Skip to content

Month: December 2015

Dependence on Government Bureaucrats to Protect You Is a Fool’s Errand

Here we go again. The “Islamic terrorist” hysteria is causing even some of the most liberty-minded people to lose touch with reality. It’s just like the post-9/11 period, in which “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” and so on. Never mind property rights, freedom of speech, due process, the Bill of Rights and all that.

“Don’t criticize the war effort! That would be treasonous!” Actually, the warmongers are the real traitors, as their staring wars in the Middle East and provoking foreigners are what have made the American people less secure and more vulnerable.

In fact, in his desperate, ignorant and un-American call to shut down the Internet, Donald Trump now says that freedom of speech advocates are “foolish people,” even though it’s been his right to freedom of speech in which he can make fun of disabled reporters, criticize Hillary and Obama, and so forth.

It’s part of the “We’re at war!” mentality, in which, as Glenn Greenwald observed, terrorism is for some reason not just criminality, but an “act of war.” The truth is, though, terrorist acts are acts of criminality. But as I have noted before, war is an artificial concept for criminal aggressors to rationalize their acts of criminal aggression. And by “criminal aggressors” I mean the government! The government warmongers then turn the apparatus of armed violence, spying, and unlawful detention against the American people, especially those who dissent. Those government officials are acting treasonously.

So besides the criminal destruction caused by U.S. bureaucrats in the Middle East, especially since 9/11 they have imposed a de facto martial law in the U.S. As I wrote before regarding martial law, that includes “the suspension of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and dissent, the right to bear arms and self-defense, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to presumption of innocence. The Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of each and every human being to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ These are inalienable, pre-existing rights, meaning that they are natural and inherent rights, not given to us by any government. That means that no one, including government officials, police or military, may violate these rights or remove them – otherwise, they could not be considered inalienable.”

Thus, the US. government’s imposition of each and every restriction on Americans’ natural rights, including freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms, has been an act of massive criminality on the part of the ruling bureaucrats.

So no, we are not “at war,” that’s a lie being spread by government bureaucrats who love power, and helped by their media minions and lap dogs.

In fact, war itself is a crime, because whoever actually started whatever war is a war criminal. As the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal determined, starting a war was in and of itself a war of aggression, and thus a crime.

As I have mentioned here repeatedly, in 1991 President George H.W. Bush started his war against Iraq for no good reason. Iraq was of no threat to us. Bush Sr.’s violent criminal war included even worse war crimes, by his military’s bombing of civilian water and sewage treatment centers, followed by sanctions and no-fly zones which prevented construction materials, medical supplies and food from being imported into Iraq. All that caused the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Here is then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright on 60 Minutes, defending the criminality of the U.S. military and UN sanctions causing the deaths of over 500,000 civilians in Iraq from 1991 through 1996, the time of this interview. The sanctions and further hundreds of thousands of deaths continued up to the year 2000. And all that was before 9/11/2001.

And then the elder Bush’s son started an unnecessary and counter-productive and criminal war of aggression in Afghanistan, a country that was not a threat to the U.S. And then the younger Bush started their 2nd war on Iraq in 2003, with many more hundreds of thousands murdered, their lives torn apart and their homes bombed and ruined. And look at Iraq now. Thanks to the Bushes. And those who survived through all that in Iraq have had sickness, birth defects and disease to deal with as a result of all the bombs and chemicals used by the U.S. government.

And then there have been the constant drones, the CIA drones bombing civilians, targeting rescuers, targeting wedding parties and funerals, and provoking many more people over there and driving them to retaliate.

It’s been a 24-year-long campaign of egregious criminality committed by the U.S. government and military against innocents in the Middle East and Asia. But the totalitarians among us say it’s “treasonous” to bring all that up, because “We’re at war!” and they want to keep the racket alive, jail the dissenters.

And Donald Trump and others are sparking a resurgence in nationalism as the convenient terrorist attacks have been going on now. You should hear some of these talk show hosts on the radio, especially Jeff Kuhner and Michael Savage. Their emotional nationalism blinds them from seeing reality. And that’s what it is, it’s all emotional. No thinking there.

Nationalism is dangerous. Nationalism is a combination of collectivism, statism, and authoritarianism. Nationalists are not big on individualism, private property rights, free markets, and freedom of association and speech. Their rhetoric favoring those things is good. But when it comes to this phony war on terrorism, and with each new terrorist incident that occurs, they get more and more hysterical and will support the government’s escalations and crackdowns.

And Michael Savage has been on this “Borders, Language, Culture” thing for many years now. Not particularly private property borders, though, but government borders. And with the immigration issue, I’ve heard Kuhner several times now talking about the U.S. southern border as though it were private property, and he refers to the American people as one big family, and the illegal immigrants are like home invaders breaking into “our” home! Doh!

So the nationalists are big on socialist government borders and socialist government walls around the border like the Berlin Wall. And they like fascist bans on certain whole groups of people based on their religious or political views. Talk about un-American. Talk about nuts, in my view.

The immediate way to stop the terrorists such as that guy Farook and his wacko wife Malik at San Bernardino is for people to be armed. And that’s it. Not police. I mean the civilian people. THAT is what the early Americans intended by the 2nd Amendment. But the nationalists in their wild emotionalism don’t really understand that, and instead in their ingrained dependence-mindedness they look to government bureaucrats, government police, and government military as the means of protection from terrorists and other violent criminals.

And a longer-term helpful hint is to recognize what the U.S. government has done and continues to do to the people of those foreign lands, and to cut it out.

The Sheeple Love Fascists, They Love “Bigot Talk”

Donald Trump wants to ban all Muslims, at least temporarily, from entering the U.S. until our ruling bureaucrats can “figure out what is going on.” He said that Muslims’ hatred for America is “beyond comprehension,” and we need to find out “where this hatred comes from and why.” He said, “They want our buildings to come down. They want our cities to be crushed.” And he has no idea why? Hmm, perhaps it’s the foreigners own buildings coming down and their cities crushed, especially in Iraq, caused by the U.S. government? And all the bombing and destruction of Middle Eastern cities and murdering of innocents by the U.S. military for the past 25 years? Ya think?

I know, the propagandized TV-staring zombies in America can’t understand that explanation. Like Sean Hannity, they interpret someone pointing out actual historical facts as “blaming America.” But “America” is not to blame for all the destruction over there, the U.S. government is what’s to blame.

The American Exceptionalists i.e. narcissists who oppose the Golden Rule and have no moral conscience cannot comprehend the idea that if it’s immoral for foreign invaders and terrorists to bomb our buildings and murder our people here then it’s immoral for our government to invade and bomb foreigners’ lands and their homes and murder their people. We’re talking over a million innocent civilians since 1991 just in Iraq, let alone the thousands of murdered innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries that continues to this day from the U.S. drones and bombs. (Update: See Sheldon Richman: “The Phony Mystery of Why ‘They’ Hate Us, and Justin Raimondo: “The Dangers of Refugee Humanitarianism.”)

And I thought there was something called the First Amendment that all those “Christian” talk radio personalities keep bringing up in regards to the Islamists’ persecution against Christians and so forth. Besides the First Amendment, doesn’t the Constitution say something about prohibiting the government from requiring a religious test? What the hell is Trump going to do, ask each prospective immigrant what his religion is? Such a scheme inherently invites intimidation and persecution by our own government “workers” against totally innocent people who happen to want to move to America like my grandparents and great-grandparents did, which they did without being asked intrusive personal questions by imbeciles and misfits that would have been none of their damn business!

But I don’t really believe Trump in what he’s been saying during this campaign. We know from his previous policy statements and his views that he is a liberal, or “progressive” if you prefer that term, and that he’s a Democrat. He’s not a Republican and he sure isn’t a conservative. But he’s a good actor and he knows how to manipulate his audience’s emotions and get cheep cheers. He himself isn’t one of the knuckle-draggers and neanderthals, but he knows how to attract them to his traveling circus. As they say, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” or something like that. He is very talented at making good use of “trigger” words to elicit the masses’ fears, anger and hunger for revenge. So, I think that the accusations might very well be correct, that he’s in it to tear apart the GOP on behalf of Democrats, and perhaps specifically Hillary (maybe she has something on him, who knows?). However, given how power hungry the establishment Repugnicans are, they probably will use every trick in the book to prevent The Donald from even getting the nomination regardless of primary and caucus results, like they did to Ron Paul. So, it will probably be Jeb or Ted vs. Hillary or Bernie. And if Obama’s FBI decides to indict Hillary, it probably won’t be Hillary.

Is There Really a War With Islam Going On?

On one side we have the conservatives, the nationalists, the neocons, and Christian warvangelicals all saying that we are in a cultural war with Islam, and that “radical Islam” is a redundancy. Those people want to further empower the government to “do something” to “protect us from Islamic terrorists,” they want the feds to either strengthen their NSA criminal spying, expand the U.S. military’s destruction in the Middle East, round up all the Muslims, or all the above.

On the other side we have the social justice warriors and social activists who want to outlaw “hate speech” and who want “sanctuary cities” to bring in Syrian or other Middle Eastern refugees. And one of those apparent social justice warriors, U.S. law enforcement commissar Loretta Lynch threatens to prosecute “actions predicated on violent talk,” referring to “anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

So, I tend to believe that this DOJ bureaucrat is yet another one who confuses mere words (that aren’t even threats) with actual physical violence. However, it seems to me that after hearing her discussion with a Muslim group on those matters, from which she has been quoted, she is clearly talking about prosecuting violent actions against Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims. She doesn’t seem to be saying that she is going to prosecute “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” So she wants to go after people who express “anti-Muslim rhetoric,” with the accusation that such rhetoric could lead to actual physical violence, even though the people expressing such verbal rhetoric are nevertheless peaceful. Yet, she is violently prosecuting the drug war against peaceful, innocent people with the full violent force of police and S.W.A.T. teams. So really it’s another example of government committing acts of violence against peaceful people, and against speech and political dissent. Nothing new here.

But there is still the issue of whether we are “at war with Islam,” and whether Islam is inherently a religion calling for violence against those who do not believe in it, those who criticize it and those accused of being apostates or “infidels.” Some people respond to assertions that Christians long ago had such culture wars and crusades of intolerance with accusations that it was the Islamists who started such wars and crusades.

In fact, just recently two Nederlanders covered a Bible with a Koran book-cover and read the Bible passages to passersby making them think those were Koran passages and surveyed their responses. Such passages included, according to the U.K. Mirror,

They include Timothy 2:12’s: “I do not allow a woman to teach” and (Deuteronomy) 25:12’s “You shall cut off her hand.” … Another passage from Leviticus 20:13 read: “If two men sleep with each other they will both have to be killed.”

And Pamela Geller and others have claimed that the Koran contains such violent rhetoric and she quotes from the Koran. Such quotes seem to indicate just as much violence and intolerance as the Bible’s quotes.

Now, I have Googled and wasn’t able to find any discussion of possible bias involved in the English translations of the Koran. But the problem isn’t the Koran, and the problem isn’t the Bible, or even anyone’s strict interpretation and adherence to what they think is in any religious document.

The problem is people who are lacking in moral scruples, lacking in conscience, whether they are Muslims, Americans, Christians, etc. But Donald Trump and the talk radio personalities are hysterical with all this “anti-Muslim” rhetoric and panic. They are like chickens running around with their heads cut off.

Speaking of heads being chopped off, there are the arguments over whether ISIS is a “State,” and there are arguments over whether ISIS is really “Islamic.” Yes, it is a “State,” because its controllers have taken power and control over several parts of Middle-Eastern territory, maintaining a monopoly of rule by force over the people of those territories. So that is a “State.” But there is no real difference between such a State and any criminal gang. Governments are criminal rackets, regardless of the bamboozled boobus’s faith in and allegiance to said rackets.

But why are so many millions of people, especially in these parts of Middle East and Asia, so primitive-minded and brainwashed to act and think so fanatically about Islam, the Koran, Allah, Muhammad, etc.? One reason is the Western rulers over the past century having been the control freaks, psychopaths and sadists that they are, with their deliberate manipulating of events in those territories, constantly causing chaos and oppression of those peoples. Why would the Western bureaucrats and cronies want to manipulate events and conditions over there to keep those societies primitive and prevent them from fully developing civilly and culturally? One reason is, just for kicks. Those who are attracted to power such as government monopolies enforced through threats and violence tend to be control freaks, psychopaths and sadists. But also, the Western bureaucrats have been manipulating things in those foreign territories to maintain a competitive advantage. How many major inventions, big discoveries or social advances have come from the Middle East in the past century?

But the West has been acting just as primitively. Western rulers have been guilty of the worst atrocities and mass murders over the past century. The U.S. government bureaucrats and their military with the bombing campaigns against civilians in Japan and Germany, including the atomic bombs on Japan murdering tens of thousands of innocents. And then there are the millions whose lives have been murdered, torn apart or displaced in Iraq since the 1990s. And all this has been rationalized by generations and millions of brainwashed American boobus sheeple who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge if enough propaganda were used. They pray to the almighty State, the U.S. government in Washington. They love their slave master.

So Islamic State or ISIS is really just a criminal gang maintaining autocratic rule over the people by force, threats and violence. Their rulers are really interested in accumulating wealth stolen from the people and living in luxury while the commoners continue to be impoverished, it seems to me. Their rulers and enforcers just love power and control, and money. I don’t believe Islamic State controllers’ sincerity as far as their stated belief in and adherence to the Koran. It’s all about the money, and the power. No different from the West. No different from what the U.S. government is — a racket. But the easily-fooled and manipulated American masses believe otherwise. Just as the easily-fooled and manipulated Middle-Eastern and Asian Islamic masses also believe in the sincerity of their rulers, and they fear them and that is how the rulers’ rule is maintained, and the millions of the enslaved masses obediently take the word of the Koran seriously.

And the Saudi rulers are of that same cloth as ISIS, as far as I’m concerned. The Saudi rulers became the rulers by being part of the royal family. I don’t believe their sincerity as far as adherence to Koran or Islam either, even though the regime has redefined as “terrorism” to include anyone who questions Islam or promotes atheistic thought, and anyone who seeks “to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group statements in any form, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means.” The “insulting Islam” stuff us just a cover, as I see it. They just like rolling in money and chopping people’s heads off.

In Turkey, their leader Erdogan is making that country more strictly Islamic and less secular. But I can’t believe his sincerity or his fellow Turkish bureaucrats’ sincerity with Islamic law either, given how Erdogan had a $615-million Presidential palace built for him at taxpayer expense, which itself goes against the Koran’s condemning greed.

So, is there really a war between Islam and the West, or a Western war on Islam, or vice versa? Nope. There is no war, no clash of civilizations.

But there has been a war being prosecuted by governments against their people, whether it’s the U.S. government against Americans or Saudis and Islamic State against their victims. Bureaucrats can easily act criminally against their people simply because the illegitimate apparatus of the State, its monopoly and its compulsory empowerment enable them to do that. Therefore all governments’ rulers are stealing and plundering from and enslaving their brainwashed and obedient masses. That is why the State attracts the bad guys to it. All forced-monopoly States are a scam and the worst get to the top, as Hayek wrote.

But what to do about the Islamic terrorism that seems to be coming from the Middle East and Asia being fomented, funded and supplied by Western regimes? At least, what should people in the U.S. do? A lot of nationalists, warmongers, government expansionists and internationalists won’t like this idea, but the U.S. government needs to close down all foreign U.S. military bases, embassies and other U.S. government apparatus, return all U.S. forces, troops, and diplomats to the U.S. (and, preferably putting them to work in the private sector). Let any American or group travel abroad for whatever reason, but with the knowledge that they are at their own risk. No restrictions on Americans’ right to travel, American businesspeople’s right to trade and associate with foreigners. And domestically, no restrictions on the people’s right to self-defense.

And regarding “foreign oil” that people are so worried about, the dependence of which Americans apparently can’t let go of, there’s plenty of oil within the states of the United States. The people of the states need to just drill and make use of all that oil in Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska, regardless of what the feds say. Nullify all those unconstitutional and enslaving rules and restrictions imposed by the EPA, Energy Department, and so on. (In fact, close down the EPA, the Energy Department, and so on!)

But most of all, this “clash of civilizations” stuff. Given that the West has not been as civilized in reality as it has purported to have been, the people of the West need to look in the mirror and stop supporting Western governments’ wars of aggression on other territories and their hornets’ nests-poking foreign occupations as well.

More News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger says that Trumbo draws the line between conservatives and libertarians.

Eric Englund discusses Barack and Hillary’s politically-correct thinking on guns.

Patrice Lewis on gun-free zones.

Jeff Deist writes about Murray Rothbard on libertarian populism.

Joseph Salerno says that we must be opportunists in dismantling the State.

Laurence Vance discusses Christian jihadists.

Andrew Napolitano on the spies who ruin us.

Bionic Mosquito asks, Futility or scam?

Roger Roots has this exposé on three easily-debunked “scholarly” studies.

Philip Giraldi discusses the truth about freed convicted spy Jonathan Pollard.

Frank Shostak explains how money disappears in a fractional-reserve money system.

James Bovard on the TSA’s screening of holiday travelers.

Simon Black discusses chilling U.K. government “advice” asking people to spy on their children.

Dan Sanchez says, Get rid of ISIS using this one weird trick.

Wendy McElroy on non-discrimination laws as the new Jim Crow.

Justin Raimondo on twenty years of

And Nick Stockton calculates the 300,000 tons of CO2 that will be emitted for the Paris climate conference.

No, We Don’t Need a Leviathan Monster to “Keep Us Safe”!

I am not as concerned as Justin Raimondo apparently is that the San Bernardino mass murders by allegedly Islamic jihadists will elicit a renewed post-9/11-like hysteria, and thus a renewed escalation in Amerika’s already repressive police state.

However, I do see this as a renewed call for spreading the word of liberty. When you know you’re right about freedom, and what the real main contributors to terrorism are, then be confident in telling the truth about it. The statists, authoritarians, warmonger-chickenhawks, fascists, economic ignoramuses and moral degenerates can all go jump in a lake, as far as I’m concerned.

Speaking of ignoramuses, this morning I listened to Kim Carrigan for just a minute or two, as she was introducing a state rep who was filing legislation to prohibit people on the no-fly list from obtaining firearms. I didn’t listen to the rest of the interview. I know I shouldn’t pre-judge someone’s agenda without hearing her out, but why bother? Her idea is based on a government list with perhaps thousands of people who shouldn’t even be on the list! It is possible (although I doubt it) that Ms. Carrigan noted that there are many, many “false positives” on the list, and therefore why would you want to disarm totally innocent people whose names are on such a faulty list?

And then I tuned into Bill Bennett, with Mark Davis filling in. It’s always nice to hear someone such as Davis who sounds more “up” in the morning than the dreary ultra-authoritarian (and perhaps drooling) Bill Bennett. But when a very staunch gun rights advocate called in pointing out that the 2nd Amendment very clearly refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and that it refers to a “right” and thus it is not up to government bureaucrats to decide which kinds of armaments the people have a right to keep and bear, at that point Mark Davis seemed to sound a bit unsure of himself or that if it’s really a “right” to keep and bear arms that the kind of armaments should not be limited by the government. At least that’s how he sounded.

And by the way, the right to keep and bear arms also includes the right to not keep or bear arms if you don’t want to! I am not a gun person, myself. And I heard just yesterday that Howie Carr applied for a gun permit for the first time. I couldn’t believe it, especially given all the nasty things he’s said and written about gangsters and politicians (but I repeat myself), and an almost assassination as well. My how some people change. (During the 1980s he would refer to “gun nuts” in his Boston Herald columns, but he probably doesn’t do that anymore.)

But the writers of the Bill of Rights were very clear in their defense of the right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms. Such rights are the rights of the people, not the rights of the government. ALL people have the right to self-defense, whether against common criminals such as robbers and rapists or murderers, or Islamic terrorists or any kind of terrorists, and from the tyrannical agents of the government as well. As Judge Napolitano pointed out, the American Revolutionaries exercised their right to have any weapons they felt necessary to forcibly separate themselves from the ruling regime, the British, and that the people’s right to possess weaponry that could match those of the British soldiers was essential to the Revolutionaries’ freeing themselves from the bondage and tyranny of the King. Additionally, the Judge also pointed out in that column that “we also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense.” Do conservatives agree with that? No, they do not.

Here is Ron Paul on the right to keep and bear arms, from the 1980s:

But my point here is that there are the hysterical police statists out there calling for more NSA, CIA, FBI or otherwise government surveillance on the entire population, and the fascists and bigots calling for rounding up all the Muslims, and the chickenhawks wanting to send thousands more American “troops” to their deaths or to be wounded and their lives ruined for no good reason. These armchair war fanatics are brainwashed to obediently worship that thing in Washington, the federal government, and are literally addicted to their dependence on that sick, parasitic creature as it eats at away at their common sense and their moral conscience.

And most of those people talk a good game when it comes to the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. But really they are authoritarians and they love the State, they love the police and they love the military. They love the uniforms, the marching, the artificial authority lacking in morality, the pretense of “keeping us safe.” Sadly, it is probably impossible to convince all those people that the central planners in Washington are the problem, from their own wars of aggression against countries that were no threat to us, their trespassing occupations on foreign lands, their murders of millions of innocents for decades and decades, as well as their three-letter agencies intentionally radicalizing, motivating, arming and funding the victims of government violence for the sake of keeping it all going to justify the warmakers’ existence in Washington. The real solution for the people to protect themselves from terrorists — i.e. violent criminals — is to be armed, not to be dependent on central planners, because the central planners won’t protect you!

My Reaction to the San Bernardino Mass Murders (updated)

(First paragraph updated since originally published.)

I wonder what psychiatric drugs the latest mass shooters were on. But I will not get into that here.

Later yesterday with the news of that mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, I was already speculating that it was a ‘disgruntled worker,” or former employee going postal. The circumstances were reminding me of Michael McDermott of Edgewater Technologies who gunned down his fellow workers in the year 2000, and another Boston workplace shooting at Merrill Lynch in 1988 in which an “inefficiently performing” stock broker shot and killed his boss who fired him. The shooter claimed racial discrimination because he was black.

Anyway, as we learn more about the circumstances of the San Bernardino shooting, that the main shooter was a devout Muslim of Pakistani heritage, that he had recently been in Saudi Arabia to marry someone he met online, and that the shooting was apparently planned, we could conclude that he may be another one of those Muslims who had become “radicalized” and wanting to commit “jihad” especially in light of the U.S. government’s decades-long crusade of bombing Islamic countries and mass murders of innocents overseas. Or perhaps not. But it will be more fuel for Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim fire, and that of other authoritarian ignoramuses. “Let’s round up all the Muslims. And get their families, too.” No, rather than reacting like idiot anti-American collectivists, instead why don’t we tell our government and its military to stop bombing and murdering innocents, invading, occupying, and trespassing on foreign lands? Ya think? And no, not all those who practice Islam believe in violent jihad.

And talk about political correctness. There has been an anti-“white male” trend on college campuses and elsewhere, in which white males are getting discriminated against as a collective, based on their whiteness and maleness. No individual differences are recognized, apparently. But besides that phenomenon of political correctness, censorship and intolerance, it has long been taboo to criticize the policies of the U.S. government. American “Exceptionalists” will not have it! They believe that it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize bad U.S. government policies, many of which are in fact criminal. What, you want to defend criminal behavior? So that American Exceptionalism political correctness is just as bad as the anti-white male stuff, if you ask me.

When government bureaucrats send their military soldiers overseas to start a war of aggression against a country that was of no threat to us, such as George H.W. Bush’s war on Iraq in 1991 and imposing sanctions leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents there, that is an entirely criminal operation. Bush’s son then continued and escalated the violence in that region after 9/11. It is these acts of criminal aggression inflicted by U.S. government bureaucrats and their soldiers which are large contributors to the “radicalization” of the inhabitants of those lands over there.

But rather then making our government stop committing those criminal acts of violence and causing radicalization, Donald Trump wants to round up all the Muslims, and get “their families,” too. That is how collectivists think.

It used to be that Americans were individualists. Each individual is responsible for his own actions, not for actions of others, whether the others are fellow white males, fellow Muslims, fellow Christians, or one’s own family members. And no, we are not “our brother’s keepers”!

And individualism and individual liberty are concepts that the ideas of rights and natural rights are based on. Each individual has a right to presumption of innocence and the right to be left alone. Apprehend and detain an individual only if you actually suspect that specific individual of some specific crime against the persons or property of others. If you don’t suspect someone of anything specific, you leave him alone. That’s the American way. (It might not be the Nazi Germany way that The Donald seems to prefer, but it is the American way.)

Now, the firearms aspect of all this. Once again we have the gun control nudniks like Obama calling for more or stricter gun control. The problem with these people is that gun control doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns. It disarms law-abiding people and makes them defenseless against the criminals who don’t obey the law. If criminals don’t obey laws against robbery, assault, rape and murder, then obviously they will not obey laws restricting firearms. The criminals will still get their guns illegally. WHY don’t people understand this? Or do they understand it but in their zeal to repeat leftist talking points like zombies they don’t care what fools they sound like? It’s more important to pursue a society of complete government and police control and allow only limited if not zero liberty.

So self-defense is another one of those individual rights like presumption of innocence. Each individual has a right to self-defense, and to protect oneself and one’s family against others’ aggression and others’ direct threats to one’s life and liberty. Collectivists and totalitarians don’t like the idea of individual rights. They side with the power of groups, and the powers of authority. In this case government authority. Collectivists and totalitarians prefer to have only government and government police be armed with firearms and other weaponry, but leave the civilians disarmed. That is how they think.

Donald Trump Was Right

Philip Giraldi has an article in response to Donald Trump’s remembering the 9/11 Muslims dancing and celebrating in the streets. Apparently the partying, dancing “Muslims” that Donald Trump is remembering were Israelis, not Muslims.

Hmmm, why would Israelis celebrate a terrorist attack against the U.S.? Not that Israelis have ever done anything against the U.S., such as bomb a U.S. naval ship, killing 34 crew members and wounding 171, or spying on the U.S.

Here is the article (saved on the Wayback Machine) I’ve linked to before, and what appears to be a newer version at ABC News of the same article.

The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests.

It goes on quite a bit about that. It’s possible that they were part of Mossad and doing surveillance on suspected supporters of Hamas and Hezbolla, but who knows?

And then there were the “Israeli art students.” And here is the Carl Cameron report from December 2001 that I’ve seen linked to occasionally, about Israelis spying on the U.S. prior to 9/11 and possibly having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Don’t expect the MSM to report any of this. They prefer to keep their jobs, if you know what I mean.

More News and Commentary

Michael Boldin says that part of the problem is those who think things were okay before Obama became President.

Carl Watner on non-voting.

Christopher Manion says that Pope Francis demands a scripture rewrite.

Richard Pollock writes about Persian Gulf Muslim states accepting no Syrian refugees.

Sharyl Attkisson on why recent ISIS terror attacks renew calls for “28 pages” release.

Jonathan Turley discusses the Muslims in India violently protesting “blasphemous” use of a piggy bank drawing.

Selwyn Duke says that liberal fascism is nothing new.

Bob Adelmann with an article on Kansas universities preparing for students carrying concealed on campus.

Paul Joseph Watson with some videos of 2015 Black Friday zombies.

Walter Williams asks, Can we learn from Europe?

Reichard White explains how to stop terrorism.

Jacob Hornberger on government’s enslaving people to keep them safe from government-produced enemies.

Ron Paul says the war on terror is creating more terror.

Justin Raimondo on the phony war on ISIS.

Eric Schuler says that ISIS needs the war on terrorism.

Gareth Porter discusses the real reason for Turkey’s shoot-down of the Russian jet.

Richard Ebeling discusses Bernie Sanders’s “democratic socialism.”

Mitchell Shaw discusses Windows 10: malware that deletes users’ programs.

Patrice Lewis with a sobering taste of grid down.

And Jerome Corsi on the public schools sickos and their police state.