MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: San Francisco Tech Firm Paying Employees $20,000 If They Leave San Francisco

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/09/san-francisco-tech-firm-paying.html

This is how crazy it is getting for big lefty cities.

The San Francisco-based high-tech payments company Stripe is offering employees a one-time cash payment of $20,000 if they leave San Francisco, Seattle or New York, reports The San Francisco Business Times.

Firms such as Stripe have begun to realize that it is extremely expensive to have a large office presence in these lefty cities where local taxes are sure to spike and it is expensive to compete for employees 

The mad lockdowns instituted by the local governments in these cities ended up teaching these firms that it is not necessary to have employees all located together in one giant complex. That working at home for some does not cut productivity.

Stripe will still maintain a significant office presence in SF but the offer should be tempting to many. Stripe plans to pay employees up to 10% less if they leave the big cities but the combination of the $20,000 payment plus much lower costs for housing in most other parts of the country will make it a sound move for many.  

According to Bloomberg, VMware Inc. has instituted a similar policy, and Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and ServiceNow Inc. are also considering similar measures.

RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Which Of These Poses The Greater Threat To The Country? | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

What we witnessed was not just an attempted coup, it was a window into the inner-workings of a secret government operating independently from within the state. And the sedition was not confined to a few posts at the senior levels of the FBI, CIA, NSA, or DOJ. No. The corruption has saturated the entire structure, seeping down to the lower levels where career bureaucrats eagerly perform tasks that are designed to damage or incriminate elected officials. How did it ever get this bad?

And who is calling the shots? We still don’t know.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/which-these-poses-greater-threat-country

 

Authored by Mike Whitney,

“The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.”

– Joseph Conrad

Here’s your political puzzler for the day: Which of these two things poses a greater threat to the country:

  1. An incompetent and boastful president who has no previous government experience and who is rash and impulsive in his dealings with the media, foreign leaders and his critics?

  2. Or a political party that collaborates with senior-level officials in the Intel agencies, the FBI, the DOJ, the media, and former members of the White House to spy on the new administration with the intention of gathering damaging information that can be used to overthrow the elected government?

 

The answer is “2”, the greater threat to the country is a political party that engages in subversive activity aimed at toppling the government and seizing power. In fact, that’s the greatest danger that any country can face, an enemy from within. Foreign adversaries can be countered by diplomatic engagement and shoring up the nation’s military defenses, but traitors–who conduct their activities below the radar using a secret network of contacts and connections to inflict maximum damage on the government– are nearly unstoppable.

What the Russiagate investigation shows, is that high-ranking members of the Democrat party participated in the type of activities that are described above, they were part of an illicit coup d’etat aimed at removing Donald Trump from office and rolling back the results of the 2016 elections. It is a vast understatement to say that the operation was merely an attack on Donald Trump when, in fact, it was an attack on the system itself, a full-blown assault on the right of ordinary people to choose their own leaders. That’s what Russiagate is really all about; it was an attempt to torpedo democracy by invoking the flimsy and unverifiable claim that Trump was an agent of the Kremlin.

None of this, of course, has been discussed in a public forum because those platforms are all privately-owned media that are linked to the people who executed the junta. But for those who followed events closely, and who know what actually happened, there has never been a more serious crime in American history. What we discovered was that the permanent bureaucracy, the media and the Democrat party are riddled with strategically-placed quislings and collaborators that are willing to sabotage their own government if they are so directed. The question that immediately comes to mind is this: Who concocted this plot, who authorized the electronic eavesdropping, the confidential informants, the widespread spying, the improperly obtained warrants, the fake news, and the endless leaks to the media? Who?

What we witnessed was not just an attempted coup, it was a window into the inner-workings of a secret government operating independently from within the state. And the sedition was not confined to a few posts at the senior levels of the FBI, CIA, NSA, or DOJ. No. The corruption has saturated the entire structure, seeping down to the lower levels where career bureaucrats eagerly perform tasks that are designed to damage or incriminate elected officials. How did it ever get this bad?

And who is calling the shots? We still don’t know.

Let me pose a theory: The operation might have been concocted by former CIA-Director John Brennan, but Brennan surely is not the prime instigator, nor is Clapper, Comey or even Obama. The real person or persons who initiated the coup will likely never be known. These are the Big Money guys who operate in the shadows and who have a stranglehold on the Intelligence agencies. These are the gilded Mandarins who have their tentacles wrapped firmly around the entire state-power apparatus and who dictate policy from their leather-bound chairs at their high-end men’s clubs. These are the people who decided that Donald Trump “had to go” whatever the cost. They pulled out all the stops, engaged their assets across the bureaucracy, and launched a desperate 3 and half year-long regime change operation that blew up in their faces leaving behind a trail carnage from Washington, DC to Sydney, Australia. In contrast, Trump somehow slipped the noose and escaped largely unscathed. He was pummeled mercilessly in the media, disparaged by his political rivals, and raked over the coals by the chattering classes, but — at the end of the day– it was Trump who was left standing.. Trump– who took on the entire political establishment, the Intel agencies, the FBI, the mainstream media, and the Democratic party– had beaten them all at their own game. Go figure??

 

Keep in mind, the Democrats have known that the Mueller probe was a fraud from as early as 2017 when the President of Crowdstrike, Shawn Henry, (who provided cyber security for the DNC) admitted to Congress that there was no forensic evidence that the DNC emails had been hacked by Russia or anyone else.

Think about that for a minute: The entire Mueller investigation was based on the assumption that Russia hacked into the DNC servers and stole the emails. We now know that never happened. The cyber-security team that conducted the investigation of the DNC computers admitted in sworn testimony before Congress that there was no evidence of “exfiltration” or pilfering of any kind. Repeat: There was no proof of hacking, no proof of Russian involvement, and no proof of foul play. The entire foundation upon which the Russia investigation was built, turned out to be false. More importantly, Democrat members of the Intelligence Committee knew it was false from the get-go, but opted to let the charade continue anyway. Why?

Because the truth didn’t matter, what mattered was getting rid of Trump by any means necessary. That’s why they used “opposition research” (Note– “Oppo” research is the hyperbolic nonsense political parties use to smear a political opponent.) to illegally obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump team. It’s because the Democrat leadership will do anything to regain power.

By the way, we also have evidence that the warrants that were used to spy on Trump were obtained illegally. The FISA court was deliberately misled so the FBI could carry out its vendetta on Trump. Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith “did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” Bottom line: Clinesmith deliberately altered emails so that FISA applications could be renewed and the spying on the Trump campaign could continue.

So, let’s summarize:

  1. The Democrats knew there was no proof the emails were stolen; thus, they knew the Russia probe was a hoax.

  2. The Democrats knew that their fraudulent “opposition research” was being used to illegally obtain warrants to spy on the Trump camp. This makes them accessory to a crime.

  3. Finally, the Democrats continue to spread (virtually) the same Russia-Trump collusion allegations today that they did before the Mueller investigation released its report. The lies and disinformation have persisted as if the “nation’s most expensive and exhaustive investigation” had never taken place. What does this tell us about the Democrats?

On a superficial level, it tells us that they can’t be trusted because they don’t tell the truth. But on a deeper level, it expresses the party’s Ruling Doctrine, which is to control the public by means of deceit, disinformation, propaganda and lies. Only the powerful and well-connected are entitled to know the truth, everyone else must be subjected to fabrications that are crafted in a way that best coincides with the overall objectives of ruling elites. That’s why the Democrats stick with the shopworn mantra that Trump is in bed with Russia. It doesn’t matter that the theory has been thoroughly discredited and disproved. It doesn’t even matter that the theory was never the slightest bit believable to begin with. What matters is that party leaders are preventing ordinary people from knowing the truth, which is an essential part of their governing doctrine. It’s surprising that this doesn’t piss-off more Democrats, after all, it’s the ultimate expression of contempt and condescension. When someone lies to your face relentlessly, repeatedly and shamelessly, they are expressing their loathing for you. Can’t they see that?

But maybe you think this is overstating the case? Maybe you think the Dems are just trying to “cover their backside” on a matter that is purely political?

Okay, but answer this: Were the Democrats involved in a plot to overthrow the President of the United States?

Yes, they were.

Is that treason?

Yes, it is.

Then, are we really prepared to say that treason is “purely political”?

No, especially since Russiagate was not a one-off, but just the first shocking example of how the Democrats operate. If we examine the Dems approach to the Covid-19 crisis, we see that their policy is actually more destructive than the 4-year Russia fiasco.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Trump, Anarchism Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/donald-trump-anarchism-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

by

 

Inigo

Donald Trump seems to think we’re all stupid, or he really is stupid. Then again, maybe we can just chalk this all up to neo-McCarthysim. What, you may ask, am I talking about?

The ‘Dear Fuhrer’ keeps using a word as a fear-inducing pejorative, and I don’t think that it means what he thinks that it means. It’s even more ridiculous than something from ‘The Princess Bride.’

There are a lot of people in the world who identify as an ‘anarchist’ of some sort or another. From some of the world’s most respected intellectuals and political minds, to the factory floors, as well as the culture in music, and even among those who practice law or fight wars; you can find a rich history of anarchists in America. If Bubba from Forrest Gump were here, he might say: “There’s market anarchists, christian anarchists, political anarchists, classical anarchists, individualist anarchists, mutualist anarchists, social anarchists, crypto anarchists,” etc, ad nauseam.

If you’re talking about people who may not always self-identify as ‘anarchists,’ but technically are living a given lifestyle consistent with some traditional vein within anarchism, then even pacifists such as the Amish communities can count as a type of ‘anarchist.’ And, in fact, anarchists are typically not bomb-throwers, but garden-growers. Anarchists may sometimes just include people who tend to have an aversion to being organized in authoritarian and violent hierarchies, and choose rather to surround themselves among people who problem-solve with a countenance towards peaceful resolutions which respect everyone’s natural rights and freedoms.

I’ve been happy to self-identify as an ‘anarchist’ of a stripe for many years now because I find the concept of consent and voluntaryism to be the highest of all the ideals in both morality and law.

For the record:
an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
“Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” (Google Online Dictionary)
“ANARCHISM is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.”  (Wikipedia)

(In)famous atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair was a self-identified anarchist, and philosopher Ayn Rand has certainly been a historical favorite among those who enjoy reading in the ‘individualist anarchist’ vein of thought (although I don’t know of her ever technically self-identifying as an anarchist). Emma Goldman is probably one of the most well-known historical anarchist names in American labor movements. Leo Tolstoy left an undeniable legacy of anarchism within America’s most widely practiced faith tradition. There are ‘Austrian economists’ who openly call themselves anarchists currently, and who have even testified before the U.S. Congress on economic matters. Noam Chomsky seems to be a celebrity favorite of many anarchists today, and even a President of the United States can sound much like an anarchist when they say things like, “Government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem,” as Ronald Reagan did.

Words actually have definitions. One might think the president would know the definitions of the terms he speaks publicly and would want to use those words correctly.

Or, maybe there’s another agenda afoot.

If someone has awoken the spirit of Eugene McCarthy, I’ve got a few questions for them.

Kru Adam G. “Brick” House is an Afghanistan war veteran and former licensed minister (UPCI), who has become an outspoken skeptic, peace advocate, and libertarian activist. He currently resides in Leander, Texas, where he is a licensed Muay Thai Kru and owner of Peaceful Warrior Muay Thai Academy.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Coming Soon to a U.S. Neighborhood Near You? Regime-Change Foot Soldiers Parading as Social Justice Warriors — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

Reading such comments almost forces one to conclude that the Democrats, at least the radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party, have no illusions about Biden’s real chances for beating Trump. After all, if victory looked certain there would be no need for the threats.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/22/coming-soon-to-us-neighborhood-near-you-regime-change-foot-soldiers-parading-as-social-justice-warriors/

Robert Bridge
 

Is the ‘Trump regime’ about to get a taste of the color revolution tactics that America has employed in the past against “illiberal” foreign governments that refused to toe the neoliberal globalist line? It’s looking highly likely.

Despite great efforts by the mainstream media to play it down, an increasing number of Americans are being subjected to a level of aggression, intimidation and street violence that the authorities seem unable or unwilling to control. This is no accident.

Since 2016, a series of actions by the political left indicate that the chaos unfolding on the streets of America is no grassroots movement on behalf of ‘social justice,’ but rather a carefully coordinated plan to oust Trump in the event the Democrats fail to get Biden into office. Indeed, for the orchestrators of this coup, what happens on Nov. 4 is of far more relevance that what happens on Election Day.

The first sign of trouble came in 2016, when none other than George Soros began spending a king’s ransom in local judicial elections. As the Daily Signal noted, “[r]adical social justice activists will serve as the top prosecutors for three major Washington, D.C., suburbs—including the two wealthiest counties in the U.S.—after George Soros’ political action committee poured $2.1 million into ordinarily sleepy local races.”

Only a crazed conspiracy theorist, like Newt Gingrich, apparently, would see any connection between Soros supporting radical prosecutors, and his other pet project of supporting ‘social justice’ groups, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, who occasionally find themselves in need of a sympathetic justice system. And if local courts somehow fail to catch and release the hoodlums, Hollywood has shown a disturbing willingness to write out the bail checks. The only thing the looters and ‘peaceful protesters’ need now is a government mandate that requires masks be worn in public to protect their identities, and for property owners to understand they will be prosecuted for demonstrating their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Now that the radicals have their institutional support structure all in place, a strange yet not wholly unexpected thing is happening. Although police brutality has been occurring in the United States long Trump became president, and it effects both whites and blacks, the ‘peaceful protesters’ are venting their outrage primarily against Republicans, which the left has come to associate with ‘white supremacists’ and ‘fascism.’ This demonization of the right, which the mainstream media is happy to accentuate so long Trump is at the helm, gives left-wing groups the bare amount of legitimacy they need to carry out their activities.

By way of example, consider the way members of Black Lives Matter aggressively taunted Republicans as they attempted to leave the Republican National Convention where Trump accepted the nomination for the presidential election. As Senator Rand Paul and his wife Michele walked down the sidewalk, a frenzied mob could be heard shouting, “say her name!” in reference to Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old Black woman who was shot to death by police at her home in March during a botched raid. Apparently it did not matter to the rabble, or they never knew, that Paul was responsible for filing legislation to prohibit police officers from using no-knock warrants like the one that led to the fatal shooting of Ms. Taylor.

 

Another strange coincidence for the coincidence theorists is that a number of Democrats have been calling for exactly the sort of harassment against Trump supporters that is now unfolding across the nation. In June, Maxine Waters, for example, incited her followers to “create a crowd, and you push back on them.” More recently, Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice president nominee, said in an interview with Stephen Colbert, “They [the protesters] are not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day…They’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”

Reading such comments almost forces one to conclude that the Democrats, at least the radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party, have no illusions about Biden’s real chances for beating Trump. After all, if victory looked certain there would be no need for the threats. In other words, what the Democrats are most concerned about are not the actual results of the election, which have a very high chance of being unfavorable, but rather the reaction to the results. On this point, appearances are everything. Thus the mainstream media, in cahoots with left-leaning polling agencies and colleges, have conditioned Liberals – in the very same way they did in 2016 with their hugely inaccurate polls – to believe that Biden simply cannot lose. It doesn’t require a degree in the theory of revolutions to predict how those BLM/Antifa protesters, many of whom were too young to vote in 2016, are going to react to the news of four more years of a ‘white supremacist in chief.’ Not calmly and rationally, that’s for sure. After all, we are talking about an entire generation that has graduated from Woke U. with a Marxist major in ‘American Imperialism’ and a minor in ‘Mass Destruction’.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Secret Court Rules It Lacks Jurisdiction to Reveal Its Own Secret Opinions | FISA REFORM | PPSA – Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA)

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

https://www.protectprivacynow.org/news–updates/secret-court-rules-it-lacks-jurisdiction-to-reveal-its-own-secret-opinions

PPSA

In April, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) published an opinion that set the civil liberties community on edge. It addressed whether it had jurisdiction to resolve several First Amendment claims seeking access to opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
 
FISCR acknowledged that civil liberties groups that brought suit had satisfied two of the three jurisdictional requirements. First, a lack of access to these opinions was unquestionably an injury that could be redressed by a court, making the case actionable and live. Second, the FISC withheld those opinions based on federal law. But FISCR found that the third needed category—that the issue must be authorized by a “jurisdictional statute”—was not satisfied.
 
Last week, FISC acted on this standard, rejecting requests for opinions regarding bulk data collection. In three cases brought by civil liberties organizations seeking access to unreleased opinions, FISC dismissed each motion for a lack of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the strength of the First Amendment claims of access.
 
“Orwellian” is a word that gets a lot of use these days, but when a court needs special permission to decide questions about its own internal procedures, that adjective certainly comes to mind. What’s next, a requirement for a specific grant of permission to decide what to order for lunch?
 
While some other court perhaps could rule on the issue, or not, the public should not have to scurry from court to court begging for basic information on what its government is up to. What can be done? Congress should step in to correct the situation and provide the express authority regarding FISC has held it lacks.
 
Congress can provide the American people with the means to hold the courts accountable by slightly but explicitly expanding FISC’s—and FISCR’s—jurisdiction to allow it to hear First Amendment right-of-access claims.
 
Of course, granting FISC jurisdiction to consider these questions would not resolve their merits. But FISC, like every federal court, would be free to determine—in each case—if maintaining the secrecy of its opinions would be the necessary, least-restrictive way of furthering the government’s national security interests.
 
Unless Congress amends the jurisdictional statutes, FISC and FISCR will be free to continue to dismiss even the most meritorious claims.
 
So Congress should fix this defect—after, all a right without remedy is no right at all.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Self-Defense and ‘Taking the Law into Your Own Hands.’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

Things are likely to get worse. A story in The New York Times, a paper very sympathetic to the BLM hoodlums, admits that rioters plan to assault suburban white areas. They will demand that the white residents, who are often elderly, bow down to them and surrender their homes.

In other words, you are a vigilante if you exercise your basic right of self-defense, without the permission of the predatory State that support the rioters and looters.

Danny Coulson was horror-stricken about people hiring private bodyguards, but what is wrong with that? Instead, we should support our basic right to self-defense. This is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but our rights don’t depend on the State and its Constitution. By the way, the recently sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to end the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our rights come from natural law, and only the free market can enforce them and protect us.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/lew-rockwell/self-defense-and-taking-the-law-into-your-own-hands/

By

The riots in Louisville are only the latest in a long string of violent, raging mob riots by the criminal Marxist BLM movement, their mostly-white “antifa” thuggish allies, and assorted looters. In this case, “Two police officers have been shot in Louisville, Ky., amid riots following the announcement of an indictment in the shooting of Breonna Taylor. Louisville chief of police Robert Schroeder confirmed that the officers were shot and were taken to a local hospital. Schroeder told reporters that one of the officers was undergoing surgery but in stable condition, while the other was alert and stable. Police have arrested one suspect in the shooting. . . after a grand jury charged just one of the officers involved in the shooting of Taylor in a botched drug bust. Rioters clashed with police throughout Louisville, burning trash cans and calling to defund the city police department.”

Last May, hundreds of businesses in the state’s Twin Cities — Minneapolis and St. Paul — were damaged or looted during four days of unrest. In Los Angeles, “National Guard troops arrived in the nation’s second-largest city overnight after a fourth day of protests Saturday saw demonstrators clash repeatedly with officers, torch police vehicles and pillage businesses. Mayor Eric Garcetti said he asked Gov. Gavin Newsom for 500 to 700 members of the Guard to assist the 10,000 Los Angeles Police Department officers. The California National Guard is being deployed to Los Angeles overnight to support our local response to maintain peace and safety on the streets of our city,’ said the mayor, who ordered a rare citywide curfew until Sunday morning. Firefighters responded to dozens of fires, and scores of businesses were damaged. One of the hardest-hit areas was the area around the Grove, a popular high-end outdoor mall west of downtown where hundreds of protesters swarmed the area, showering police with rocks and other objects and vandalizing shops. About 3,000 protesters demonstrated in Brooklyn, and were pushed back by NYPD officers releasing chemical mace after the protests turned violent. A woman was arrested and charged with attempted murder after she threw a Molotov cocktail into an occupied police car.

Things are likely to get worse. A story in The New York Times, a paper very sympathetic to the BLM hoodlums, admits that rioters plan to assault suburban white areas. They will demand that the white residents, who are often elderly, bow down to them and surrender their homes. “Nearly four months after the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police, some protesters against police brutality are taking a more confrontational — and personal — approach. The marches in Portland are increasingly moving to residential and largely white neighborhoods, where demonstrators with bullhorns shout for people to come ‘out of your house and into the street’ and demonstrate their support. These more aggressive protests target ordinary people going about their lives, especially those who decline to demonstrate allegiance to the cause. That includes a diner in Washington who refused to raise her fist to show support for Black Lives Matter, or, in several cities, confused drivers who happened upon the protests.”

Ordinary Americans cannot rely on the police to protect them. In many cases, leftwing governors and mayors have ordered to police to stand down. For them, solidarity with the rioters is more important than the lives and property of decent citizens. We have seen the absurdity of rioters being called “peaceful protestors” when videos show cities aflame. When the police do their duty and counter the violence of the thugs, they are vilified as racists, indicted, and even shot at and killed. In these circumstances, they are hardly likely to stay on the job. If the police don’t protect you, you have no legal recourse, and in some places, police won’t even investigate cases of looting. “’Neither the Constitution, nor state law, imposes a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,’ said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ‘Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.’ The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ‘in custody,’ he pointed out.”

What then are we supposed to do? In an interview on the Tucker Carlson show September 23, Danny Coulson, a retired Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, condemned the rioters. But he thought that there was something even worse than the burning and looting, and this was the main reason he condemned them. Their actions might lead to “vigilante justice”. People must not take the law into their own hands—that could lead to chaos. Instead, we must unify around support of the police.

His advice is useless, and it rests on a false premise. How can we support the police, when they aren’t protecting us? His advice is like urging us to put out a fire with a hose unattached to a hydrant. The false premise is that vigilante justice is bad. Is it? Let’s look at the definition of the term: “Vigilantism is the act of enforcement, investigation or punishment of perceived offenses without legal authority. A vigilante (from Spanish vigilante) is practitioner of vigilantism.”

In other words, you are a vigilante if you exercise your basic right of self-defense, without the permission of the predatory State that support the rioters and looters. In fact, if people defended and protected themselves, the result would not be chaos, but a far better system than we have now. As the great Murray Rothbard explained, people in a free market society would defend themselves by hiring private protection agencies. The agencies would compete to provide the services customers wanted, rather than cater to the whim of a mob or promote venality and power-seeking, as officials of the State do now. As Murray again and again stressed, the free market is always better at supplying goods and services than the State, and protection and defense are no exceptions.

He explains in For A New Liberty, “Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients’ friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent—and paying—customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively. In fact, as government police have become increasingly inefficient, consumers have been turning more and more to private forms of protection. We have already mentioned block or neighborhood protection. There are also private guards, insurance companies, private detectives, and such increasingly sophisticated equipment as safes, locks, and closed-circuit TV and burglar alarms. . . Every reader of detective fiction knows that private insurance detectives are far more efficient than the police in recovering stolen property. Not only is the insurance company impelled by economics to serve the consumer—and thereby try to avoid paying benefits—but the major focus of the insurance company is very different from that of the police. The police, standing as they do for a mythical ‘society,’ are primarily interested in catching and punishing the criminal; restoring the stolen loot to the victim is strictly secondary. To the insurance company and its detectives, on the other hand, the prime concern is recovery of the loot, and apprehension and punishment of the criminal is secondary to the prime purpose of aiding the victim of crime. Here we see again the difference between a private firm impelled to serve the customer-victim of crime and the public police, which is under no such economic compulsion.”

Private law enforcement isn’t just a theoretical idea, as we can see from British and American history. In Britain, “Throughout the period 1674 to 1829 many victims of crime were able to identify and apprehend the culprits before contacting a constable or a justice of the peace to secure their arrest. . . Londoners continued to help apprehend suspected criminals. As the Proceedings frequently illustrate, cries of ‘stop thief!’ or ‘murder!’ from victims often successfully elicited the assistance of passers-by. . . victims frequently paid thief-takers to locate and apprehend suspects. Moreover, the difficulties the authorities had in identifying and apprehending criminals led them to offer rewards to those whose arrests led to the conviction of serious criminals, and pardons to accomplices who were willing to turn in their confederates. Increasingly, ordinary Londoners left the task of securing criminals to people who were motivated to do so by the prospect of financial or other rewards.”

We see the same thing in America. “The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the ‘Watch,’ or private-for-profit policing, which is called ‘The Big Stick’ . . . These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States.”

Danny Coulson was horror-stricken about people hiring private bodyguards, but what is wrong with that? Instead, we should support our basic right to self-defense. This is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but our rights don’t depend on the State and its Constitution. By the way, the recently sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to end the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our rights come from natural law, and only the free market can enforce them and protect us.

 
Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Is Conservatism? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

The Austrian-born nobleman Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, described himself as a conservative arch-liberal and opposed democratization, mass movements, fascism, and totalitarianism. Kuehnelt-Leddihn is notable for asserting in a variety of scholarly works that had the conservative regimes of Europe survived the First World War, Europe would have avoided the totalitarianism of the 1930s and 40s. At the same time, he accepted numerous tenets of liberalism, including natural rights and the benefits of laissez faire, and was a columnist for publications of the American conservative movement.

Similarly, Otto von Habsburg, at one time the heir to the throne of Austria, was a conservative, a close associate of laissez-faire liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, and a member of the liberal Mont Pelerin Society. An internationalist conservative, opponent of Nazism, and early advocate of European integration, Habsburg was a member of the European Parliament during the 1980s and 1990s, an opponent of communism, and a supporter of what he viewed as traditional European civilization.

https://mises.org/wire/what-conservatism?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=fb30483fde-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-fb30483fde-228343965

Conservatism is a group of political and social ideologies that promote traditional social and political institutions, gradualism in political action, and opposition to radical political and social movements.

As an identifiable international intellectual and political movement, conservatism originated in opposition to the French Revolution, and was heavily influenced in its early years by Edmund Burke’s essay Reflections on the Revolution in France, first published in 1790.1 After the revolution, conservatism spread throughout much of western Europe, and was influential in the ideologies of leading diplomats and intellectuals of the nineteenth century, including Klemens von Metternich, Joseph de Maistre, and Juan Donoso Cortés.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, conservatism was characterized by a preference for political rule by the established elites and aristocrats and opposed to rule by the middle classes or working classes. By the twentieth century, conservatism began to lose its particular attachment to the established aristocracy, but continued to promote rule by natural, untitled elites. In all historical periods, philosophical conservatives have expressed opposition to mass democracy movements, fearing that democracy leads to dictatorship.

The specific policies and political programs favored by conservatives have varied significantly among differing societies, and have changed over time depending on the nature of traditional institutions in each society. The traditional status of capitalism or monarchy or Catholicism, for example, greatly influences the nature of the society that the conservative seeks to preserve.

Today, conservatism is associated with numerous center-right and right-wing political parties throughout Europe and in Anglophone countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia. The degree to which ideological conservatism influences the political programs of such parties is a matter of dispute, however, as modern political parties and movements associated with conservatism often embrace ideological components in conflict with traditional conservatism, such as liberal economics and mass democracy.

Reaction against Revolutions in Europe

The French Revolution and the subsequent destruction of church and royal power in France, followed by the Reign of Terror, was a source of widespread dismay among aristocrats and elites in both Europe and the United States. Even before the Terror, Burke responded to the early stages of the revolution with his Reflections on the Revolution in France, which condemned the revolution on the grounds that it uprooted most traditional French institutions and was based on excessively theoretical assertions. Burke had earlier supported the American Revolution on the grounds that the Americans were seeking to preserve traditional rights and an established way of life against interference from the British crown. In Burke’s view, the French Revolution, unlike the moderate American Revolution, was radical and rootless.

The de-Christianization of France during the revolution, coupled with the destruction of the established aristocratic ruling class, alarmed other intellectuals among the aristocracy throughout Europe in the following decades.

Joseph de Maistre, an aristocrat of Piedmont-Sardinia, called for the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy following the war and embodied the conservative creed of “throne and altar” which Maistre considered essential to maintaining a just and lasting society. Unlike Burke, who promoted individual liberties and decentralization of political power coupled with religious freedom, Maistre was dogmatic in his support of monarchy and traditional religious institutions, going so far as to declare that citizens must respect and even love a despotic ruler. According to Maistre, when faced with a severe and suspicious prince:

There is no better course than resignation and respect, I would even say love, for since we start with the supposition that the master exists and that we must serve him absolutely, is it not better to serve him, whatever his nature, with love than without it?

Later European theorists, such as Juan Donoso Cortés, who supported constitutional monarchy against the liberals and socialists of Spain, were influenced by Maistre either directly or indirectly.

Klemens von Metternich, who in later decades would, perhaps unfairly, become a symbol of right-wing reaction for the European left during the nineteenth century, rejected the more authoritarian and reactionary strains of conservatism found among the disciples of Maistre, and embraced a doctrine of stability through peace and economic progress, and a less authoritarian version of the “throne and altar” doctrine. Metternich, who referred to himself as a “conservative socialist,” urged the formation of a limited parliamentary system in Austria and recommended increases in local self-government, provided that such reforms did not lead to revolutionary changes.

The liberal and socialist revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century continued to spur conservatives toward political action and philosophical argumentation against the perceived excesses of democracy, capitalism, and the revolutions which were spreading across Europe.

The Syllabus of Errors, a papal document published by Pope Pius IX in 1864, represented a significant international victory for the hard-line conservatism of Maistre and Cortés, and to a lesser extent the less authoritarian conservatism of the Metternich school. The document condemned liberalism, socialism, communism, and some forms of rationalism, and denied that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

Continental strains of conservatism, most typified by the works of Maistre, Cortés, Metternich, and Friedrich von Gentz, were significant in European political development, but in the centuries since the French Revolution, Burke’s brand of compromising, nonideological conservatism has proven to be the most influential and widespread form of conservatism. This is especially true in the English-speaking world.

Chief characteristics of conservatism that were general across most schools of conservatism prior to World War II include opposition to mass democracy, support for religious institutions, a preference for rule by aristocrats or a natural elite, and an aversion to theories of government not based on established experience.

Conservatism continued to be an influential ideology among the established elites in Europe through the twentieth century. The Congress of Vienna, chaired by Metternich himself, was followed by nearly a century without any large-scale wars in Europe, which contributed to the stability of the conservative regimes then in place, and enabled them to withstand the many liberal and socialist revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century. The success of secular democratic and socialist regimes following the end of the First World War brought the end to conservative dominance in Europe.

Nationalism and Internationalism

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Yes, YouTube Has Censored the Ron Paul Liberty Report. You Won’t Believe Why!

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

The Masters of the Universe strike down anyone that blasphemes the (false god) WHO.

As we have pointed out on the Liberty Report several times – probably contributing to our being targeted – the World Health Organization is not even led by a doctor, but by a violent Ethiopian communist politician.

If you dare criticize a violent Ethiopian communist, you will be banned from YouTube. It seems that simple.

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/youtube?e=4e0de347c8

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

As many of you have already heard, YouTube (owned by Google, with deep roots in the deep state), inexplicably removed our Ron Paul Liberty Report from 23 September, titled “Covid Whistleblowers Expose Narrative As ‘Total Fraud,'” and officially delivered a “warning” to the Ron Paul Liberty Report You Tube channel. They claimed in the notice that the program, which you can watch for yourself here, violated their “community guidelines” regarding “spam, deceptive practices, and scams.”

We are in danger of having our entire channel removed if we continue in these prohibited activities, they warned.  Please watch the program for yourself and attempt to identify where any of these three violations took place.

Dr. Paul sent an appeal asking for specific clarification as to what in the program violated their “community standards.” This seems important, because if they could point to something that was said or something in the title or thumbnail photo that violated their “guidelines,” it wouldn’t be that difficult to avoid such phrases or words or even photos in the future. Yes, it might be annoying and unfair, but knowing specifically what was the violation or violations would logically benefit both parties, as YouTube was clear in their “warning” that they did “not want to lose” us.

Imagine if a police officer pulled you over and began writing a ticket and when you requested the reason for the ticket they refused to tell you. Or perhaps they arrested you with no clearly articulated reason. Neither did the judge nor jury utter a peep when they ruled on the case and passed sentence.

This is how YouTube responded to a request for the “habeas corpus” of our “crime”:

As Ron Paul Institute Senior Fellow (and attorney) Adam Dick wrote me after I showed him the result of the appeal, “What ‘understanding’? Violation determined and appeal denied; that is all the info to understand. The process seems designed to prevent understanding anything other than that power is being exercised.”

Yes. Power is being exercised and we do not have to tell you why.

Digging a bit deeper into the actual reason they decided to pull the episode of the Liberty Report (which as most of you know is hours in the making and represents years in preparation), turns up this bizarre email YouTube sent to the Ron Paul Liberty Report’s gmail address:

So finally we are getting more of an explanation of where we might have gone wrong. YouTube simply does not allow any criticism of the World Health Organization – a United Nations bureaucratic body that has absolutely no idea what to do about the Covid health problem. One week you must wear masks, the next week you don’t need them, etc. But don’t dare criticize them or you will have your metaphorical larynx ripped from your body.

As we have pointed out on the Liberty Report several times – probably contributing to our being targeted – the World Health Organization is not even led by a doctor, but by a violent Ethiopian communist politician.

If you dare criticize a violent Ethiopian communist, you will be banned from YouTube. It seems that simple.

So, as another violent communist once wrote, what is to be done?

We are still looking at our options. For now we have opened a backup account on BitChute so that if a future YouTube broadcast is pulled we can offer it up to you without so much delay.

Ultimately we believe the noose will tighten on any “dissident” voices such as Dr. Paul’s. It seems bizarre in what so many love to claim is the “freest country on earth,” one that must spend billions “freeing” others overseas, that anyone challenging the prevailing mainstream media/US government narrative on Covid – or foreign policy or anything else – must be silenced. Once there was the gulag for dissidents, these days it’s “big tech” companies that do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with US intelligence and the US government who do the bidding of their paymasters. But hey, they’re “private” companies so don’t you dare complain as you are herded into your ideological boxcar!

We are looking at other options to deliver the Ron Paul Liberty Report to our viewers – who on YouTube are a hair away from passing the quarter million subscriber mark – but many of these options are not cheap. As you all know, we operate on a shoestring and we stretch every penny from the generous contributions of our supporters.

But we are going to need your help if we are going to keep the peace and prosperity message of the Ron Paul Liberty Report alive. We are directly challenging multi-billion dollar media empires and their narratives – they are not at all happy about it.

This is your program, and if you want it to continue – one of the last voices challenging the dominant and crushing narrative coming from the mainstream media on the Left AND Right – we will need your support.

Please consider a tax-deductible contribution to the Ron Paul Institute, which is the producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report. Every donation is gratefully appreciated, but we’re going to need some big bucks to fight this freight train we see bearing down on us. Once they have obliterated us, they will be coming for you. Please help. By the way, we LOVE Bitcoin and you can make a Bitcoin donation at the above link. Please contact me directly at dmcadams@ronpaulinstitute.org for gifts of appreciated stock or other tangible items or to remember the Institute in your will.

Dr. Paul famously says, no army can stop an idea whose time has come. Even in these seemingly dark days, the time has come for our peace and prosperity message. Please do what you can to help us. We need you and we appreciate you.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Bitcoin:
QRCode
3GBe2oTXNxa7vUjRKAz6B2YNNo7ADyppq9

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

What U.S. Troops Are Really Doing In Syria | The National Interest

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

One of the greatest contradictions in Washington’s Syria policy is not the reason(s) that we’re there but the fact that we haven’t left. At least twice now, there has been an order to withdraw that has never been carried out.

U.S. policy toward Syria is defined by an absurdity that can’t be neatly untangled—a low-intensity regime change mission defined as anything other than its central mission. Every now and then, we’re offered a new explanation for why our troops are in Syria. At this point, the best response is to say, “enough is enough.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/what-us-troops-are-really-doing-syria-169410

by Michael Hall

James Mattis famously resigned from his secretary of defense post citing opposition to President Donald Trump’s order to remove U.S. troops from Syria. So it came as a mild surprise when it was recently confirmed that Mattis opposed a plan to assassinate Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria. This opposition was a prudent move as deposing Assad would not end Syria’s civil war but throw the country into deeper chaos. But this seeming incongruity of Mattis the hawk contra Mattis the dove is representative of the larger contradictions in Washington’s Syria policy.

 

These contradictions arise from the fact that U.S. policy in Syria has always been centered around opposition to Assad, rather than the defeat of ISIS, whose caliphate was destroyed long before Trump’s withdrawal order.

 

Perhaps this contradiction is most glaringly seen in the justifications Washington offers for the U.S. military presence in Syria. We are frequently told we’re there for one reason only to be given a new reason a few months later. It’s hard not to notice.

We were told the ISIS caliphate had to be defeated. But they lost their last scrap of territory in March 2019. Denied a physical base of operations, those going under the name of ISIS today are—as far as legitimate U.S. interests are concerned—indistinguishable from any other ragtag Sunni militias. But a defeated ISIS still wasn’t enough to convince Washington to withdraw.

 

ISIS’s caliphate was destroyed, completing the military mission that brought U.S. troops to the country. Why then are our soldiers still there? We’ve also been told they’re over there to counter Iran (which, by the way, had the same goal of destroying the ISIS caliphate).

 

Years ago, we were told that it’s important to be in Syria to counter Russia too. But today this mission—if it can be called that—amounts to the occasional road rage incident involving convoys representing the world’s only two nuclear superpowers pathetically struggling for space on a road or wheat field. It’s notable that this reason was recently revived to justify the decision to send more troops to Syria.

We’re also told that it’s important to support the Kurds and, though Washington has been quieter on this front lately, we were once told training and equipping anti-Assad militants was also vital. This latter notion resulted in an embarrassing situation where the CIA’s favored militants were fighting the Pentagon’s favored militants. These local groups have their own interests, but they shouldn’t be confused for America’s interests.

 

More recently, President Trump has touted a plan to “secure the oil” and his administration has paved the way for a U.S. company to manage some oil fields in the war-torn country. Trump has cited this as a reason for keeping the last few hundred U.S. troops in Syria. The thing is, ensuring American access to Syrian oil demands a certain level of security. More bluntly, it necessitates an endless occupation of Syria.

But, like any of the above reasons, it would be a mistake to accept that oil serves as the principal justification for the U.S. presence in Syria.

 

Trump has also defended the decision to keep a small contingent of troops in Syria by stating that Israel and Jordan asked him to keep our forces there. This justification was reaffirmed in a recent Trump rally where the president characteristically stated off-the-cuff, “The fact is, we don’t have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We’ve been very good to Israel.”

What are we to make of this flurry of reasons for staying in Syria? It may be a little bit of each, but the overarching reason has always been to engage in a campaign of “regime change-lite,” tragically keeping Syria territorially divided in a simmering civil war and making Syrians bear the brunt of any—and there are many—negative consequences. This is why the United States originally armed anti-Assad rebels and why troops that were ostensibly sent to defeat ISIS have remained after the fall of the caliphate.

 

But viewing all these reasons together, it is dizzying to keep track of them. It is perhaps tempting to just take Trump at his word and assume that we’re actually there for the oil. While the amount of oil in Syria is a significant amount for Syrians, it’s nowhere near enough to be a vital concern for the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Association, the amount of oil in Syria is not even two percent of what Iran or Iraq boast, never mind America’s own status as the number one oil producer in the world.

In fact, this is what’s striking about all of the above reasons in this list—not one of the justifications is about something vital to the security of the United States. Instead of carefully deconstructing each reason, this bird’s eye view is all we need to make sense of this confusing list of inconsistent and constantly evolving justifications for staying in Syria.

 

One of the greatest contradictions in Washington’s Syria policy is not the reason(s) that we’re there but the fact that we haven’t left. At least twice now, there has been an order to withdraw that has never been carried out.

U.S. policy toward Syria is defined by an absurdity that can’t be neatly untangled—a low-intensity regime change mission defined as anything other than its central mission. Every now and then, we’re offered a new explanation for why our troops are in Syria. At this point, the best response is to say, “enough is enough.”

 

We don’t need to keep playing this game of roulette where Washington spins the wheel and tells us why our troops are there—it’s a racket and should be recognized as such. Syria’s problems aren’t our problems and the only sensible option that comports with U.S. interests is a full withdrawal of American forces.

Michael R. Hall is the communications manager of Defense Priorities and a geopolitical analyst. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelryhall.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

With Ginsburg’s Death Cue the Last Stand of American Marxists — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

Blumenthal knows that Ginsburg’s replacement will be the end of their power, the apotheosis of a four-generation long march through the institutions in the U.S. that has undermined basic societal structures. He knows re-electing Trump will ensure the Supreme Court will be made up of judges that tilt towards a constructionist view of the Constitution as a limited set of powers rather than an expansive one.

So is John Roberts. So was Antonin Scalia, Oliver Wendell Holmes and every other Supreme Court just that followed him. These are people, regardless of how they see themselves, their motivations or records as jurists, who wield the kind of power over the lives of billions that no person should possibly have.

By definition, that makes them tyrants. Some better than others on certain issues, but never forget they are tyrants, but who are, magically, supposed to be above politics.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/23/with-ginsburgs-death-cue-last-stand-of-american-marxists/

 Tom Luongo

For all of the bad things that have happened in 2020 don’t for a second believe that 2021 won’t be infinitely worse. It has been clear to me for months that the fight for the White House is one for the ages.

While every election is ‘the most important one ever’ in the minds of the politicos who see the other side for what it is, an existential threat to their power, this election is, I feel, finally one worth that moniker. But, that said, nearly every election truly is one where voters are presented a Hobson’s Choice where there is no real difference between the standard bearers of both major parties.

And the animating principle of these people is the accumulation of raw power, nothing more. Power, as a concept in modern political theory, is purely an outgrowth of Marxian thinking, defining everything that happens in our lives in terms of it. There are no win/wins in this worldview, only those who benefit and those who are exploited.

Basic concepts of comparative advantage and individual talents as expressed in free trade between sovereign actors are not only nullified by this doctrine but actively disparaged and denigrated through the language of envy and the rhetoric of victimization.

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the day has come for the existent power structure where they have to reveal the final truth of their naked need to maintain their power.

Because replacing Ginsburg has been the most pressing concern for Democrats, Regime Republicans and their globalist backers in The Davos Crowd since the day Donald Trump was elected.

Now that she is dead a knock-down, drag-out, war without end commences in Washington D.C.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already talking about impeaching Trump if he dares to try and push through a replacement for Ginsburg. She’s already famously termed Congressional Republicans, “enemies of the state.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has all but threatened the American people with open-ended violence if they re-elect Trump.

 

Scott Adams is not wrong here for calling Blumenthal to the carpet on this. Blumenthal is just saying what the Democrats have actually been doing for four years, trying to hang Trump for just being President. Blumenthal, like so many in Washington, are suffused with a Marxian lust for power and an abject and debilitating fear of losing it.

Fear of the loss of power, of all kinds, is the most powerful motivator of terrible, if not outright, tyrannical behavior. We’re all capable of it. You, me, a Senator, the cable guy or, yes, a Supreme Court justice.

Blumenthal knows that Ginsburg’s replacement will be the end of their power, the apotheosis of a four-generation long march through the institutions in the U.S. that has undermined basic societal structures. He knows re-electing Trump will ensure the Supreme Court will be made up of judges that tilt towards a constructionist view of the Constitution as a limited set of powers rather than an expansive one.

Every election, the Democrats have, quite cynically, pushed women farther and farther into insanity over an issue which the Supreme Court should have never ruled on in the first place, abortion. And fear over this right to murder your unborn child has corrupted women to the point that now it’s an irrational fear of a loss of control over something that would just devolve to the states or local communities, as it should.

All of this said and I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead when I say this but Ginsburg was a tyrant.

So is John Roberts. So was Antonin Scalia, Oliver Wendell Holmes and every other Supreme Court just that followed him. These are people, regardless of how they see themselves, their motivations or records as jurists, who wield the kind of power over the lives of billions that no person should possibly have.

By definition, that makes them tyrants. Some better than others on certain issues, but never forget they are tyrants, but who are, magically, supposed to be above politics.

And yet, the political calculus of who controls the Supreme Court of the world’s most powerful nation is always on the table. The elevation of the Supreme Court to the final arbiter of law in the U.S. is itself a power it was never intended to have with state Supreme Courts having as much, if not more, power than the SCOTUS.

But, again, in the long march through all the institutions by those in thrall to the siren’s song of power and its ruthless application, that issued has de facto been settled since Lee surrendered his army at Appomattox.

In their minds, the wrong person cannot control the access to the court, in this case Trump. They know he’s in line to make more appointments to the court should he win a second term.

The fear that a little bit of liberty or respect for the dignity of human sovereignty would make its way into the Supreme Court leaves the leadership of both parties saturated with fear.

Because, ultimately, these philosopher tyrants who occupy the Supreme Court are there to give the illusion of impartiality and justice, not to actually defend those high-minded concepts which have no real place in practical politics and the struggle sessions for power.

What is clear now that Ginsburg is gone is that if these power mad lose their fight over this seat and the direction of the court for the next two generations then they will dilute the court’s power just like they are actively diluting the legitimacy of local law enforcement through the subversion of local governments.

The openly Marxist rhetoric to justify the looting and burning by BLM/antifa activists while harassing their victims in and around their homes was done to lay the groundwork for a larger protest in the event of Trump winning.

And now the stage has been set for their last stand. Trump will be blocked from restoring order to the court by arm-twisting the three fake Republicans in the Senate – Mitt Romney (RINO-UT), Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) and Susan Collins (RINO-ME) – into voting down any appointment.

If there was ever to call in the markers on these three folks it is now. A presumably divided court will uphold ballot harvesting decisions by state Supreme Courts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, presumably to grant even more power to those who count the votes there to make sure the final tally comports with their desired reality.

They were supremely successful with this in 2018, flipping a number of seats after election night, to ensure not only a strong Democratic majority but that the most important allies of President Trump were removed.

Washington always collapses to protect itself from threats of the people having a real say over their future. And, like it or not and for all his faults (which are legion), Donald Trump is the people’s standard bearer against them.

They have gone all-in on this strategy. Men like George Soros have spent billions in support of this push for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. They aren’t going to allow such a little thing like the passing of a supreme court justice at the wrong time deter them from their goal.

You don’t need to have a dog’s keen nose to smell the fear and desperation that clings to these people, however. It is palpable in their behavior, their rhetoric and their over-reaction to everything Trump does or might do.

And their act is tiresome. The American people have fear porn fatigue. It’s showing up in the polls and its showing up in their hysterics. Regardless of how the election turns out, there will be no rest from the violence unleashed and the violence yet to come when millions of Americans come to the uncomfortable conclusion that they will never hold power again in their lifetimes.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »