Skip to content

Tag: drug war

Nobody Is Running for Governor of New Hampshire

There is a candidate for governor of New Hampshire that I thought you might find of interest, especially if you live in New Hampshire and want to oust the current fascist governor, Chris Sununu, who ordered businesses closed for no good reason, just like all the other fascist governors throughout the country.

The candidate who is running against Sununu in the Republican primary is someone named Nobody. Apparently, Nobody legally changed his name from Richard Paul to “Nobody” last year for the purposes of “performance art and protest,” according to his statement in the court.

And while Nobody is running in the Republican primary, there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, Darryl Perry, who I had praised in my scathing critique of the Libertarian Party in 2016. At that time Perry was running for President, but now running for governor of New Hampshire. Unfortunately, his platform seems kind of wishy-washy. That’s just my view on that.

So, if I were living in New Hampshire, I would vote for Nobody, though I am uncomfortable with the marijuana stuff. But, whatever.

Nobody’s main issue is ending the War on Drugs, which he had personally been a victim of. And the corrupt criminal injustice system, false arrests, and so on.

In the video below is Nobody filing for his Declaration of Candidacy for governor against fascist Chris Sununu in the New Hampshire Republican primary at the Secretary of State’s office which is set up outside (being outside presumably because of the ongoing scamdemic-caused hysteria and panic).

Nobody eloquently quotes the Declaration of Independence because obviously he has a very good understanding of it. (Quite the opposite from Chris Sununu, the son of a previous fascist governor of New Hampshire.) Nobody says that instead of government being the chief protector of our rights, government has become the chief violator of our rights. “Government does things that nobody should do, and I want to get into office and refuse to do them.”

Amen.

On his list of things to do as governor: “Release list of crooked cops.”

Yep.

Joe Biden: Corrupt Warmonger Drug-Warrior Statist

John Solomon: Debunking some of the Ukrainian scandal myths about Biden and election interference. And, Once secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story.

Natalie Dowzicky: Joe Biden: warmonger.

Brittany Hunter: Joe Biden: the architect of America’s disastrous war on drugs.

Max Blumenthal: Joe Biden fueled the Latin American migration crisis

Jonathan Turley: Joe Biden’s attempt to silence news media reports on Biden family corruption.

And Peter Schweizer: How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections.

News and Commentary

Jacob Hornberger: Drug war obtuseness.

John Whitehead on the fascist Trump administration’s plans to further militarize the government schools and further strengthen the educational police state.

Matt Agorist with more examples from Amerika’s police state in the schools: 6-year-old girl taken from school without parents’ consent, held in facility for 48 hours for tantrum.

Chris Hedges: What is happening to Julian Assange will happen to the rest of us.

Natasha Lennard: The law says Chelsea Manning must be freed from prison.

New York Post with an article on why South Bend residents are warning America about Pete Buttigieg (another fascist).

Ryan McMaken on why governments hate secession. (The above articles give us good reasons for secession!)

Robert Murphy on the green fatal conceit: why physical science can’t tell us proper policy goals.

Richard Ebeling: Happy 90th birthday, Professor Israel Kirzner!

Allan Stevo: The vile Weinstein deserves a fair trial.

And Patrick Lawrence: Mike Pompeo’s latest delusion.

Doh! Conservatives Reject Free Market Capitalism and LOVE Government Central Planning!

Especially in the immigration issue.

I was listening to one of the conservative/ultra-nationalist talk radio ditto-heads this morning, and he was once again foaming at the mouth over the immigration issue. The talk host was in full support of Donald Trump’s stepping up the nazi-like immigration police state, in which ICE and “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” storm troopers will take their S.W.A.T. goons into “sanctuary cities” to harass, terrorize, arrest or assault innocent people who have exercised their unalienable rights to freedom of movement and their right to find a better life for themselves and their families.

Regarding government-operated or funded “sanctuary cities,” they shouldn’t exist, because their operation is funded by taxpayers, i.e. involuntarily.

Instead, there should be freedom, in which volunteer organizations, charities, churches, businesses and residents should have the freedom to take people in if they want to. And they would be expected to take responsibility for their refugees, new workers, guests, etc. As long as people are peaceful. As long as no one is violating the persons or property of others, and that’s it.

When there is freedom, such sponsors, employers or benefactors would not be required to ask the government for permission, and their workers or refugees are not required to get government authorization to go to where they want to go. That is what socialist societies (such as Amerika) do. Alas, that is what “conservatives” want.

The police-state supporting conservatives are concerned about immigrants getting on government welfare. But, a society of freedom and free markets would have no government-imposed redistribution-of-wealth schemes. So the newcomers would not get on welfare, because there would be no government welfare redistribution schemes or handouts!

But most conservatives seem to be socialists, and love income taxation and redistribution just as much as liberals and progressives.

And they seem to love government central planning when it comes to labor and employment. In the immigration issue, conservatives are opposed to free markets, and love the idea of the central planners in Washington attempting to control who works where, and who may not work in Amerika or where they may not work, and whom employers may employ and may not employ.

So conservatives, at least the ones I hear on ditto-head radio, love the idea of government central planners in Washington attempting to control the movements of millions of people. Which is impossible. As Perry Como might say, it’s just impossible.

For them, foreign people have to get government authorization to enter “our” country. But that’s socialism, not freedom.

Only in a socialist society are people required to get government authorization to live their lives, have a business and employ anyone they want to employ, or to move somewhere or to work somewhere.

Contrary to what the socialist conservatives want, in a free society you just do what you want and you live wherever you want, and you buy or sell property, rent a home or work at a place of employment, as long as you are peaceful. Just don’t trespass onto the private property of others.

But conservatives say that immigrants are “breaking into our country,” and compare the whole territory to a parcel of private property. Someone coming into “our” country without government authorization is “trespassing.”

But the territory as a whole is not a parcel of private property. No one owns the territory.

However, some people say that “we” the “citizens” are the owners. No, such an assertion is a myth and just not true. if someone owns the territory, then where is the deed with our names on it? Where in the Constitution or any law is it written that “citizens” are the owners of the territory as a whole?

And who would be the actual owners? Just taxpayers? Well, what about people who work but don’t make enough to be required to pay income taxes? What about foreign non-citizens who are here and who work but do pay income taxes? Do they share in such “ownership”?

The problem with such an assertion of this communistic territorial ownership by the “citizens” (or by the government on their behalf) is that, if it really were the case, then that would negate the principle of private property. You do not really own your private property if it exists on territory that is owned by a larger population. The parcels of property are no longer individual parcels of private property, and you the “owner” have to obey the orders of the larger community as far as what you may or may not do with or on “your” property.

Therefore, the anti-immigration conservatives are big on government central planning, some kind of communal ownership of property and the police state to enforce it, and not big at all on individualism, private property rights, free markets and voluntary exchange.

So what should conservatives really support in order to extract their irrationality from their hypocritical old noggins?

If the anti-foreigner nationalist conservatives are really concerned about “illegals” getting into “our” country, or criminal gangs such as MS-13, then first get rid of all foreign aid. No more federal tax-funded aid to any other countries or governments. That means no more U.S. funding of terrorist-sympathizing or drug lord-cahooting governments in Central or South America, from which many immigrants are fleeing.

And second, end the drug war. Drug prohibition causes the black market which incentivizes low-lifes to try to get people addicted to drugs and incentivizes such low-lifes to become drug pushers and drug traffickers, and the prohibition is what creates the drug lords, the cartels, the turf wars and gangs and violence that are driving innocent people and victims in those areas to flee to the U.S. Ending the war on drugs puts all that to a stop. No more drug pushers, drug traffickers, drug lords, cartels, turf wars and gangs.

And no more drug war police state, no more immigration police state, and no more Constitution-free borders.

I wish that conservatives would get with it as far as the freedom thing goes. Re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And maybe some other points I made in this post might help them. But, their support of the police state and socialist government central planning and their opposition to and contempt for freedom is really something we can do without.

More News and Commentary

Larry Johnson with what the Horowitz report should conclude.

Zero Hedge: AG William Barr disputes major inspector general report based on evidence.

Thomas DiLorenzo: The impeachment inquiry is one big criminal campaign financing scam.

Moon of Alabama on a new study showing that “Russian trolls” did not “sow discord,” and influenced no one.

Jim Davies on continuous war.

Kelley Vlahos asks, Was Sheldon Adelson acting as bag man for CIA in the Julian Assange case?

Ron Paul with a better way to fight the drug cartels than Trump’s militarist approach.

Thomas Knapp on what the “war on terror” will look like if Trump adds Mexico’s drug cartels to the mix.

Spencer Ackerman: Trump is first to use the Patriot Act to detain a man forever.

Jacob Hornberger: The Pentagon’s destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Lawrence Reed: Why the Pilgrims abandoned common ownership for private property.

Germinal Van: Africa’s socialism is keeping it poor.

Laurence Vance on private property rights and freedom of association.

Robert Wenzel: Jared Kushner’s plan to seize massive amounts of private property in Texas.

James Bovard on Deval Patrick’s past scandals and catastrophic cover-ups.

Tom Woods comments on the assertion that using statistics means you’re “silencing women’s voices.

Caitlin Johnstone: Narrative managers faceplant in hilarious OPCW scandal spin job.

Moon of Alabama: OPCW manufactured a pretext for war by suppressing its own scientists’ research.

Doug Bandow on Tulsi Gabbard’s attacking other Democrats regarding $6.4 trillion “regime change wars.”

Andrew Moran: Central bankers have declared war on your savings.

Walter Williams discusses fraud in higher education.

And Art Carden: The struggle to get education away from the State. (Ya think? After all the above?)

Which Is Worse: The Left? Or the State?

Well, it appears that Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell will publish a new book that he describes in his article this week, Against the Left.

I think it’s a good thing to expose and critique those on the Left for their hypocrisy and ignorance, and their favoring violence over peace, and their favoring State control over freedom.

But sometimes, especially in my reading LewRockwell.com every day for years now, it seems that recently perhaps Lew has become more “Against the Left” than he is “Against the State.” It’s just my own perception, but that’s how it seems, especially with the immigration issue.

So, I’ll get my more critical points out of the way at the beginning here.

As Jacob Hornberger has pointed out many times, most recently here, the closed-border “libertarians” seem to endorse the police state on the border when it comes to immigration. What happened to free-market capitalism? And private property rights, in which a private property owner has the freedom to invite whomever he wishes onto his own private property?

And what happened to the principle of individualism? If this individual over here is not suspected of having violated the person or property of another, then you leave him alone. Period. Wha happen? Now, immigration “invasions” seem to be turning people into collectivists. (Maybe Lew has been listening to too much ditto-head talk radio?)

The closed-border libertarians don’t seem to want to bring up the reasons why there are caravans from Central America going to the southern U.S. border, which include mainly the U.S. government’s evil “War on Drugs” and the U.S. government’s aid to Central American governments who have been tyrannizing innocents in those parts.

Yes, LewRockwell.com and Lew’s own LRC blog and “Political Theatre” have had plenty of articles on the U.S. government’s prohibition of drugs and the police state that goes with it, but they seem to not make a linkage between the immigration problem and those statist policies.

And by the way, Rebecca Gordon has written on Tom Dispatch a somewhat decent article on those main causes of people fleeing those Central American countries. But an extra, made-up cause she wants to throw in there, to completely ruin her article, is “climate change.” Yes, besides the “War on Drugs” and U.S. government aid to tyrants, climate change is making people flee Central America and want to come to the U.S. And Gordon throws in this lie, citing the New York Times, that the U.S. is the “biggest carbon polluter in history,” when we know that the U.S. has become one of the least of the polluters (with a few specific exceptions like Los Angeles), certainly not as bad as China and India. But I digress.

It’s too bad the people on the Left can be very good in their anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, anti-war views, yet still cling to propaganda when it comes to their anti-capitalism, anti-progress agenda. And that’s all the “climate change” fanaticism is all about: envy, and using the powers of government to steal even more from the workers and producers of society.

So, there definitely are still some things I agree with, in Lew Rockwell’s critiques of the Left. But he doesn’t define what “the Left” actually is. I’m sure he does this in his new book that is yet to be published.

And what actually is “the Left”? And what is the “right”? I used to see it as collectivism versus individualism. But many people on the “right” today are against individualism, against the free market, and against private property. They endorse the statist drug war and its police state, the war on immigration and its police state, they love and worship government police and military (which are products of socialism, not capitalism, by the way), and they also endorse and love huge socialist government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In his article, regarding education Lew Rockwell mentions that the “young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good!…”

I think he means that the young people are not taught about the evils of socialism or communism, i.e. the State. (Maybe “the Left” = socialism?) And on LRC he posted a link to an article by Lawrence Ludlow on how much worse the government schools are now than they were 30 years ago. The emphasis is now on grade curving regardless of performance.

Education being centralized, bureaucratized and run by the government are why we have so many dumb and ignorant students being graduated from the government schools, and why so many government teachers are also dumb and ignorant. In that article, Ludlow didn’t mention affirmative action or higher education, but we see just how bad affirmative action is when a con artist like Elizabeth Warren — white as a ghost — can scam Harvard University Law School into hiring her as a professor based on her checking the “minority” box and claiming to be Native American. She should have been criminally charged with fraud.

And Ludlow did mention the transgender phenomenon. In schools, the teachers and students are encouraged or even required to use plural pronouns such as “they” instead of “he,” “him,” “her” and “she.” But this is incorrect grammar. These are schools?

No, the schools are leftist cult indoctrination centers. The evil leftists, or “cultural Marxists,” are using very personal and private sexual matters to manipulate and twist the very young people’s sense of self worth and individual identity, as well as destroy their critical thinking skills and keep them ignorant of facts, truth, knowledge and history, and attempting to prevent the young people from going on to live a healthy, functional life.

And back to Lew Rockwell. And this is probably just a minor issue, really, with Lew. In this recent interview with Mises Institute President Jeff Deist, Rockwell said, regarding Supreme Bureaucrat Brett Kavanaugh and his recent confirmation battle, “And also it’s important to see the feminists defeated. So, I’m glad he was confirmed…”

Well, Kavanaugh may have won the seat on the Supremes, and defeated the feminazis who made things up to falsely accuse him of sexual assaults, but he is NOT anti-feminist, or anti-SJW. He is one of them. As I wrote here, Kavanaugh had stated at the beginning of his confirmation hearings, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.”

What? That’s how Kavanaugh sees the “legacy” of Title IX? Are you kidding me? The true legacy of Title IX is many false accusations against innocent men at universities and colleges, professors being demoted or fired, employees being harassed or fired at workplaces…And Kavanaugh has NO idea of all this, because he spends too much time at his Washington cocktail parties, the bubble baths, and he himself has now been a VICTIM last Fall of the “legacy of Title IX”!

So, sometimes I wonder if Lew is more anti-Left than he is anti-State. He is glad that Kavanaugh was confirmed even though Kavanaugh is himself a leftist, a Big Government police statist combined with being an SJW. The worst of the worst.

Someone who is more anti-State than anti-Left would hope for Kavanaugh to be defeated, regardless of the false accusations against him.

In my view, if we had to choose between the Left or the State, I would say that we don’t need the State, and in fact we need to get rid of it, or at least the centralized State especially the U.S. government in Washington.

We need to persuade people to see the Leviathan in Washington for what it is. Even letting the fifty states have their sovereignty and independence as nation states, by way of peaceful, voluntary decentralization, would be a MUCH better start than the tyranny of enslavement we live in now.

And without the Regime in Washington, the Left would not have any power. So, we can live with a “Left” in our society, especially when those people have no power structure to grab onto and to use as an implement of totalitarian power and control over the rest of us.

And speaking of that, I also wanted to address some things in this other recent interview of Lew Rockwell by Atilla Mert Sulker. Lew says he’s “pro-nationalism.” And he says, “It’s only recently that you’re supposed to hate your homeland, and turn it over to whoever wants to come in on welfare.”

Well, I think he’s distorting things. Personally, I don’t “hate” my homeland, USA. I’m indifferent, because this “homeland” country is too big. I have no feelings toward most people in California, for example, me being from New England. (But I DO hate Connecticut, not the people, but the state in which I grew up. Now it is a communist, tax-thieving torture chamber. Who in his right mind would live there? Should I consider that my “homeland”? And love it?)

But the centralized “homeland” USA needs to be decentralized, in my view. And turning our society over “to whoever wants to come in on welfare”? This is a case against the welfare state, not against freedom of movement and people finding a better life. With no welfare state (and no income tax thefts, etc.), there would be no incentive for any would-be layabout parasites to come here.

But Rockwell also says, “And also, I notice that all the bad people in society hate nationalism, and are always denouncing it, whether it’s the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or academics, or left wingers…”

Excuse me, I am not a nationalist, and I am constantly criticizing the idea of nationalism, which is a form of authoritarian collectivism, by the way. Does that mean I’m “bad”? But I’m peaceful, a voluntaryist. I’m in my mid-50s and have never committed any criminal or violent acts against others. I’m not exactly a “left-winger” in my support of voluntary exchange, private property rights, and ending government schools.

And I do agree with Lew in that interview regarding the Libertarian Party, which has gone down hill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Lew said, “But I must say that I don’t think the L.P.’s strategy of reaching out to the far left- you have to, for example, be a feminist, to be a libertarian, or all these other things. That’s just ridiculous. But they’re much more concerned with leftism, than they are with freedom.”

Sadly, the Libertarian Partly has become the party of “social justice warriors” in which just about everything is “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. So it’s “Racist, racist, racist!” (and “Russia, Russia, Russia!” too, now) with many of those brainwashed, government school-“educated” sheeple. Just like the progressives and Democrats. The Libertarian Party needs to become the party of freedom once again, not just another party of the Left, like the Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Socialists. And that means being 100% against foreign interventionism, income taxation-theft or wealth taxation-theft, and being 100% supportive of private property rights, voluntary and free exchange, voluntary contracts, and the idea of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.

Anyway, the Left is very bad. But the State is worse. And the Left could not do nearly as much damage to us were it not for the unnecessary existence of the State, especially the evil centralized State in Washington. But a book titled Against the Left by Lew Rockwell is probably something to look forward to reading.

Democrats Debate: Who Is Most Control Freak?

The Democrats running for President had more debates this week i.e. it was a kook fest, and I didn’t watch them because I stopped watching television in the mid-1990s. But I have heard many, many excerpts all week on the radio talk shows and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

I don’t know where to start, so I’ll just start with “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg. Well, so far the name “Pete” has not been good for Presidential aspirations (see Pete Wilson and Pete du Pont for instance). Let’s hope the trend continues here.

Mayor Pete tried to use a Bible verse as well as his economic ignorance to shame opponents of the minimum wage to accept his promise to create more unemployment by increasing the minimum wage.

He also made it a racial issue. But when the minimum wage goes up, that causes employers to have to cut those entry-level, low-skilled jobs because the employers can’t afford to pay those workers a wage that’s higher than what their jobs are worth. That is why we get higher unemployment, and entire businesses closing down, when minimum wage goes up by law.

The people most affected by this government-imposed mandatory minimum wage are the teenagers and young adults who are trying to get their very first work experience, trying to get their foot in the door. And it especially affects minorities in the cities.

So Buttigieg and the other interventionists are taking opportunities away from those young people. And teenagers (and many young adults as well) don’t need a “living wage,” by the way, because they are being supported by their parents. But they do need work experience, and if they don’t have it by age 20 or 22, they shouldn’t complain about not being able to find a higher-paying job after high school or college.

I think that most of these lying, dishonest politicians actually know these facts, but they pretend otherwise just for the sake of getting people to vote for them.

And Buttigieg is the one who criticized Donald Trump for getting out of the Vietnam War, but Buttigieg didn’t criticize the Vietnam War itself! Buttigieg criticized Trump for NOT going to some foreign country to kill innocent civilians for no good reason! Meanwhile, I think that each and every young person who got out of going to Vietnam or who went to Canada to avoid it should be PRAISED! They are heroes for not going over there and killing innocent people!

But Mayor Pete is a warmonger and doesn’t see it that way. Hmm, I wonder how many innocent civilians he killed in Afghanistan, a country that HE invaded along with the rest of the U.S. military, and for no good reason. Let’s hope the answer is zero. (Unlike the young Americans who were forced to invade and bomb and murder in Vietnam involuntarily because of the draft, the modern U.S. invaders and bombers and murderers in foreign countries have been doing so voluntarily.)

Anyway, I liked hearing Tulsi Gabbard pointing out that as a prosecutor and California attorney general Kamala Harass oversaw 1,500 marijuana arrests, and that she “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so,” and that she “kept people in prison beyond their sentences to keep them as cheap labor for the state of California.”

And, I would add, Harris’s fascist anti-“truancy” law in which she arrested and jailed the parents of kids who missed too much school, i.e. were absent too many times from their mandatory government-indoctrination prison camps. (Just like the Germans, Kamala. Yay!) And just as Gabbard says that Harass laughed about jailing marijuana users, she also laughed about jailing the “truant” kids’ parents.

But there seem to be many libertarians who like Tulsi Gabbard for her looks anti-war positions, but she shows a lot of ignorance in that area as well. For instance, she says that the U.S. military shouldn’t be over in those foreign places for “regime change,” but to fight and “defeat al-Qaeda.” And she believes that Islamic fanaticism is to blame for the terrorism. So, she’s just as brainwashed as many people are since 9/11. She doesn’t seem to get that what causes the terrorism in the first place has been the U.S. government’s invading and bombing those countries over there, since well before 9/11 (see this and this).

Being extreme authoritarians, the Democrats seem to want to impose “Medicare for All” on the rest of us. They say they want to fix the medical care system, despite the fact that all their previous interventions have failed. For example, ObamaCare has been in effect for years now, so why is there still a problem?

The medical care system in America was the best in the world before Medicare and Medicaid came in and distorted the markets in medical care. The free market provided people with not only many choices, but because of the lack of government intrusions into medical care, doctors were financially able to provide free care for people who couldn’t afford it or who didn’t have insurance. Dr. Ron Paul was one of those who treated lower income people including minorities, for free. There were MANY doctors like that, way back when. Now, not so much.

But the truth is, these politicians don’t care about people being able to get medical care, as they propose all these terrible things just to get people to vote for them, and that’s it! As FDR said about Social Security or LBJ said about Medicare (or both), these kinds of government hand-outs are to ensure that more people will vote for THEM, for Democrats for all of eternity. That’s all that matters to these people, power and control. Expanded government powers gives them plenty of control.

More and more these power-mad politicians want to take choices away from the people, they want to make private insurance illegal (and soon private-practice medical care) and impose a one-size-fits-all scheme onto everyone, whether they like it or not.

The reason these government worshipers want so much control and want to force you into a “Medicare for All” scheme is that they want access to all your private medical information. They want “cradle to grave” control in medical care, and “cradle to career” tracking and surveillance in the young people as well.

The control freaks, including every hippie freak weirdo at these Democrat debates, want to intrude into every aspect of everybody’s private life, to “prevent discrimination,” to make sure everybody works toward a better social credit score like in China, to make sure that there is “no inequality” in society. Why? Because they are brainwashed social engineering fanatics. And that is why “Medicare for All” with these extremely crazy people.

And what the political elites really want is a two-tier medical system, in which the political class, their henchmen and all their little hangers-on will get the first-class care when they want it, and the rest of us get whatever the apparatchiks think we deserve, just like in the old Soviet Union.

It is just like the two-tiered judicial system we have now. Powerless people who are accused of something by the government get thrown in jail for life, while the elites, the political class get away with whatever they want to get away with. (See Jeffrey Epstein, Comey, Brennan, Lois Lerner, et al.)

And besides Mayor Pete, Kamala Harass, and Tulsi Gabtard, there are the scummy or just plain crazy crackpots, including “Beto” O’Rourke, Jay Inslee, Cory Shnooker, Gillibrand and Biden. But Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are outright communists. They seem to just want the government to have complete control over all industries, labor and employment, and property just like in the old Soviet Union. I’ve never seen a bunch of crazies, ignoramuses and psychopaths as we have in this bunch. They are just as bad as the Rethuglicans.

Speaking of the Rethugs and Trump, their intrusion policies of trade tariffs, debt and deficit spending cause, among other things, higher prices for consumers and thus they lower the standard of living for the society. Trump’s tax cuts, which expire in a few years for individuals, are only helpful in the short term and don’t mean very much in the long term, because Trump and the Republicans refuse to cut spending. They are irresponsible criminals, just like the thieving Democrats.

And Trump’s immigration and drug war police state are further eroding freedom and prosperity in America. Why don’t Democrats say anything about dismantling the Amerikan police state? The NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA, and more. They all need to go. But Democrats love the police state, as that is what their SovietCare program is all about.

Sadly, we never, ever hear anything from Democrats (or Rethugs) about freedom. Just more and more government control, and more and more police state. (Oh, and “Racist, Racist, Racist!” etc.) They all suck. Don’t vote for any of them, or for Trump. In fact, don’t vote at all!