survey,  “… 80% of the reported ‘rape[s]’ involved neither force nor the threat of force, and 59% involved only ‘guilt’ or ‘arguing and pressuring victim,’ with no use of force, threat of force, or even alcohol.”

So the results of this survey claiming that more teens are violent now are not examples of America’s decline, given the wildly exaggerated numbers. What is an example of America’s decline is the lack of communication and reading comprehension amongst the teens, and the survey researchers as well.

So there are two problems here, in my view: one, that more recent laws may be reflecting the confused public on what actual acts are and what they are not; and two, that as the culture and literacy have declined in America, so has the idea of personal responsibility. Innocent people may be getting arrested and in some cases convicted for “crimes” which aren’t crimes, and there are false “victims” who don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions or their inability to say “no.”

I want to know what is it with parents these days who are raising such irrational, dependent and irresponsible people? What happened in my generation, or has it really been a gradual thing over time? A century of progressivism has culminated in all this? Can it be reversed?

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.

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.