Skip to content

Month: June 2017

Bureaucratic Nincompoops And Their Obsession for Control

Wendy McElroy posted links to these two articles on her blog, Oregon wants to regulate flexible work schedules out of existence, and in Chicago a Proposed “Fair Workweek” would mandate predictable schedules, stable paychecks. Local imbeciles  in state and local governments who have never run a business now want to even more interfere in the marketplace and in employment. Who do they think they are, federal imbeciles?

As George McGovern wrote, “A politician’s dream is a businessman’s nightmare.” (George McWho?)

And it’s the same thing now in the health care debate, in which the Republicons are channeling their inner Mao in their craving for control as they just can’t bring themselves to actually repeal the ObamaCare monstrosity. But finally, now we hear Donald Trump tweeting, as I have been saying, just repeal the damn thing now and worry about “replacing” later.

No, don’t replace it. Repeal all the other regulations, tax-thefts and intrusions that government has been forcing on the American people that have driven the costs of health care way up.

But no, everyone is obsessed with his other tweets that insulted Mika Brzezinski’s facelift(s). Did ObamaCare pay for her facelift(s)? Anyway, I’m glad he does that, because I need a good laugh from time to time. And Charles Krauthammer and other high-and-mighties who think Trump’s insults are undignified or “unpresidential” are the same ones who think that Trump “finally became President” when he unnecessarily and criminally bombed Syria (criminal? Aiding and abetting ISIS?)

“Sanctuary Cities”

Regarding the “sanctuary cities” aspect of the immigration issue (which I commented on in my previous two posts, here and here), I oppose any government direction or action to bring immigrants or refugees into an area or any government provision of “illegal immigrant” sanctuaries, just as much as I oppose any government restrictions of the freedom of movement and travel of innocent people.

However, if private organizations, charities, churches, businesses, families or individuals want to organize an effort to bring immigrants or refugees in and provide “sanctuary” for them, they should have the freedom to do so, as long as they take responsibility for any consequences of such actions, and as long as they aren’t harboring actual criminals (and by “criminal” I mean anyone who has violated the person or property of another, not someone who is merely traveling to seek a better life for oneself and one’s family and hasn’t harmed anyone).

And that is what I have to say about that. Sanctuary much.

Further Reasons for Why the Trump Travel Ban Is Unconstitutional

Regarding my previous post on the Trump-dictated ban on people from Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. and my asserting that such a ban was unconstitutional, I wasn’t particularly specific on how exactly such a ban is unconstitutional.

I think that the most important reason why federal government travel bans — or any controls on the movements of millions of people — are unconstitutional is that, as Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t delegate power over immigration to the federal government. The Constitution just doesn’t authorize the federal government to have a central-planning bureaucracy which attempts to control the movements of millions of people. If you want to look at the specific discussions on that, you can click on law professor Ilya Somin’s essay (and he has also written on those arguments here and here). Prof. Somin also writes for the “Volokh Conspiracy” blog at WaPo.

But the extremely flawed, inconsistent and self-contradictory Constitution is also in part contradictory to the Declaration of Independence. In my previous post I referred to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. There have been occasions that U.S. Supreme Court Justices have cited the Declaration of Independence in their decisions, including stating that “it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence,” and so on.

And in my referencing the Bill of Rights in my previous post, I didn’t mention where specifically it notes a “right to migrate,”or a “right to travel or freedom of movement.” I think we can assume that when the Declaration of Independence asserts the unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” included in that right to “liberty” is the right to travel and freedom of movement (as long as one doesn’t violate the liberty, person or property of another).

But where do we see such rights in the Bill of Rights? We don’t. The Bill of Rights can’t possibly enumerate all the rights that human beings have. That is why the writers of the Constitution included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And remember, when the Founders referred to “rights,” most of them had a belief that people had “natural” or negative rights, rights which preexisted the formation of government. They didn’t believe in “positive” rights i.e. entitlements, such as a “right to education,” or a “right to health care,” or otherwise a right (or entitlement) to have something provided to one by others.

Throughout the years, I have seen utter contempt from both the left and the conservatives for the Ninth Amendment. The collectivist majoritarian-moralist anti-private property judge Robert Bork, who thankfully was voted down by the U.S. Senate for Supreme Court, arrogantly called the Ninth Amendment an “inkblot.” His contempt for private property included statements such as, if the majority of a community were anguished by a private behavior within someone’s home (albeit voluntary and consenting), then the majority of the community had a legitimate right or power to legislate against such behavior (within someone’s own private property), and have the armed government police enforce that legislation.

But the Ninth Amendment really is the part of the Bill of Rights that most protects the right of self-ownership of the individual, in my view. Many people believe that if a “right” is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then therefore it is not a right. Nope. And as I wrote in my previous post, the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are rights that are not given to us by government, by rights that we have inherently that government may not violate. Those rights are unalienable rights that ALL human beings have, and which apply to all people, not just American citizens. A lot of people don’t like that idea, because they view the importance of “citizenship” like a membership in a private, exclusive club. They are collectivists who believe in a common, community ownership of the entire territory as though it is a large parcel of private property not to be trespassed by outsiders.

And as far as private property rights are concerned, if I were a business owner and I received an application for employment from someone, part of my private property rights is the right to invite that applicant onto my property and into my business and if I think he’s the best one for the job I will have him stay there and employ him, from wherever he comes from. When the immigration restrictionists want to interfere with those private property rights, they are saying that they don’t believe in private property rights, as well as freedom of contract and freedom of association. You have to either believe that the property owner has full absolute sovereignty and authority over his own property or, if you believe that the owner must get a bureaucrat’s approval of whom to invite on one’s own property, then you are acknowledging your belief that the ultimate owner of the property is not the official owner as written on paper, but the government. There’s no grey area there, it’s either-or.

And as far as self-ownership is concerned, if you believe that a traveler must get a bureaucrat’s approval to travel, or where one may travel or not, then you can’t claim to believe in the idea of self-ownership, but that the ultimate owner of the people is the government. And I believe that the Ninth Amendment protects both private property rights and the rights of the individual to self-ownership.

U.S. Government’s Immoral and Unconstitutional Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments next term regarding Donald Trump’s immoral travel ban, his order to ban those wanting to travel to the U.S. from several countries that all happen to be Muslim majority countries. Another reaffirmation by nine robed bureaucrats that America is not about individualism, unalienable rights and private property, but about collectivism and the supremacy of central planning.

The Declaration of Independence is perfectly clear in its support of “unalienable rights,” especially the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are rights that all people have inherently, rights which preexist the formation of any government. That is why they are called “unalienable.” If you believe in the concept of unalienable rights, then you would believe that people have a right to live, a right to own and control their own lives, and a right to liberty which I believe is the right to live free of the aggression, intrusion and violation of one’s person or property by others.

There are some people who believe that those rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are rights that U.S. citizens have based on their citizenship, or based on their membership to a particular political union. I’ve heard many of those people, mainly conservatives or “constitutional conservatives,” on talk radio talking about “unalienable rights” in one breath and then in the next breath saying that “only citizens” have those rights. Sadly, they don’t seem to see foreigners as having the same unalienable human rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as American citizens have. (Then they would have to admit that they really don’t believe in “unalienable” rights, and that they believe that only government-granted citizenship gives people their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. More cognitive dissonance.)

And I even heard “liberal” law professor Alan Dershowitz interviewed on the Mike Gallagher radio show, in which Dershowitz stated that foreigners don’t have constitutional rights, or the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners.

Well, the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, enumerates only some of the specific rights that people — all people — have, that can be under the category of the “rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights that government is granting people. No, rather it is a recognition of some of the unalienable rights that all people have, rights which preexist the government, and it is a set of rules that government must follow and that the government must not violate those rights of the people.

For instance, the Bill of Rights refers to the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects. If you agree with the concept of unalienable rights, you would have to acknowledge that ALL human beings have a right to be secure, a right that their persons not be molested, aggressed against by others including bureaucrats and their enforcers. And ALL human beings would then have a right that their personal effects, their personal property not be molested or violated by others.

As part of our rights to life and liberty, we all have a right to due process. Those who are accused of some violation against others have a right to require the accuser to bring evidence against the accused and prove it, openly, and the accused has a right to bring witnesses or evidence on his behalf as well. Many in America do not believe in that. They believe that government bureaucrats including Presidents can or should have the power to accuse individuals with no basis to back up their accusation, and tie the accused up, torture him, imprison him, or execute him, without trial, without due process. Those people, including former “Speaker” Newt Gingrich, do not believe in unalienable rights.

The Bill of Rights is not perfect. Some of the wording really sucks, such as the 2nd and 5th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment should just recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period. No reason for that other stuff. (The writers don’t define “militia,” or “regulated.” Not good.) The 5th Amendment says that government may not take your property for public use without just compensation, implying that “government may take your property in the absence of a voluntary contract, as long as the compensation is just.” So the 5th Amendment empowers the government to steal people’s property.

Anyway, people think like collectivists now, and it’s sickening. For instance, when government bureaucrats impose a ban on others traveling to wherever, others coming from specific areas in other parts of the world, that certainly is a policy of collectivism.

In other words, in the context of unalienable rights to life and liberty, if you don’t suspect someone of having violated the person or property of another, you morally don’t have the right or authority to interfere with that presumably innocent individual’s life, his liberty, his freedom of movement, freedom of association, his right to travel and right to seek a better life for himself and his family.

Leave innocent people alone. Presumption of innocence is a very important concept in a civilized society.

And we see in these terrible, inhuman policies America’s worship of central planning. Banning whole groups of people just because they happen to come from some certain area? According to the New York Times, “those challenging the travel ban said the court’s opinion would protect the vast majority of people seeking to enter the United States to visit a relative, accept a job, attend a university or deliver a speech. The court said the ban could not be imposed on anyone who had ‘a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States’.”

So, you really expect government bureaucrats — central planners — to determine who is coming to “visit a relative, accept a job, attend a university or deliver a speech”? No, if someone isn’t suspected of some kind of violation of the person or property of another, it’s no one else’s business what his purpose of travel is.

I know, collectivists who don’t believe in unalienable rights of the individual to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness don’t agree with me on that one.

Now, if you’re concerned that someone might try to come here to commit “jihad,” or some act of violence against innocents, and given that most such people have expressed U.S. foreign policy as a motivation for their retaliation, then tell our government to stop invading, occupying and bombing those other countries that it has been doing for decades and decades, since well before 9/11/2001, and stop murdering the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that our government and military have been doing for decades and decades. Ya think? You see, people don’t like it when foreign regimes like the one in Washington invade and bomb their countries, and so they retaliate. (Duh.) And worse, our government has been committing these criminal acts of violence against people of an extremely primitive, repressive culture over there in the Middle East and Asia. So poking already-barbaric hornets’ nests will be counter-productive, no? And that is why some people really believe that all this stuff, the U.S. invasions overseas for decades against the Muslim countries, has been because the planners knew that the Islamic-centered jihadi retaliation would be the kind of response to our government’s invasion that the invaders would get. George H.W. Bush was a CIA guy, after all. Prior to his 1991 war in Iraq that he started for no good reason, CIA-man Bush had to have meticulous knowledge of those cultures and given how primitive they were to see how easily manipulable they would be. And we can go back to the CIA’s installation of the Shah and their support of SAVAK in Iran from the 1950s to 1979. Yes, this crap goes way back.

So, in my view, it is immoral to interfere with or violate the lives of innocent people who are not suspected of anything, and the U.S. Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights does or should protect ALL human beings, regardless of where they’re from, or what country they are a “citizen” of.

The Real Putin?

I haven’t seen the Oliver Stone interviews of Vladimir Putin, but Justin Raimondo highlights some interesting revelations from the first interview, and Raimondo states that he will write more on this as a series. Raimondo notes that in the interview Putin conveys that he is not in favor of “restoring the old Soviet Union” as he has been accused by propagandists of wanting to do. Putin actually is a proponent of private property, and the problem he had with Gorbachev’s reforms was — and this in some way is also articulated by ex-Soviet bureaucrat turned dissident Yuri Maltsev — the people who were most resistant of privatization were the cronies who were really resistant of letting go of their government controls and fiefdoms (sounds like the typical bureaucrats and hacks here in good ol’ USA). For instance, Raimondo quotes Putin:

Do you know who was not happy with the new laws [which opened up the bidding process for state-owned industries]? Those who were not true businessmen. Those who earned their millions or billions not thanks to their entrepreneurial talents, but thanks to their ability to force good relationships with the government – those people were not happy.

Gosh, how I wish so-called “free-market capitalists” here in the U.S. and “conservative” Republicans had such an understanding of those things. Oh, well.

Raimondo seems to conclude that Putin is actually pro-America, certainly more pro-America than the propagandists of the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the two major political parties Republicrat and Demopublican. But that is not the image we apparently have of Putin coming from the aforementioned propagandists.

It could be that those American propagandists on both left and right are not as much pro-America as they are pro-government.

From this interview of Putin it seems apparent that perhaps Putin really does have an understanding of (and appreciation for) free markets and private ownership of the means of production, far more than the typical “conservative” dimwit political hack I hear everyday on with Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher. These days, it really seems that the morons in Washington would prefer full communism than a society of free exchange and private property rights, as we can see form the ongoing debate over “health care” (whatever that means any more).

Raimondo also gets into the topic of who attempted to assassinate Putin, supposedly five times. Obviously, in my view, it’s the CIA, because if there is anyone who already has an idea of Putin’s pro-America, pro-free market and private property sentiments (that prior to this interview most of us had never heard before), it would be the CIA. From all their spying, they must know everything about Putin! Like most other government bureaucrats, they probably also favor communism rather than a free society, because a free society (free of government intrusions, etc.) takes power away from them!

One thing I disagree with Putin on in that interview is his speaking favorably of then-President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 invasion of Iraq. That was a big mistake, a criminal act, a war crime, and along with sanctions it was a large contributor to the motivations that led to 9/11.

Conservatives Need to Stop Supporting Immoral Government Policies

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Conservatives Need to Stop Supporting Immoral Government Policies:

June 26, 2017

A few years ago, Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote about the intellectual incoherence of conservatism, but he was only touching the surface, as far as I’m concerned. Now, I’m conservative in the social and cultural area, but I do have a sense of consistency when it comes to morality and recognizing the immorality and evil of government. Most conservatives do not seem to have that consistency, it seems to me.

Conservatives are constantly railing the “left,” the irrationality and nonsense on college campuses, and some government programs. And usually when Democrats like Obama are in charge, conservatives criticize the government. But when Republicans like Donald Trump or George W. Bush are in charge, conservatives love government.

Oh, the conservatives on talk radio are so excited about Karen Handel winning her election to Congress from Georgia. Well, the truth is that nothing she does or says will change anything in any significant way. That is because she supports the system of central planning and government confiscation of private wealth, just like most conservatives.

For example, Wikipedia notes that Handel supported Tom Price’s bill to replicate ObamaCare with some nips and tucks, and she supports the “American Health Care Act,” i.e. RepubliCare. She does not support free markets in health care. She doesn’t recognize that central planning in medical care is what has doomed medical care in America, including Medicare and Medicaid.

Conservatives have to stop it with their continued limp-wristedness when it comes to saying they support “free markets,” private property rights and free association, but then promote taxation (involuntary transactions, which are immoral, equal to a robber ordering you to fork over your money), and centrally-planned governmental intrusions into people’s private lives.

As long as we continue to have a system that relies on involuntary payments or confiscations of private wealth or income of the workers and producers of society, we will continue to have bureaucrats and their minions and corporate cronies living high off the hog at the expense of the people’s labor, all based on theft and plunder.

So get rid of the theft, restore private property rights, and you will no longer be complaining about all the abuses of ObamaCare, RepubliCare, government grants for medical “research,” IRS targeting Christians and conservatives, FBI targeting anti-war protesters, the parasite warmongers, CIA funding of ISIS, NSA spying on innocents, you name it, it will ALL be gone when the government’s power to steal, rob, loot, burglarize and embezzle the people’s wealth and income is removed.

Only allow government “work” or programs to be voluntarily funded by the people. Programs, including in the “security” area, that are lacking voluntary funding will be eliminated.

Only a fool would voluntarily pay his hard-earned money to fund FBI keeping dossiers on innocent people or FBI infiltrating mosques to motivate young Muslims to commit jihad. And only a fool would voluntarily pay for TSA molesting you or cancer-scanning you at the gate, or pay for ATF agents gun-running to Mexican drug lords, or pay to fund ANY form of health care central planning that only creates chaos, no?

I thought theft was immoral, conservatives. Why do conservatives continue to rationalize and support theft? They also rationalize murder. And no, by and large they are not “pro-life,” and they support the targeting and murder of innocent human beings. I don’t know how many times the notion of “war” is brought up to rationalize the intentional bombing and murder of innocents, such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo and Dresden during World War II, or Vietnam or Iraq. “Well, the little Japanese child who was murdered in Hiroshima is in part responsible for his rulers bombing Pearl Harbor — and in order to save the life of a U.S. soldier, it is acceptable to murder a little child who never harmed anyone.” You know, rationalizations such as that disgusting bunch of stuff.

And now we have the Nudnik-in-Chief who wants to make it more acceptable to murder more innocents with the drone strikes that he has been immorally authorizing since January 20th, according to Activist Post. And according to AFP, U.S. government-led air strikes are killing more civilians per month than they were previously. Retired Army JAG Major Todd Pierce discusses Douglas Valentine’s new book The CIA as Organized Crime. I don’t know how much longer those who claim to believe in “moral values” can continue to support a military/security system that’s based on central planning and involuntary tax-thefts. It’s disgusting.

And they love their new attorney general, Jeff Sessions and his vicious wars on immigration and drugs. The conservatives love Soviet-like central planning when it comes to the immigration issue. (They’ll deny that, of course.) For instance, they love “e-Verify.” Businessmen have to get the gubmint’s permission to employ a worker. And workers have to get the bureaucrat’s permission to get employment.

So really, in America the U.S. government is the ultimate owner of the businesses, not the businessmen. Sadly, there is this collectivistic obsession with government borders. Nationalists want the government to control the lives of the peopleall the people, foreigners and citizens alike, it seems to me. (They’ll deny that, of course.)

But in a system of private property and free-market capitalism, whoever actually started or built a business with his own capital and investment, or with the voluntary investment of others, is the actual owner of that business, not the government. And workers from anywhere may find work with willing and consenting employers, without the permission of central-planning bureaucrats. Sadly, conservatives tend to be with the central-planning socialists on this immigration issue. (Talk about cognitive dissonance!)

And attorney general Sessions may very well be stepping up enforcement of federal drug laws even in states in which the voters approved legalizing marijuana. And I thought that conservatives supported “states’ rights.” I guess not, when it comes to marijuana or other drugs.

Now, if you prefer the communist way of thinking, then the government owns your life including your body. You must get the government’s permission on what you may or may not put into your body. In communism, the government owns the means of production. Not just industry, capital and property, but the “means of production” also includes the people, and that includes their bodies with which to perform the labor that the government also owns.

However, if you own your own body, then you are the ultimate decider on what you will put into your own body. But you must then accept the consequences of your own decisions and actions. That’s another thing with conservatives, they don’t believe in personal responsibility. They believe that people must get the government’s permission on what chemicals they may or may not ingest.

And Sessions says that pot is “dangerous.” But so is alcohol. How many people are dying on the roads and highways because of drunk drivers? How many people are slowly killing themselves with alcohol-related liver disease and cancer and dementia? (“No, no, I gotta have my booze! Don’t touch mah booooze!!” they cry.) So the gubmint ended Prohibition in 1933, but they then transferred that prohibition (and its subsequent black market and the underground’s associated criminal gangsters) from alcohol over to “drugs.” And how’s that working out? (Psst. Not good.)

There is a moral case for drug freedom, as Laurence Vance pointed out.

And regular cigarettes are also dangerous. They result in many deaths. And junk food, and too much sugar or salt in the diet, and so on. So, I thought that conservatives were against the “nanny state.” But when it comes to “drugs,” they love the nanny state. The police state, that is.

And then there’s the death penalty, “well we have to balance possibly prosecuting and State-killing an innocent person with a possible murderer killing more innocent people.” Like, “two wrongs make a right” or something. (And the conservatives make fun of the left’s irrationality!) As Paul Craig Roberts pointed out this week, Republicans are just as much for persecuting and prosecuting innocents as Democrats.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2017

U.S. Out of Korea (China, Japan, Persian Gulf, Middle East, etc.)

A 22-year-old American college student named Otto Warmbier went over to North Korea, and supposedly was caught stealing a propaganda poster and sentenced to prison. At some later point he was returned to the U.S. in a coma, and has now died.

I heard warmonger Mark Davis on the radio saying that because of the North Korean regime’s murder of an American, therefore the U.S. military must bomb a North Korean military installation. That’s a typical response of the typical American neocon. (Davis was filling in Tuesday for another neocon, Hugh Hewitt.)

No, the right thing to do would be to remove all U.S. troops and military bases from South Korea. Their presence there is a provocation to North Korea. Unfortunately the True Believers in American Exceptionalism don’t see our government’s occupations of foreign lands as provocations. They have some sort of entitlement mentality, in which because the U.S. rules the world, thus our government is entitled to place its apparatus anywhere in the world it wants.

But the cognitive dissonance comes in when the True Believers oppose foreign military presence near the U.S. What would happen if Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea had military ships going along the U.S. coasts? Wouldn’t that seem like a “provocation”? Or their placing military bases in Cuba or Mexico?

When a Russian spy ship was less than 30 miles off the U.S. east coast last March, the new U.S. President Trump stated: “The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles offshore right out of the water.” Of course he didn’t do that, because, according to the article, Russia has had ships off the U.S. coast for the past several years and even at 17 miles they are still within international waters.

But I don’t think that the True Believers see any comparison to The Donald (and his fellow American Exceptionalists) expressing a perception that Russia is “provoking” and Trump’s wanting to shoot at them, to North Korea perceiving U.S. troops and bases in South Korea as “provocations.”

To show how arrogant and narcissistic the True Believers in American Exceptionalism are, when U.S. military are trespassing, loitering or just plain fiddlin’ and diddlin’ off the coast of Iran, and the Iranians made “provocative maneuvers around a U.S. destroyer” and other U.S. ships, one of the U.S. ships fired warning shots! “How dare you interfere with our provocations off your coast, Iran!” How DARE they, as Al Gore would say.

Reuters: U.S. warship challenges China’s claims in South China Sea, Fox News: Chinese warships spotted off Alaska coast reportedly passed through US waters. In my view, they’re all nuts, these governments and their invasive, trespassing bureaucrats.

You see, when those who are a part of an “enemy,” or non-ally, are getting too close, that might seem invasive, or an act of provocation. So the North Koreans remember all the U.S. military bombings and thousands and thousands of tons of napalm dropped and all the civilian North Korean deaths caused by the U.S. military during the 1950s, and so the North Koreans have felt threatened by the stationing of U.S. troops and bases in South Korea.

So get the U.S. military out of South Korea, because they are invasive and don’t belong there, just as they don’t belong in Japan or the Middle East and other parts of the world that are not U.S. territories.

It might also be a good idea for tourists such as Otto Warmbier to not take unnecessary risks such as traveling to other countries whose regimes are dangerous or tyrannical, like that of North Korea, and who are constantly threatened by belligerent U.S. bureaucrats.

A Past Article on Biased News Media’s Role in the Regime

Besides my 2014 article on the entertainment industry’s pro-Obama bias that I reposted in my previous post, another 2014 article of mine described how the New York Times, CBS, and Fox, et al. were all “part of the Regime.” And I will repost that one here as well. Both articles are relevant to what we are seeing exposed now, the media’s rank propaganda, corruption and dishonesty.

The New York Times, CBS and Fox, et al – They’re ALL Part of the Regime

January 30, 2014

Copyright 2014 (Link to article)

Recently the Ludwig von Mises Institute received a visit from a New York Times reporter. Lew Rockwell politely asked him to leave, referring to the reporter as “part of the regime.”

The New York Times‘ subsequent article* was mainly intended to be about Sen. Rand Paul, but really it was a hit piece on the Mises Institute and libertarianism in general.

I think that Lew Rockwell was right to correctly identify a scribbler for a long-time distributor of State press releases.

And given the Times‘ past efforts at pro-Democrat Party influence, one can suggest that this hit piece, with assertions made without facts to back them up, may have been intended with the 2016 Presidential race in mind.

But the New York Times is not only a propaganda sheet for the Democrat Party, but for the State, as we saw many years ago with the NYT‘s cover-up of Soviet genocide in the Ukraine. More recently have been the Times‘ aiding and abetting the war on Iraq, its push for medical fascism, a.k.a. ObamaCare, and other campaigns for State expansion.

In fact, the NYT has been a “propaganda megaphone” for war. There have also been the NYT‘s collusion with the CIA and Obama Administration on the handling of Hollywood’s use of Zero Dark Thirty to promote Obama’s reelection bid, the NYT’s conspiring with Obama flunkies to justify the murder of alleged terrorist supporter Anwar al-Awlaki (after the fact), the NYT‘s unjustifiably withholding information on behalf of Bush officials and withholding stories to cover up for CIA misdeeds (yet reveals military secrets on its front page on behalf of regime parasites), and the NYT‘s propaganda for war on Iran.

Could there be any more rhetorical question than asking whether the New York Times is “part of the regime”?

But it isn’t just the New York Times. We can compare CBS’s harsh interrogation of regime critic Ron Paul to CBS’s love-fest with then-Defense Sec. Leon Panetta.

We can also look at the news media‘s criticism of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. And the media’s pro-military criticism of an actual investigative journalist as well, the late Michael Hastings, regarding his Rolling Stone article on the military’s use of psy-ops on U.S. senators and, in some cases reporters acting as Pentagon spokespeople in criticizing Hastings in his article on retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

But back to the New York Times, the paper of State worship and Regime deference. One of its authoritarian statist columnists, David Brooks, seems to think that Americans aren’t deferential enough to authority.

In Brooks’s differentiation between just and unjust authority he refers to Presidents Lincoln and FDR as apparently just authority.

And Brooks refers to the “Question Authority” crowd as seeing public servants as being “in it for themselves” (which they are, most of them), and that we are arrogant to question the legitimacy of the central planners of the ruling elites. Perhaps Brooks might try reading Ludwig von Mises’s Socialism and Planned Chaos, for a bit of de-programming.

And contrary to the Mises Institute’s promotion of Austrian economics, the Times‘ alleged economist, Paul Krugman promotes the Keynesian way of life that has caused America’s decline over the past century. Krugman lives by Keynesianism, which consists of policies of selfishness, irresponsibility and immediate gratification, yet he calls those who are against central planning and who believe in sound money to be of the “extreme fringe.” Go figure.

I think that Brooks and Krugman adequately reflect the statist authoritarian mindset of the Times‘ editors in general. But such promotion of statism and militarism seems to have found its way into the slanted news coverage as well.

So with the Times, and most of the other mainstream media outlets, the State and its central planners are good and decent, but those who love liberty, not so much.

One problem with many amongst the news media and the Left is a short-sightedness which really characterizes the American population in general. This is part of the society’s decline since the turn of the 20th Century and FDR’s New Deal especially, and is part of an emotionalistic idolizing of the State (and its central planning bureaucrats) as society’s replacement parents. An example of the short-sightedness is the Times editorial board’s response to Barack Obama’s recent State of the Union address.

But this Regime-supporting authoritarianism isn’t just on the part of those on the Left. The conservatives love the State as well, hence the shallow, unthinking support for the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, which was wrong and based on lies, and for war on Iraq, also based on lies. For some reason, statists on both sides seem to see patriotism as supporting your government even when the government’s actions are wrong. In my view, they need to grow up and try to think for themselves.

So when the State’s critics make their criticisms known, for many people it is as though someone has criticized their mom or dad, it’s deeply personal and not only do the State’s defenders run to the State’s defense but they also tend to childishly run to slander the State’s critics.

But how do the news media such as the New York Times continue to enjoy such good standing in the eyes of so many people? Why do so many of them act is sycophants for the State? As Hans-Hermann Hoppe observed,

As an anti-intellectual intellectual, one can expect bribes to be offered — and it is amazing how easily some people can be corrupted: a few hundred dollars, a nice trip, a photo-op with the mighty and powerful are all too often sufficient to make people sell out.

But as far as why mainstream media outlets continue to lie and distort information, propagandize on behalf of corrupt politicians, banksters and military leaders, many such “journalists” probably do have a gullible and naive blind faith in their leaders despite the destruction such leaders have caused.

Or perhaps the scribblers and babblers really are fearful that what happened to James Risen, James Rosen, Audrey Hudson, and Michael Hastings, among others, may also happen to them. Who knows?

But in their devotion to the State, yes, sadly many amongst the “Fourth Estate” really are just another part of the Regime.

So Lew Rockwell was right to cordially request the New York Times reporter to vamoose, to leave the premises of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an institution obviously not friendly to the statist paradigm of the New York Times‘ beloved central planning regime.

*Note: The link to the actual NYT article is here. (I neglected to include it in this article. Sorry about that.)

A Past Article on the Entertainment Industry’s Extreme Bias

I had this article on in 2014, and thought that its telling of how the entertainment industry showed an extreme bias for leftist politicians like Obama, was relevant to today’s exposure of news and entertainment media’s bias against conservatives, libertarians, and their much-hated Trump.

On Criticizing Our Dear Leader and Speaking Truth to Power (March 8, 2014)

Copyright 2014 (Link to article)

Readers already know about the Obama Administration’s wars: the war on freedom of speech, the war on political dissent, the war on journalism, and the war on whistleblowers.

And we now have treacherous judges who are willfully defending the government’s censorship of the people, as John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute wrote about recently.

But not only has Obama been cracking down on free speech, he has also been a part of the larger structure of the government-corporate apparatus which benefits the real “1%”.

In my view, “The Powers That Be” consist mainly of the world-wide government bureaucrats and their respective corporate parasites. Besides Obama, TPTB seem to be getting very agitated by various truth-tellers and critics of the Regime.

And thanks in large part to Obama’s dictatorial abuse of governmental powers, the U.S. has dropped to #46 in world press freedoms. “America” is hardly recognizable now as the “bastion of freedom” it once was.

Besides the sycophantic and propagandistic news media and journalists, the entertainment industry is also plagued with government infiltration and censorship. Hollywood’s propagandizing on behalf of Obama’s reelection and excusing torture with Zero Dark Thirty was one example, and the Obama Administration’s openly teaming up with Hollywood to promote ObamaCare is another.

But Jay Leno’s termination from NBC may have been an even more blatant example of elitists’ punishment for criticizing the Regime.

Despite continually high ratings, Jay Leno’s many years as Tonight Show host was ended by NBC. Some people actually believe that his being canned was to do with his stinging criticisms and mocking of President Barack Obama in this past year.

Infowars, suggesting recently that Obama is attempting to seize control of the entertainment industry, provided several video excerpts as examples of Leno’s Obama jokes which could have provoked a possibly overly sensitive President.

Besides those videos on Infowars, here is another excerpt of Jay Leno telling jokes mocking the Obama Administration:

Even Johnny Carson’s longtime head writer, Raymond Siller, weighs in on the controversy, apparently agreeing with the view that Obama or his close minions directed Leno’s heave-ho, stating that, “With his pen and phone, our selfie-absorbed president is one whacked uncle away from appointing himself Supreme Leader.” Siller also speculated that other late-night comedians are soft on Obama out of fear of being called a racist.

Well, I guess the late-night comedians really have curbed their Obama jokes, but it’s probably not as much to do with fearing the “racist” label as with being unthinking, obedient leftist sheeple.

I searched online for possible David Letterman Obama jokes and couldn’t find any. Is Letterman even on TV anymore? Oh wait, I did find this one recent joke about Obama’s Syria “red line” remark. It’s not particularly critical of Obama, just typical Letterman goofy.

But why are times different now than they were, say, 30 years ago? From what I can remember, Johnny Carson made jokes about Ronald Reagan all the time. In fact, here is Carson joking about his joking about Ronald Reagan:

But Carson didn’t seem to get the pink slip over it.

And during the 1970s, comedian Rich Little made fun of, impersonated and mocked Richard Nixon, on the Tonight Show, Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, even Hollywood Squares. Nothing particularly controversial there. No firing, no blacklisting, etc. (Although it is true that Nixon had an “enemies list,” but Rich Little wasn’t on it.)

And Lenny Bruce was arrested several times for violating “obscenity” laws, and was banned from several venues. Unlike Rich Little and Lenny Bruce, however, it may have been Jay Leno’s popularity nation-wide and his influence with the younger crowd in which his stinging criticisms may have troubled the Dear Leader.

But there may be more to this than just a possible Obama influence in the firing of Jay Leno, on the corporate side. NBC, which had been employing Leno for may years, is now fully owned by Comcast, as of March, 2013.

Apparently, Comcast employees and Comcast Corp PACs contributed over $300,000 to the Obama for President 2012 campaign, according to Infowars and But that could be the case with most big corporations. (Wait, it might be more than that.)

Also according to, “86 out of 107 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs.” Talk about a revolving door. And NBC itself does have a history of acting as shills for the Obama agenda.

Now, I don’t know if NBC’s terminating of Jay Leno was a direct influence by Obama who doesn’t like being criticized by a popular celebrity, or a move by corporate honchos acting as Obama flunkies. It may have been just another stupid TV exec decision. (TV execs make a lot of stupid decisions, you know.)

And no, it’s not just a “liberal” thing, as was shown by Fox News’ treatment of Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck.

But here is another example of possible corporate media State-servility. If you’re a late night person or an early morning person (I happen to get up very early myself), then chances are you probably have heard of Coast to Coast on the radio. If you are a regular listener, then you might have noticed that the program’s weekend host, John B. Wells, has not been on the air for a while.

Apparently, Wells was fired from Coast to Coast, despite very high ratings, even higher ratings than its weeknight host George Noory, according to Common Sense Show host Dave Hodges.

Wells has the distinctively deep voice and, as a Coast to Coast host, Wells has interviewed NSA whistleblower William Binney, health freedom advocate Ty Bollinger, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, political strategist Roger Stone, and the late Rolling Stone investigative journalist Michael Hastings, among others.

The Wells firing by Coast to Coast came just two months after Wells appeared with Alex Jones at a big JFK assassination anniversary protest in Dallas.

To remind everyone how tolerant the Rulers are of political dissent, Dallas officials threatened to shut down protests and attempted to suppress the free speech rights of those who dissent — those who don’t believe the Regime-approved official story of the Oswald “lone gunman” theory.

Now, after all the information, testimony and thorough analyses that have been available for 50 years, how can anyone really believe the Warren Commission’s report? Of course challengers of the official narrative have a right to express their views!

So could Wells’s appearance at the Dallas event really have caused that much concern for Coast to Coast producers, its distributor Premier Networks, or Premier’s owner Clear Channel? Who knows? Maybe not. Hodges did assert that Clear Channel has a history of “censorship,” however.

But the fact is, a high ratings-getter was taken off the air for apparently no good reason.

You see, when people go against the Regime, question the Regime’s official judgments, or criticize the Regime’s puppets, it’s bye-bye to them.

So, with Jay Leno, Judge Napolitano, Glenn Beck and John B. Wells, I’m really not sure what to make of corporations who are willing to lose their profits either because of bad executive decision-making, or for the sake of helping to propagandize the Rulers’ power grabs and stifling of dissent.

Capitalism in America used to involve privately owned industries making it a number one priority to serve the consumers. Coinciding with that was the freedom to earn a profit as well as a basic living providing such service. Perhaps Ayn Rand referred to the rational self-interest of traders, but the whole thing, to me, is just common sense.

But when the businessperson sacrifices one’s own self-interest, and not even to genuinely help others but to serve the interests of government bureaucrats, power-grabbers, and parasitic misfits, then such behavior is thoroughly irrational, self-destructive, and further contributes to the eventual break-down of society, in my view.

Recent Articles on CIA Insanity, Criminality and Hooliganism has this article by Brianna Nofil on how a CIA obsession with “brain warfare” led to appalling human experiments.

Charles Burris has this article on, including a video by Melissa Dykes, on CIA’s “MK-ULTRA” mind control program, and the CIA’s illegal domestic intrusions and surveillance.

Activist Post with an article by Rachel Blevins on the CIA running a covert drug smuggling airline.

And Jon Rappoport with an article on Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods, noting the CIA connection to Amazon.

More Interesting Articles and Issues

The Daily Caller has this long list of attacks by thugs and marauders on conservatives and Trump supporters. (Meanwhile, late last year Daily Caller had this list of “hate crimes” or harassment by Trump supporters that turned out to be false accusations or hoaxes. And don’t forget all the Jewish Community Center bomb threats that it turned out they were allegedly perpetrated by a 19-year-old American-Israeli hacker located in Israel. But people tend to believe the media’s hysterical fake news.)

A judge has convicted a young lady of involuntary manslaughter because she encouraged, by texts and phone calls, her then-teenaged boyfriend to commit suicide (he did). So the judge, appointed by former Gov. Deval Patrick (shock!), believed that words can be responsible for killing someone. This is another legal decision against freedom of speech, and another example of our society’s further relieving people of responsibility for their own actions. The boy committed suicide by his own free will. Just because someone tells you to do something that doesn’t mean you do it. Regardless of what she said to him, he nevertheless chose to kill himself. (See Walter Block on “incitement.”) The ACLU is right to oppose this decision, as do most lawyers who have commented on this case. The young lady should not have waived her right to a jury trial, because there would have been at least several jurors with common sense who would not have voted her guilty, unlike the idiot judge. (Have I mentioned that the judge was appointed by another idiot, Deval Patrick?)

Justin Raimondo says that Mexico is the real threat, not Russia. He says legalizing drugs won’t solve the problem, but legalizing all drugs will effect in the cartels and drug lords no longer having any “business,” which thrives on the prohibition of drugs. Yes, organized crime gangsters continued after the alcohol Prohibition ended many years ago, but I don’t think you can compare the two situations. The drug war also consists of U.S. government agencies’ complicity in the trafficking and smuggling. The whole drug prohibition thing is a racket.

Don Boudreaux says that economists are not therapists.

Jack Burns reports on another unbelievable school-related police drill that was conducted without saying it was a drill. (Who would do these things?)

Dave Bohon writes about Ontario’s new law to take children away from parents who oppose “gender expression.” (That’s disgusting, and criminal. Like everyone else, parents have a right to freedom of thought and conscience. People shouldn’t be punished for believing the truth about gender confused persons.)

Phillip Nelson discusses the Israeli military’s attack on the USS Liberty.

Washington’s Blog asks, Will the mainstream media ever report on false flags? (Me asks: What about real ones, like the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty?)

Ron Paul asks, Why are the U.S. government and its military attacking the Syrians who are fighting ISIS?

Gareth Porter says that the long war in Afghanistan, that George W. Bush started for no good reason, has been self-serving for the officers and bureaucrats.

Tony Cartalucci writes that Tehran was always the U.S. government’s and thus the Islamic State’s final destination.

Ray McGovern discusses hiding the ugly business of torture.

Aaron Nelson on the U.S. military’s own secret brand of fake news.

Bionic Mosquito criticizes “libertarians” who support a universal basic income.

Chris Calton has this article on natural law libertarianism.

Darius Shahtahmasebi discusses where the U.S. ranks on the list of most peaceful nations in the world.

Catherine Frompovich writes about mandatory vaccinations.

Bill Sardi on starving cancer cells out of existence.

And Kalee Brown on mainstream media and Big Pharma’s false health claims.