Skip to content

Tag: immigration

Informative Articles

Jim Davies: Monumental Folly.

Caitlin Johnstone: A Headline That Perfectly Encapsulates Mainstream Liberalism.

Lew Rockwell: Are Universities Finished?

Gateway Pundit: Ignored by the Media and Dr. Fauci: Nearly Twice as Many Children and Young Adults Died from Flu than from China Coronavirus in Past Year.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Princeton’s Racism Problem

Brett Wilkins: Massacre at No Gun Ri.

Charles Burris: Did Bankers Foment the “Civil War”?

Jacob Hornberger: The Immigration Police State Comes to Portland.

Marcel Gautreau: Foreign Aid Is Protectionism.

And Sheldon Richman: Prophetic Anti-Zionists.

End Government-Imposed Restrictions and Central Planning in Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Donald Trump from dismantling the “DACA” program, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, which exempts immigrant children from some immigration restrictions. It is not a legislative act, but an unconstitutional executive “memorandum” imposed by Premier Obama. So, it can’t be repealed via legislation, although the legal restrictions being waived could be, I supposed. Premier Trump wants to have another try at dismantling the program.

My view on all this, if you don’t already know, is to repeal every immigration restriction legislatively or by executive order, or just not enforce them, and dismantle ICE and the IRS (and DHS, TSA, FBI, ATF, and all the rest of those fascist agencies that are unbecoming of a free and civilized society).

One of my main points on the immigration issue is regarding this false belief or assumption that many people seem to have that there is some kind of common ownership of the territory as a whole. That is just a myth, an “old wives’ tale,” and not backed by any legal or constitutional basis. It is based on emotion and collectivist ideology, not morality or rationality.

So, there is no such common ownership of the territory because in our society we have something called private property.

In April of 2019 I posted a compilation of excerpts from my past posts dealing with the immigration issue, and I will repost most of that post now because the immigration problem will never be resolved in the U.S. as long as the control over such matters continues to be seized by the idiot moron central planners in Washington.

Here is that earlier post:

In the post, Freedom Matters, I wrote:

In the article, titled “Culture Matters,” the writer Jim Cox compares the U.S. territory and its public or collective ownership to a condominium made up of several buildings with commonly owned areas, in which the condo owners “own the land between the 27 buildings and the pavement in common and own only our individual units separately.”

And he continues: “This is a very analogous situation to US citizens owning private property as well as public property via government. The condominium association has rules about people coming onto the common property.”

In Cox’s example, each condo owner buys one’s own unit with the rules of the condo association in mind.

Already Cox confuses private and public property. The entire territory of a country is not a commonly owned parcel of private property and can’t be compared to that.

Outside of each individually-owned unit, the property of the condo buildings and real estate is commonly owned by the condo owners. But it is still all private property.

In contrast, “public property” is supposedly publicly owned. Actually, as Jim Davies pointed out, public property is unowned. Either no one has actually legitimately homesteaded or honestly acquired it, or it was owned but the bureaucrats of the State have seized and occupy it.

Many individuals, groups and business owners own individual parcels of private property. But it’s more difficult to define who the actual owners of public property are. An intruder onto the condo property is trespassing onto private property. But if the “public” supposedly owns non-privately-owned public property, just which part of the public can be considered an owner or an “intruder”? “Citizens” or non-citizens? Taxpayers or non-taxpayers?

As I asked in this critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what about non-taxpaying citizens, such as those who work but don’t earn enough to be required to pay income taxes? Are they less owners of the “public” property? Are they “intruders”? What about working, taxpaying non-citizens?

And what exactly is a “citizen”? As Carl Watner notes, a “citizen” is a “member of the State.” Other sources define citizen as someone who is legally recognized by the government. But who is the government to “recognize” or authorize someone as legitimate?

Sadly, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation. But just who exactly are the ruling bureaucrats, and what exactly is the State?

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out (.pdf) in his Anatomy of the State,

The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

And, in his great treatise The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts,

Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.

But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.

If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

So what we have from Cox is the collectivist notion of a common ownership of a territory. He writes: “Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration.”

Unfortunately, “government handling immigration” is the police state that we have now. Bureaucrats empowering border control agents to violate due process rights, arrest innocent people who have not harmed anyone, arresting employers for not getting government permission to hire a worker, arresting workers who are peacefully making a living, an out-of-control “ICE” working to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens, storm troopers ripping whole families apart. All this because the people have gullibly empowered a centralized government to decide who is and who isn’t on the premises legitimately.

And Cox lists “negative cultural traits” of possible immigrants that people wouldn’t want to invite in. He neglects to mention, however, that it’s the government planners (that we are “stuck with”) who are responsible for bringing in the violent criminals he mentions.

But the collectivist-minded writer is putting ALL immigrants into one big group, the “undesirables,” the riffraff and the actual violent criminals, all lumped together with the peaceful people, the hard-working laborers, the honest folks.

Whatever happened to the individualism and free markets that used to be associated with libertarianism? Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? If you don’t suspect an individual of something, leave him alone.

And why would libertarians want bureaucrats to control markets, labor and employment? “We’re all socialists, now”?

Regarding the crime problem, the rapes and assaults, murders, etc., why are the anti-immigration crowd so bent on being dependent on centralized bureaucrats and government police for their protection from criminals? Why don’t they ever bring up the right of the people to keep and bear arms? They only seem to bring that up when the gun control debate is in the news.

When criminals know ahead of time that their prospective victims are armed there would be far fewer rapes, assaults and murders, and attempted rapes, assaults and murders. That would be the same with violent foreigners entering the territory, no?

Is the “culture” stuff actually more important to these immigration critics than their security? So instead of promoting the right of people to keep and bear arms and use the arms to protect themselves from actual criminals, the anti-immigration crowd are more concerned with promoting government-controlled social engineering.

And to say that someone not violating the person or property of another, who is peacefully exercising one’s freedom of movement to find a better life for himself and one’s family, is a “criminal,” is to not understand the libertarian non-aggression principle.

***

In the post, Walter Williams on Immigration: Very Collectivist-Minded, I wrote:

Walter Williams has been considered very “libertarian” in his thinking and his writing, although a conservative libertarian. He has been great in his essays raking the political correctness crowd and the college hystericals over the coals, and his books Up from the Projects and Race and Economics should be read by everyone, especially the youngins in college if they want to get a dose of reality in life.

However, when it comes to nationalism and immigration it seems he is less libertarian and, unfortunately, extremely collectivist, and his latest article on that subject is no exception. So, I feel I must fisk Dr. Williams on this one, because clarification of the issues, ideas and principles is necessary here.

First, Williams asks,

How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders.

How many U.S. citizens who are here legally commit crimes against others? And who has committed more crimes against the American people, immigrants or the government in Washington (and the bureaucrats of the state and city governments)? (Answer: It’s governments, no contest.)

Williams continues:

The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems.

No, the bulk of our immigration problem is that immigrants from those “undesirable” countries are brought in under the control of government bureaucrats in Washington. The bureaucrats have no incentive to strive for better outcomes in their policies because government bureaucrats are not accountable. They have a monopoly in their control over immigration, and monopolists are not accountable.

In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?

“Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.?” This is not a “yes” or “no” question. Everyone has a right to live wherever one finds it to be a better place for oneself and one’s family, as long as one doesn’t violate the persons or property of others. I know, some people have the mistaken belief that the U.S. territory is “our” property, and outsiders entering the territory sans authorization are “trespassing.” Nope. The territory contains many, many parcels of private property. The owners of the private property have the ultimate right to decide who enters and who does not enter their private property, not the community, and not the government. This applies to people’s homes, their businesses, churches, and so on.

“Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country?” Again, not a “yes” or “no” question. Many people believe that Americans as a group, by majority rule, have a right to decide those things, and that the government has the authority (constitutional or moral) to implement those decisions, regardless of a private property owner or employer’s decision to invite someone. If the collectivists’ vision were the case (as it currently is now), then we don’t really have private property rights, and the majority of the territory’s population and the government really are the ultimate decision makers of who may enter private property.

“Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border?” Why is there “U.S. border control”? That’s referring to U.S. government border control, which is a police state now. A “100-mile Constitution-free zone”!

And then Williams gets into the cultural aspects of the problems of today:

People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

Then get rid of the welfare state! THAT’s the answer to that problem. It’s the welfare state that FDR and LBJ (and Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, et al., ad nauseam) have forced on us. Dr. Williams has many times written in his articles that it is immoral to take earnings from one person to give to another, by force. Why doesn’t he say outright here that involuntary contracts and theft (i.e. taxation), Social Security, Medicare and all their spin-offs should be abolished?

There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism.

Well, that’s because governments in the U.S., federal, state and local government, control education in America! Get the government out of education, completely! And THAT’s the answer to that problem, this “multiculturalism” crapola. You think that an all-private schools system, without any government handouts and without the imposition of monopolistic government bureaucrats’ sick, irrational, kooky claptrap would survive in an educational free market?

Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws.

That’s because “sanctuary cities” are run by city governments — THAT’s the problem! Bureaucrats should not be empowered to get involved in bringing in foreigners, unless those actual bureaucrats invite the foreign visitors or workers to live in their homes, the bureaucrats‘ own homes, and they pay for their visitors, not the taxpayers. Sadly, government bureaucrats mainly just want to have as much welfare parasites (and voters) brought in, because getting reelected and expanding their tax-funded racket is what bureaucrats really care about.

And also, it’s not really about “legal” vs. “illegal” with many of today’s anti-immigration conservatives, unfortunately. A lot of this anti-immigration stuff is just coming from a collectivist, nationalist anti-foreigner mentality. “We are all one ‘family,’ and we don’t want ‘them’ invading ‘our’ home,” and all that. I’m hearing that on a constant, daily basis from the conservative talk radio personalities and their dittohead followers calling in.

This immigration stuff is mainly to do with a collectivist nationalism, which is not what “America” is all about. America was all about individualism and private property, NOT collectivism and collective ownership of a territory that overrules the will of the private property owner.

And “America” is also not about central planning as well. Most of the early Americans who founded the country would not have agreed to empowering central planning bureaucrats to have authority over controlling immigration matters. Leave those matters up to Americans themselves, not the government.

***

And finally, in Immigration and Private vs. Public Property, I critiqued a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in which I wrote, among other things:

Unfortunately Hoppe gets into some confusion between private property and “public property,” and some of his “rights to exclusion” seem quite collectivist, in my view. He seems to advocate a public, collective right to exclusion, whereas the only legitimate right to exclusion is the private property owner’s right to exclusion, and the individual self-owner’s right to exclusion, and the right to inclusion as well.

For instance, Hoppe states: “In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the owner’s right to exclude at will.”

But he goes on to say that “’public property’ has borders as well.” Wait a minute, the “public property” borders he’s talking about are government-drawn borders, therefore they are not legitimate.

Hoppe states that public property “is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners.”

I have some questions here, using the U.S. as an example. Just how did the taxpayers come to own such “public property”? Did they inherit the property? Was it by way of a voluntary contract? Or was such ownership imposed on them involuntarily along with the tax-thefts that were imposed on them involuntarily?

My answer is that, if there is any ownership at all of so-called public property, and he suggests the owners are the taxpayers, then of course such ownership is involuntary just as are the tax-thefts imposed on them. Therefore, such ownership is lacking in any moral justification.

Some further questions: Millions of undocumented workers’ presence and labor in the U.S. have not received proper bureaucrat-parasite authorization, but they have paid billions of dollars in federal taxes. And while some of their legitimate, honest earnings are withheld by employers to pay the feds the demanded booty, they are nevertheless ineligible for Social Security from those earnings. But they are “taxpayers.” Do they thus share in ownership of U.S. “public property”?

And also, do you divide ranks in “public property” ownership”? For instance, do very wealthy people have a higher percentage of ownership than lower-class workers, and thus have more ownership rights of control than the others? What if many wealthy progressive thinkers have a larger percentage of ownership/control, and want to have marijuana dispensaries, abortion clinics, etc. on “public property,” but a minority of the tax-payers disagree with that scheme? Is that legitimate?

When Hoppe says that public property is the “property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely not the property of foreigners,” what about domestic non-taxpayers? What about “citizens” (non-foreigners) who do work for a living, but don’t make enough to be required to have to pay income taxes? Are they denied rights of exclusion or inclusion because of this? So in other words, those who don’t pay the feds anything in tax-thefts should have the same denied rights of access to public property as the foreigners/non-“citizens”?

And also, it seems here in Hoppe’s justification of taxpayers’ involuntary ownership of public property he apparently, at least for this topic, accepts the State’s existence. Although he does admit that “the State is a criminal organization,” but its inaction regarding border control “will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.” Does Hoppe here seem to abandon his description of so-called “fake libertarians” at the very beginning of the speech, in which he says a “fake libertarian” is one who “affirms or advocates” “the necessity of a State” or “of public or State property”?

Now back to Hoppe’s recent speech (as shown at the top), he states that “immigration must be by invitation only,” and that “immigrants must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare payments.” But he gets into a lengthy discussion of his proposed rules that seem very central planning-like, in my view.

For instance, immigrants “or their inviting party must place a bond with the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.”

And with whom in the community will such a bond be placed? Who is to be in charge of that? What if a foreigner peacefully travels to the community and doesn’t give anyone a bond?

So are you saying that the immigrant is morally obligated to pay some third party some payment, without any voluntary, mutually-agreeable contract? What if he finds a room to rent or buys a home, who is it that owns the property? Does the individual landlord or property seller own the property, or does the community share in ownership of those properties? Is the entire community collectively owned by its inhabitants (regardless of separate private property parcels)?

It seems to me that Hoppe is suggesting that the community shares in ownership of property within the community. Not good.

In the just society, each property owner has full, 100% sovereignty over one’s property and its property title that he and only he may decide to whom to transfer, and he and only he may decide to whom to rent, and for whatever reason.

Hoppe continues: “As well, every immigrant, inviting party or employer should not only pay for the immigrant’s upkeep or salary, but must also pay the residential community for the additional wear and tear of its public facilities associated with the immigrant’s presence, so as to avoid the socialization of any and all costs incurred with his settlement.”

Who is going to decide how much “wear and tear” one immigrant has caused or might cause in the future? Who has the authority to charge the employer such a fee and decide how much to charge? Sounds very central-planning, if you ask me.

This all sounds very communal or “private club”-like to me, and seems to abandon the principles of private property and freedom of association. My neighbor doesn’t own my property and has no authority to dictate to me whom to let on my property, quite frankly.

And Hoppe continues: “Moreover, even before his admission, every potential immigrant invitee must be carefully screened and tested not only for his productivity but also for cultural affinity (or ‘good neighborliness’)…”

“Carefully screened”? By whom? The employer? Landlord? Prospective home seller? The community? Who will be in charge of this? Who owns the lives of the immigrants? Do they lose their self-ownership when moving to a new territory, even though they are peaceful and there’s no reason to think they might be a burden on the public? What if some family from a different area just moves into a home they’ve bought or rented and they don’t submit to screening, and there’s no reason to suspect them of not having “good neighborliness”? How about just letting property owners, businessmen and home sellers make those decisions, not by some some preset rules but by random events that take into account multiple, spontaneous factors? Whatever happened to Hoppe’s promotion of “Natural Order”?

So Hoppe’s “right of exclusion” seems to mean that the collective public may decide who gets in and who stays out. But how? By some sort of democratic vote? How else could a large group, such as U.S. taxpayers who supposedly own the public property, be able to come to a decision regarding who gets in and who stays out?

The true free market way is when an individual anywhere in the world who wants to make a better life for himself and his family travels to wherever he sees an opportunity, as long as he doesn’t violate the persons or property of another. He can rent a home or purchase one from a willing landlord or seller. And the property owner who rents out or sells a home is the owner, not his neighbors or the community.

I don’t see any moral obligation to pay the community some advance tribute, as the aforementioned family never entered into any contract with the “community,” only the employer, landlord or home seller, etc.

The end.

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.

The State of the Onion in Amerika, USSA

Happy New Year, everybody. So Donald Trump decided to start the new year by going into neocon puppet mode and bombing and killing an Iranian general who was allegedly targeting and killing Americans in Iraq. But why are Americans in Iraq in the first place? is the question we must ask.

I’ll get to that a little later. I really wanted to start this with the Democrats and the people on the left. We are in an election year, and, while Republicans are bad enough, the Democrats are quite the cheaters and sore losers. They don’t like the outcome of a presidential election so they aid and abet the national security state’s narrative of Trump-Russia collusions and “hacking the election,” none of which occurred, and they have Congressional investigations, the 2-year Mueller fishing expedition and exoneration, and when that’s not enough they use a CIA flunky in the White House and call him a “whistleblower” which he is not, and do more investigations and even a House impeachment based on a phone call, repeatedly and erroneously describing the phone call with a foreign leader as asking the foreign leader to “investigate a Trump election opponent,” which it wasn’t in any way, and then have an election year Senate trial for no good reason.

And that is just one dirty way that today’s Democrats are cheating, first with trying to overturn a legitimate election of 2016 and then by trying to tarnish the 2020 election with all the aforementioned. But not only that regarding the presidential election but with other elections as well. Democrats won’t allow requiring IDs for voting. They don’t seem to mind requiring IDs for cashing a check or flying, but not for voting. They say that’s “racist,” although minorities are just as capable of providing an ID as others are. No, the real reason is because the Democrat activists want voter fraud and cheating in elections. There are also same-day voting registration and automatic registration with license renewal, etc. Not only those things, but there’s this new scheme called “ranked-choice” voting the latest way for mainly Democrats to complicate voting enough so that the actual winner of the election loses the election.

Republicans are bad too, don’t get me wrong here. Like in the 2000 election when Al Gore won in Florida, but the Republican majority on the Supreme Court rubber-stamped a Bush-Cheney win. Hmm, it seems like that was just yesterday, for some reason. And as I have already mentioned, the two Establishment parties, Democreep and Rethuglican, are both a criminal racket and should be outlawed, in their making laws to restrict the rights of non-DemoRethug candidates to get on ballots.

And what’s the latest with the 2020 campaign? Now I thought I heard that Democrat Cory Schnooker suspended his campaign, but on the Internet it seems that he hasn’t, although he’s currently at about 2-3% on the daily tracking polls as of this morning. But it is the case that Julian Castrate has “suspended” his campaign. He couldn’t even get 2%.

So the Democrat Party is the “racist party” now? Three white men and a white lady are now in the lead, Joe Kinnock, Burning Cinders, Pete Butternutter, and Elizardbeth Warren. (I guess the Democrats don’t want another minority president again just yet after 8 years of Obama?) And no, Liawatha is not a “minority”! Others who are now out of the race also include Kamala Harris and NY Mayor Bill duh Blasio. (See how national security bureaucrats have groomed Mayor Pete for future power-grabbing, and see his road-to-communism economic plan. Yay!)

Okay, okay, I’ll stop it with the making fun of people’s names. It’s Christmas, after all. And New Year’s, etc.

Continuing here. The Republicans are bad too, and communists just like the Democrats. For instance, regionally speaking, in New England there are two liberal Republican governors, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. As I have mentioned here before, Sununu signed the bills for “transgender rights” and anti-“conversion therapy” into law, just a few weeks before his reelection in 2018. So Sununu doesn’t believe in private property rights or freedom of thought and conscience.

And now, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker — or should I say, Charlie “Half-Baker,” especially more recently in his and his Bacon Hill cohorts’ frantic conniving and scheming to find a way to spend the state’s $1 billion budget surplus! Hmm, they have a surplus of $1 billion and so they are trying to figure out just how to spend it. Doh!

How to spend the people’s money that these bureaucrats stole from the people! Hey, here’s an unusual suggestion: why not give it back to the people! Ya think? It’s their money, and obviously it is a billion dollars more than your already bloated budget calls for, so you in the gubmint don’t need it! (Alas, that never occurs to greedy, power-mad, thieving government parasites. Oh, well.) Like Democrats and leftists, many of today’s Republicans and conservative statists live off the hard labor of the workers.

So with Republicans like these, who need communists? Speaking of communist Republicans, Laurence Vance had this recent post on “Marco Rubio: Republican Communist, Rubio wants the U.S. government to have a ‘pro-American industrial policy’.” (That’s actually more fascism than communism, although in my view they are both the same, with fascism having a slight pretense of private property which isn’t even private property because the real owners are the gubmint and its bureaucrat criminals. But I digress.)

And Charlie Half-Baker is also a fascist, in his constantly banning things, like menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco and vaping products, banning “conversion therapy” just like NH Gov. Sununu did. Baker also signed a bill restricting opioid drug prescriptions, ordering schools to screen students for addiction risk, and concocting a state “Prescription Monitoring” database. So much for doctor-patient privacy, fascist half-baker.

And nationally, the Republicans are terrible and yes communist-like in their anti-immigration, anti-foreigner drooling. They oppose free markets and private property rights in their wanting not only bureaucratic restrictions and a police state to prevent foreigners from entering “our” country, but an actual physical government wall on the border. You can read all my elaborations on those points regarding the immigration issue in this post, if you are interested.

When it comes to freedom and free markets, in a free society everyone has the freedom to come and go as they please, and everyone has the freedom to buy and sell whatever they want and to and from anyone they want, without any bureaucrat’s authorization required, including one’s labor and employment, as long as they are peaceful, as long as they don’t violate the person or property of others.

Unfortunately, many in the anti-immigration crowd believe in this myth that the whole territory is “property” that is being violated or trespassed by “unauthorized” people, in the same way that someone breaks into someone’s home. But no, the territory as a whole is not a parcel of property, it is just a territory. There is no such common or public or U.S. citizen ownership of the territory as a whole, because that would imply that everything within the territory is commonly owned, and would negate the idea of private property.

And like many of today’s Democrats and leftists, many of today’s Republicans and conservatives are also narcissists and moral relativists. We see that in their being True Believers in the false god of American Exceptionalism, in their blind worship of the national security state and the military.

For instance, most of the “conservatives” I have heard in the past day or so have been showing support for Donald Trump’s bombing and killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. Their rationale is that the general is responsible for “killing Americans in Iraq.” But wait a minute, why are there Americans, specifically U.S. military, in Iraq? Why have they ever been there? Are there Iraqi soldiers here in the U.S.? Of course not. We would see them as … “invaders”! So, if people actually believed in the Golden Rule, they would see U.S. military in Iraq as invaders in the same way, because that’s exactly what they are.

A lot of people are also ignorant, respond emotionally to government propaganda, such as post-9/11, and cheer their government’s crimes on without question. But when someone points out that the U.S. government invaded Iraq in 1991 and occupied and bombed the Middle East prior to 9/11 and that there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 were it not for President George H.W. Bush starting that first Iraq War in 1991, then the obedient sheeple accuse one of “siding with the terrorists,” and all other expressions of their government-worship brainwashing.

That’s an example of the conservative/nationalists’ short-sightedness and inability to question or challenge their believed rulers, and their Dear Leader Donald Trump as well.

Another example regarding this Iran paranoid propaganda stuff is that I hear the national security “experts” and talk radio ditto-heads constantly referring back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution including their taking of Americans hostage, but not to times prior to that.

The conflict with Iran goes back to the 1950s, started by the CIA, which after taking down Iran’s democratically elected prime minister the CIA then supported the Shah’s police state “SAVAK.” (And it’s really all about oil, as well.) So, if the CIA didn’t engage in all that tyranny against Iranians, which reinforced a growing Islamic extremist movement, there probably wouldn’t have been a hostage taking and “Revolution.”

But many people believe in this American Exceptionalism crap, in which the U.S. government may invade and occupy and bomb other countries, but certainly not the other way around. They believe that the U.S. government has some sort of moral authority over those other countries that those other countries don’t have over the U.S. So, rejection of the Golden Rule and belief in moral relativism are the highlights of today’s “conservatives” and the Republican Party. (See Laurence Vance on the madness of the military mindset, by the way.)

So of course the bloodthirsty warmongers who believe in American Exceptionalism support more bombing in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and all points between. I think they really just love the idea of bombing foreigners, quite frankly.

And so in the new year of 2020 we will have another useless election that won’t result in any change for the better, because it is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, a choice between one criminal or criminal-wannabe and another criminal or criminal wannabe. In USSA Amerika the culture has dumbed down and we have lost the basic sense of morality and common decency, the sanctity of private property and the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression that “America” was founded on. Happy New Year!

Today’s Anti-Immigration Nationalists And Their Love of Central Planning and the Police State

Thomas DiLorenzo writes on LRC about the curse of American nationalism, with reference to the recently published Volume 5 of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, transcribed from Rothbard’s handwritten notes and edited by Patrick Newman. DiLorenzo quotes Rothbard regarding the early American nationalists,  such as “Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Paine…” who wanted to “destroy the original individualist and decentralized program of the American Revolution.”  DiLorenzo writes that “Conceived in Liberty tells the story, chapter and verse, of how these men subverted and overthrew the principles of American freedom that inspired the American Revolution with their ‘devious and sinister machinations,'” as Rothbard would put it.

Now, I don’t know whether DiLorenzo agrees with me on the immigration issue. But that is one issue in which today’s nationalist conservatives go off the deep end, and abandon their supposed advocacy of private property and free markets in the name of American nationalism and their deeply indoctrinated worship of “America” with all the myths and glorification that go with it.

Today’s conservatives are supporters of centralization and government central planning in many aspects of life. And they love the tyrannical national security state. With the faux “war on terror” and the wars on drugs and immigration, today’s nationalist conservatives are police statists and militarists. Not big on individualism, decentralization or privatization, these people.

One of today’s extreme nationalists, Michelle Malkin, has been on the talk shows promoting her anti-immigration and “stand with ICE” tour and her book, Open Borders, Inc.

Stand with the police state, you mean. Certainly not stand with freedom, and the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, such as unalienable rights.

Now Malkin is being snubbed by conservative groups because of her defense of someone named Nick Fuentes who has been accused of being an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier and a racist. Malkin still insists on defending Fuentes, despite his controversies. I don’t know why. And her tour is now being banned by the intolerant academic fascists on the left, including the latest being Bentley College.

Malkin, and her anti-immigration cohorts Donald Trump, Ann Coulter et al. have this collectivist, nativist ideology that overrides whatever support they might ever have for the founding principles of America.

In fact, regarding the immigration issue, in one of the Founders’ complaints against the King in their Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Do they know this? So, these so-called conservative people of today are really anti-free market, anti-private property and anti-freedom of association. As I wrote in this post summarizing several past posts on immigration, when you have genuine free markets people sell their labor or goods to employers or customers, and such contracts are between them and don’t involve third parties unless specifically noted. And in a society of freedom and free markets people come and go as they please. No police state at the border, no having to report to government bureaucrats. As I wrote in that post, statists look to the ruling government bureaucrats for validation.

In contrast to the free society, if you favor the current system that consists of workers and employers having to get the government’s permission to do business or trade, then that is socialism, not capitalism and not freedom. Private property rights are such that an individual owns his own labor and sells it to an employer in a voluntary contract. When you have to get a third party’s permission or ultimate authorization in these things, then the real owner is that third party, not the laborer or employer. In the current system of government ownership of the people and “their” property, that third party owner is the U.S. government.

There are a lot of myths thrown around in the immigration debate, and one of them asserts or implies some kind of collective ownership of the U.S. territory as a whole, but there is no such collective ownership. If so, then such an arrangement overrides private property rights.

Once again I ask, why aren’t these so-called conservatives spending their time and activism on getting rid of the welfare state if they’re worried about “illegals” coming and getting on welfare? Because they LOVE the welfare state! They love Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Otherwise they would constantly advocate those socialist programs be abolished.

But there shouldn’t be government confiscation of private wealth or earnings — that’s criminal. There shouldn’t be government-imposed redistribution in any case, whether redistributed to other people here or to foreigners. Those schemes are immoral, illegitimate, and criminal, in my view.

And why are today’s conservatives so short-sighted, like the ones on the left? They don’t seem to want to address the causes of the “illegals” and the caravans coming up from the southern border. Such causes include U.S. government’s foreign interventions and foreign aid to corrupt regimes in Central America, and the “war on drugs.” The immigrants are fleeing because of the violence as consequences of drug prohibition. But sadly, many of today’s conservatives support the drug war and the nanny state in which we must turn to gubmint to tell us what we may or may not consume in our “own” bodies. Today’s conservatives support siccing the goon government police on innocent, peaceful people who haven’t harmed anyone, just as is the case with immigrants. It is the goons of ICE, that Michelle Malkin et al. love so much, who are the thugs.

And given that many more violent crimes are committed here by U.S. citizens than by immigrants, the fact that these “conservatives” spend so much time and activism only concentrating on the unauthorized entrants to the territory, then that tells me that it’s not about crime, it’s not about “stealing Americans’ jobs,” it’s not about welfare, it’s all about foreigner hating, and that’s it. It’s about collectivist nativism, and envy and covetousness as well, very much like that of the left.

If today’s conservatives such as Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and all the ditto-heads really favored the principles of America’s founding, they would promote unrestricted free markets, protection of private property, decentralization and abolishing of the police state.

Articles for Armistice Day

Arjun Walia: War propaganda and fake news.

Gary Barnett: Why oppose war?

Barry Brownstein: Without free speech, all speech becomes government speech.

Alex Knight: Greta Thunberg vs. Boyan Slat.

Peter Quinones: Blaming libertarianism for every “societal woe.”

Brandon Smith: There are things worth fighting for, and fates far worse than death.

Jacob Hornberger: The case for open immigration.

Robert Wenzel: New tactic from Trump administration to decrease lawful immigration.

Dr. Mercola: Stark evidence of Google censoring health news.

Mac Slavo: NBC uses propaganda to promote the “benefits” of microchipping.

Patricia Hynes: Novermber 11, remembering the tragedy and legacy of World War I.

Matt Agorist: Entire police department now gone after good cops refused to enforce quota system.

Charles Burris: Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the first leftist, and the anti-individualist, anti-capitalist “conservatives.”

Watts Up With That?: Meet the doomers, depressed climate warriors.

Reason: Michigan counties steal properties based on minor tax payment mistakes.

And Alexander Zubatov: 4 reasons why socialism is becoming more popular.

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.

Time for Voluntary Decentralization

Jacob Hornberger asks, Should libertarians support Trump’s immigration raids?

Laurence Vance says we should eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). And when we’re finished doing that, eliminate CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, DHS, ICE, FTC, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, and all the other crap in Warshington.

WND with an article on Nellie Ohr serving anti-Trump to DOJ.

Robert Wenzel on Trump’s hypocrisy with Israel/BDS movement, yet Trump imposes sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

And Michael Rozeff comments on university sources of gender and other sexual madness in our schools.

Immigration and the Anti-Capitalistic Socialists on Conservative Talk Radio

I was listening to “Pat and Stu” filling in for Glenn Beck the other day, and they seemed to be glad that the Trump administration has cracked down on “illegal immigrants” by raiding places of employment. The talk radio Beck flunkies were even sounding like liberals in their show of concern for the “below-minimum wage” work the illegal people were being made to do.

I thought I was going to toss my cookies. These conservatives are pathetic. They’ll say anything and make anything up to justify their irrational anti-free market, anti-capitalistic mentality, and their anti-foreigner tribalism and collectivism.

As Jacob Hornberger and Robert Wenzel point out, the immigrants who were raided and arrested were not the “rapists and murderers” that Donald Trump was complaining about throughout the campaign in 2016. These people were arrested at their jobs, in places of employment, not the welfare office to get on the dole. They aren’t out on the streets selling drugs or engaged in sex trafficking like the now late Jeffrey Epstein allegedly. They are working and honestly providing for themselves and their families.

These immigrants are not criminals. But the people who are criminals are those government goons who are harassing them, violently seizing and detaining them and throwing them in a cage, just because the workers didn’t get the permission of the government to work where they wanted to work and attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Socialism includes having to get government authorization to do what you want to do or go to where you want to go. So, like Rush Limbaugh and Howie Carr and the rest of the ignorant ditto-heads on the radio, “Pat and Stu” on the Beck show certainly qualify as socialists.

In contrast, a true capitalist believes in the free market, in which people sell their labor, goods or services to others and it’s between these traders as long as they are peaceful. They don’t get a government bureaucrat’s authorization or permission, like in the old Soviet Union, Cuba or New York City.

More News and Commentary

Robert Murphy on plastic bans: imaginary benefits, real costs.

Gary Barnett says the technocratic state is the mortal enemy of the individual.

Jacob Hornberger says that open borders is the true libertarian position.

Chris Calton on how qualified immunity for government police became absolute immunity.

Daniel McAdams tells Rosie Gray that no, Tulsi Gabbard is NOT this election’s Ron Paul. (The smear of Tulsi Gabbard is intensifying in the same way as the statists smeared Ron Paul in 2008.)

Tom Luongo says that the Empire is coming for Tulsi Gabbard.

Kevin Gosztola on judge rejecting DNC lawsuit of WikiLeaks and defending journalists’ First Amendment rights.

Danny Sjursen says that U.S. troops back in Saudi Arabia will end badly.

David Stockman on the great fiscal miscreant making America broke again.

Brandon Smith tells us how real mind control works.

Lee Friday on recycling: wasting resources while claiming to conserve them.

Allen Mendenhall says the United States is not a nation: the problem with “National Conservatism.”

And Jonathan Tepper on the doctor monopoly killing American patients.

News and Commentary

James Bovard on attorney general William Barr: defender of FBI snipers.

Daisy Luther on California’s creepy “Cradle to Career” data system to track everything about children.

Mac Slavo says the CIA wants to make it easier to jail journalists, and Congress isn’t stopping it.

Ernest Canning explains why we must restore the title, “War Department.”

Jack Burns on a police commissioner being arrested for questioning the cty’s use of facial recognition.

Jacob Hornberger on immigration hypocrisy, left and right.

Jeff Jacoby asks, Trump blasts “the Squad” for not loving America — does he?

Charles Burris on the disaster of the House voting to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour

Zero Hedge with an article on an immigrant student losing the Miss World title for refusing to try on an hijab.

And Daniel Mitchel on the Green New Cronyism, Solyndra on steroids.

Trump’s “Racist Tweets,” And Pressley Ordering Black People to Only Have a “Black Voice”

Before I address the Dear Leader’s series of “racist tweets” directed at 4 “congresswomen of color,” Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, I wanted to first respond to some comments made by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Marxachusetts).

This past weekend, Pressley spoke to some people and she stated, “This is the time to shake that table. … We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice…”

I really don’t understand what it is with these people on the left who seem to be extremely obsessed with race and skin color. Why does Pressley insist that someone with a “brown or black face” MUST be a “brown voice,” or a “black voice”?

And what exactly is a “black voice”? What if a black person wants to go to Washington and express a voice of FREEDOM, regardless of race?

And who the hell cares about skin color?! Does this mean that I should refer to Ayanna Pressley as Black Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, since she finds it so important to be a “black face with a black voice”? How about calling her a “Congressblack”?

Even the Congressional Black Carcass is siding with Madame Establishment Speaker Pelosi against the four “Congresswomen of color.”

But seriously, if I were a black person going to Congress, I would be a voice for freedom, regardless of what my skin color is. Repeal each and every drug law and abolish the DEA, repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS, dismantle the entire national security state and get rid of the evil CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, and all the rest of them. Those totalitarian agencies violate the lives, liberty and property of black people, white people, Hispanic people, Irish, Italian, everyone.

Why are the people on the left so obsessed with race and skin color? And gender and sexuality as well?

Now about Donald Trump’s “racist tweets.” He basically said that those four Congresswomenpeople should go back to the countries they came from, even though three of the four were born in the U.S. and all 4 are U.S. citizens.

Divided into three tweets, The Donald wrote, “So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how……..it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

So obviously Trump doesn’t understand the First Amendment, which explicitly protects the right of the people to criticize their government and propose changes to it and to its policies. Duh, Donald.

After all, wasn’t it Trump throughout the whole 2016 campaign who was criticizing just about everything that Bush and Obama had been doing and their terrible policies and wars and all that? So maybe Trump should go back to where HE came from, and “help fix the totally broken and crime infested places,” etc., etc. (And where is Trump from again? Oh yeah, that foreign regime of New York City.)