MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Cruelty | Charles Joseph | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast S4: E80

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2022

Canadian Residential School

Charles Joseph is a Kwakwaka’wakw artist known for his masks, totem poles, and canoes. His work can be found in homes and businesses worldwide, including mine. His “Residential School Totem” stands before the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts for “all Canadians, not just residential school survivors.” It represents Charles’ “reconciliation” and his “story is on the pole.”

Charles’ carving homepage https://charlesnativeart.ca

Facebook page https://facebook.com/charlesjosephnat…

Be seeing you

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

El Salvador President Asks if the Destruction of United States is Done Intentionally

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2022

https://humansarefree.com/2022/02/destruction-of-usa-done-intentionally.html

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele tweeted out on Monday wondering if there’s a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within.

“Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within? Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things? Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot?” President Bukele tweeted.

el salvador president asks if the destruction of united states is done intentionally

His comment was in response to a New York Post report on empty shelves at a Rite Aid store in New York City that will be closing soon due to shoplifters.

Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within?

Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things?

Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot? https://t.co/whGKTEKN1J

— Nayib Bukele 🇸🇻 (@nayibbukele) January 31, 2022

America was once a great country but the left’s acceptance of crime, destruction of our cities, and attacks on the police have resulted in the most homicides in several US cities in 2021.

Democrat officials continue to allow looters to run wild and crime to skyrocket in New York and elsewhere.

After the criminals are caught and arrested, charges were reduced to a misdemeanor, and the thieves were back on the streets in less than 24 hours to steal again!

And thanks to Democrats and Joe Biden’s devastating policies, the US inflation measurement has reached its highest level in decades, since the early 1980’s.

Joe Biden is Not Incompetent – He is Doing Exactly What He Was Hired to Do: Collapse America.

Post Millenial reported:

“El Salvador president Nayib Bukele says that the destruction of American cities may well be part of a “deliberate plan.”

His remarks are reminiscent of observations made by other international observers who look upon America’s embrace of woke platitudes amid the country’s crumbling infrastructure and rule of law.

“Is there a deliberate plan to destroy the United States from within?” Bukele tweeted on Monday. “Why are the authorities and some of the media not even commenting on this things? Why are they letting their beautiful cities rot?”

Bukele, who gained international attention for making Bitcoin an official currency in his country of El Salvador, tweeted his remarks in response to a New York Post article highlighting empty shelves at a soon-to-be-shuttered Rite Aid store in New York City.

The store is one of many to be driven out of business since the start of the pandemic of unchecked shoplifting and organized looting. Across major US cities, prosecutors have refused to charge shoplifters, arguing that doing so disenfranchises people of color.”

By Jim Hoft, Guest writer

Be seeing you

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

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2022

This is what a war with Russia would look like. It would not be limited to Ukraine, but extend to battlefields in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and elsewhere. It would involve Russian strikes against NATO airfields, depots, and ports throughout the depth of Europe.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/548322-war-russia-us-nato/

Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

In a recent press conference held on the occasion of a visit to Moscow by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about continued NATO expansion, and the potential consequences if Ukraine was to join the trans-Atlantic alliance.

“Their [NATO’s] main task is to contain the development of Russia,” Putin said. “Ukraine is simply a tool to achieve this goal. They could draw us into some kind of armed conflict and force their allies in Europe to impose the very tough sanctions that are being talked about in the United States today,” he noted. “Or they could draw Ukraine into NATO, set up strike weapons systems there and encourage some people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force, and still draw us into an armed conflict.”

Putin continued, “Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop it from unleashing operations in Crimea, let alone Donbass? Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and ventures such a combat operation. Do we have to fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought anything about it? It seems not.”

But these words were dismissed by White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who likened them to a fox “screaming from the top of the hen house that he’s scared of the chickens,” adding that any Russian expression of fear over Ukraine “should not be reported as a statement of fact.”

Psaki’s comments, however, are divorced from the reality of the situation. The principal goal of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is what he terms the “de-occupation” of Crimea. While this goal has, in the past, been couched in terms of diplomacy – “[t]he synergy of our efforts must force Russia to negotiate the return of our peninsula,” Zelensky told the Crimea Platform, a Ukrainian forum focused on regaining control over Crimea – the reality is his strategy for return is a purely military one, in which Russia has been identified as a “military adversary”, and the accomplishment of which can only be achieved through NATO membership.

How Zelensky plans on accomplishing this goal using military means has not been spelled out. As an ostensibly defensive alliance, the odds are that NATO would not initiate any offensive military action to forcibly seize the Crimean Peninsula from Russia. Indeed, the terms of Ukraine’s membership, if granted, would need to include some language regarding the limits of NATO’s Article 5 – which relates to collective defense – when addressing the Crimea situation, or else a state of war would de facto exist upon Ukrainian accession.

The most likely scenario would involve Ukraine being rapidly brought under the ‘umbrella’ of NATO protection, with ‘battlegroups’ like those deployed into eastern Europe being formed on Ukrainian soil as a ‘trip-wire’ force, and modern air defenses combined with forward-deployed NATO aircraft put in place to secure Ukrainian airspace.

Once this umbrella has been established, Ukraine would feel emboldened to begin a hybrid conflict against what it terms the Russian occupation of Crimea, employing unconventional warfare capability it has acquired since 2015 at the hands of the CIA to initiate an insurgency designed specifically to “kill Russians.”

The idea that Russia would sit idly by while a guerilla war in Crimea was being implemented from Ukraine is ludicrous; if confronted with such a scenario, Russia would more than likely use its own unconventional capabilities in retaliation. Ukraine, of course, would cry foul, and NATO would be confronted with its mandatory obligation for collective defense under Article 5. In short, NATO would be at war with Russia.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

This medical data from the US DoD is explosive. Mainstream media has been ordered to ignore it.

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2022

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/this-medical-data-from-the-us-dod?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2MDA2NDY5NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDgyNDUyNTIsIl8iOiJGV2FLTiIsImlhdCI6MTY0NDA5MzM3NCwiZXhwIjoxNjQ0MDk2OTc0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTQ4MzU0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.IH4cGa-CWBtFUS1eN-4WbTM6KXPMe4sWEQgq4RyjFow

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

San Jose’s Gun Tax Has Nothing to Do with Reducing Crime | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

Regardless of any laughable claims about reducing the burden on taxpayers, proponents know they will face legal challenges and that the taxpayer will have to pay for them. They know that the measure will do nothing about gun violence, as that is not the point. The point is to put extra burdens on gun owners and increase the powers of the state to disarm the public.

https://mises.org/wire/san-joses-gun-tax-has-nothing-do-reducing-crime

Tate Fegley

CNN touts San Jose as being “poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements.” At first, I had thought that the poorly worded headline must be mistaken, as there are cities, such as Kennesaw, GA, that have required residents own guns. In San Jose’s case, “gun ownership requirements” means paying an annual tax and being required to purchase insurance to exercise the right (privilege?) to own a firearm.

CNN also published an opinion piece by San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo defending the recently passed legislation, saying “gun owners should cover the costs of gun violence.” Why should individuals who played no role in the crimes of others be held responsible? I don’t know the answer, but it seems that holding criminals responsible for their own misdeeds is becoming increasingly unpopular in California governance.

Liccardo emphasizes the costs to taxpayers of gun violence, citing a report by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. What stands out to me from the report is that it seems that it is only entities dependent on taxpayer money that unabashedly publicize how crazily inefficient they are in order to argue for more resources. Estimates in the report are typically on the high end; e.g., even though the median time served for murder in the US was 13.4 years in 2016, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform’s estimated cost for incarcerating a shooting suspect in California is based on twenty-five years of imprisonment, costing $81,203 per year. Other expenses include police response to a homicide—not including investigation, which is another $12,200—costing $4,480 and $2,500 to clean up the crime scene. And, for some reason, “gunshot surgery” on a dead victim costs $45,200. Liccardo expects anyone who goes plinking with a .22 rifle to help pay for that.

In defense of requiring gun owners to purchase insurance, Liccardo claims that it “incentivizes safe gun ownership, where risk-adjusted premiums might encourage owners to take gun-safety courses, use gun safes or install child-safety locks.” He compares it to auto insurance: “In the context of auto safety, insurers rewarding good driving or the use of airbags have reduced per-mile auto fatalities by 80% in five decades, saving 3.5 million lives.” As is often the case when looking at claims made by civilian disarmament advocates, they cite advocacy organizations that make it an involved process for the reader to determine the source and plausibility of those claims. Liccardo, in stating that incentives by insurance companies have reduced auto fatalities, links to a page run by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, which links to an article by progressive outlet The Nation, which cites a report by Ralph Nader’s Center for Auto Safety.

By going down this rabbit hole, one sees that Liccardo is making things up. The author of the Center for Auto Safety report does not even mention insurance as a reason for why traffic fatalities went down. Liccardo’s comparison is based entirely on misdirection and obfuscation.

In trying to implement both annual taxes and insurance requirements, Liccardo is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, as the memo on the proposed legislation fully anticipates legal challenges on multiple fronts. Liccardo seems to be running a play out of the Obamacare playbook (or, really, a play based on Justice John Roberts’s sophistic opinion that declared Obamacare’s individual mandate a tax, which should have invalidated it, since taxing bills are to originate in the House). The Obama administration’s argument was not that the penalty for violating the individual mandate is a tax, but that the federal government may force individuals to purchase insurance based on the Commerce Clause. In this case, Liccardo is covering both bases: the legislation has both an annual fee for gun owners (a tax) and a mandate to purchase insurance. Thus, if only one burden on gun owners is overturned, the other remains.

Another legal challenge the bill’s proponents expect to face is “the constitutionality of permanent seizure of the firearm as a consequence of noncompliance.” Liccardo is surprisingly candid that the goal is disarmament:

Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right; yet that’s an important feature of these proposals, not a defect. These ordinances create a legal mandate that provides police with a lawful means for seizing guns from non-law-abiding, dangerous people.

The response to every officer’s call for domestic violence in my city, for example, includes the question, “do you have any guns in the home?” If that gun owner lacks proof of payment or insurance, the police can seize the gun.

Of course, the penalty for failure to provide proof of insurance for one’s car is not impoundment (let alone permanent impoundment). We again see the intellectual dishonesty in comparing the legislation to regulation of automobiles.

Also dishonest is the common practice of citing particular mass shootings as the impetus for further restrictions on gun ownership without asking, let alone answering, the question of how such restrictions would have done anything about the mentioned shooting. In his opinion piece, Liccardo begins by mentioning the May 26, 2021, San Jose shooting that resulted in nine deaths, as well as the suicide of the shooter. Although he does not claim that the measure would have prevented this event, it is an awkward incident to mention if he is making a case about the fiscal impact of gun violence since the vast majority of the estimated cost per shooting is incarceration, which does not apply in this case. Clearly, the intended effect of mentioning this shooting is emotional manipulation, not to provide a useful illustration.

The emphasis on how much money the state spends in response to shootings is interesting in light of a relevant case decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in October 2021. The court decided that Cook County’s special taxes on retail sales of firearms and ammunition violated the Illinois Constitution’s uniformity clause because “the relationship between the tax classification and the use of the tax proceeds is not sufficiently tied to the stated objective of ameliorating” the costs of gun violence. The court decided that such a connection is necessary if Cook County is going to put a special tax on a fundamental right. However, the California Constitution does not recognize an individual’s right to bear arms, nor does it have a similar uniformity clause from what I can tell, so San Jose’s tax is unlikely to face a similar legal challenge, at least at the state level.

Regardless of any laughable claims about reducing the burden on taxpayers, proponents know they will face legal challenges and that the taxpayer will have to pay for them. They know that the measure will do nothing about gun violence, as that is not the point. The point is to put extra burdens on gun owners and increase the powers of the state to disarm the public.

Author:

Contact Tate Fegley

Tate Fegley is a Postdoctoral Associate at the Center for Governance and Markets at the University of Pittsburgh. Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

Be seeing you

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

Should Minimum Wage Implementers be Jailed? – International Man

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

Suppose I purchased a big powerful weapon with an indefinitely large amount of ammunition and had not only nine lives like a cat but millions of them. I then went to every potential employer of unskilled workers and made the following threat to them: employ any of these people, and I’ll shoot you. I also traveled to the inner cities and other places where unskilled workers are to be found and threatened to murder any of them who became employed.

https://internationalman.com/articles/should-minimum-wage-implementers-be-jailed/

by Walter Block

Notice the question posed above mentions implementers, not supporters. The latter consists of, what? 95% of the electorate? We can document that some 2/3 of the voters favor a minimum wage of $15. It is my estimate that virtually all voters favor this law at some level. That is, perhaps at most 5% of those who cast a ballot favor wiping this enactment entirely from the law books.

The former, in sharp contrast, consist of at most a few hundred people, perhaps 1000 at most. It would consist of all the senators and congressmen who passed this legislation, the judges who rule in its favor, the police who arrest those who violate it, and the jailers who incarcerate them.

Assume, arguendo if you must, that the effect of this legislation is not to raise anyone’s wage. Rather, it is to create unemployment for all those whose discounted marginal revenue productivity is less than the level stipulated by law. At present, federal law requires that at least $7.25 be paid to all employees. But there are some people, mainly young, minority group members, the mentally and physically disabled, whose productivity is less than that. If this law is boosted to $15, it is likely that far more people will be consigned to lives of permanent unemployment. The minimum wage is not akin to a rising floor, which raises pay scales. Rather, it resembles a hurdle over which the worker must “jump” with his productivity to obtain a job in the first place and keep it thereafter.

Remember, we are positing for the sake of argument that all of this is true and that arguments to the contrary are complete balderdash.

Assume now the entire absence of any minimum wage law (the first one in the U.S. was passed in 1938; before that, it just did not exist.) Suppose I purchased a big powerful weapon with an indefinitely large amount of ammunition and had not only nine lives like a cat but millions of them. I then went to every potential employer of unskilled workers and made the following threat to them: employ any of these people, and I’ll shoot you. I also traveled to the inner cities and other places where unskilled workers are to be found and threatened to murder any of them who became employed.

How would I be regarded? Obviously, under these assumptions, I would be a criminal. I need not ever have to pull any trigger. The mere threats that I made would render me a very serious law-breaker. I did not act in this way to benefit myself financially. I did not ask, nor demand of any of them, that they pay me a single penny. I just have a hatred for the economically “differently-abled,” and I want them to lead miserable unemployed lives. Ok, ok, I’m a bit of a weirdo, I admit it, but the economic analogy holds.

However, I am still a felon. I still had no right to assault businessmen and the unskilled in this despicable manner.

Now, let us return to the real world. Most of those who favor this legislation do so out of economic ignorance. They think this law will actually raise wages on more than a very temporary basis (when the law was last roughly doubled, from $.40 to $.75 in 1949, all elevators were manually operated; were these people fired the very next day? No. It takes a while to substitute automatic machinery for these workers).

If all supporters favor this malicious evil law, they are innocent of any crime; economic illiteracy is not criminal behavior. If they directly voted for this law, then, yes, they deserve a visit to the hoosegow, just as I did when I acted in a manner that brings about the very same result: forced joblessness for people at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

Fortunately for such voters, we have secret ballots in this country, and people are innocent of a crime unless they are proven guilty; here, we can have no proof of their vicious behavior.

But not all ballots are secret. Those that occur in our legislatures are a matter of public record. And then there are judicial findings in favor of this law, which are equally available to all and sundry. I fail to see the relevant difference between what I did in that made-up scenario and what these people are guilty of. Oh, yes, I was a criminal, and they are certainly not, given our present laws. But that is not a relevant difference. That is not justice. These people should be made to pay for their crimes.

There is all the difference in the world between me wanting to jail implementers of minimum wage laws and lefties trying to imprison climate deniers. I favor free speech for supporters of this law but not for implementers. Ditto for Nazi or Communist supporters, not for those who impose these philosophies upon others.

Editor’s Note: We’re headed into one of the most dangerous times for savers, retirees, and anyone who has assets.

The political and financial risks to your capital are the largest they’ve ever been in our lifetimes—what you do next could mean the difference between suffering crippling losses and coming out ahead with your wealth intact.

That’s precisely why legendary investor Doug Casey and his team just released this report about what you can to prepare. Click here to see it now.

Be seeing you

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

Biden Voters’ Remorse | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

It was invented by those who willfully ignored what he said because they hated Trump or because they agreed with Biden’s proposals at the time that he made them. Those who supported him deserve our stern disapproval rather than inappropriate expressions of sympathy.

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/biden-voters–remorse/1/

By Paul Gottfried

BIDEN_2

There seems to be a widespread belief that Joe Biden has exceeded the mandate for which he was elected. It seems we’re supposed to believe that those who voted for the Biden-Harris ticket craved moderation after Trump’s troubled and unsettling presidency. Writer and commentator Scott Jennings repeats this familiar narrative in a recent interview with CNN:

I never imagined how quickly this would all unfold. The person they sold on the campaign, the nice old, you know, moderate grandpa who just wanted to help everybody get along and compromise is not what we got over the last year.

He has no mandate really to do much of anything. It’s amazing that he got a couple of things done when the mandate was really pretty clear—50/50 Senate, a near 50/50 House and a pretty close presidential election. The mandate was simply replace Donald Trump and don’t do anything drastic or stupid.

Biden’s voters apparently just wanted a “moderate grandpa” who would lower the political temperature. Instead, they ended up with the agenda of the radical left “Squad” being carried out by a cognitively declining figurehead president. Those who mistakenly supported Biden are now suffering buyer’s remorse, and it would be unfair, we are led to believe, if we blamed these misled voters for what befell them after Biden’s election, the consequences of which they could not have foreseen.

Allow me to respectfully disagree. There were more than enough signs that Biden would derail the country when he was running against Trump; and those who voted for him are guilty of having ignored the evidence that Biden would be a far worse president than the person he replaced.

I long ago stopped believing that those who vote for catastrophic political candidates are simply the victims of bad choices. Such people get what they want—or what they think they want—and should be scolded for imposing their will on the rest of us. When I went with my parents to a restaurant as a child and ordered something that I didn’t like—usually against better advice—I was made to eat what I picked. It was my misjudgment, not the small print on the menu, which caused me to choose badly. We are now dealing with chronological adults who picked the wrong fare out of obstinacy or anger, but who still insist that it was someone else’s fault. 

Biden hardly ran as a moderate. His vice-presidential candidate openly expressed support for Black Lives Matter violence during the 2020 “Summer of Love,” and Biden’s staff were involved in bailing out the criminal participants in those riots. While preparing their separate presidential runs in 2019, both Biden and Harris came out in support of the race-hustling impostor Jussie Smollett. Each treated Smollett’s make-believe attack by Trump supporters in downtown Chicago at 2:00 am as evidence of raging racism and homophobia

The Biden/Harris Campaign also decried Kyle Rittenhouse as a racist for defending himself against armed assailants (who happened to be white) in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. Biden then expressed anger and concern at Rittenhouse’s acquittal in 2021 in much the same language he had used against him in the past. Never during or after his campaign did Biden stop appealing to his radical black and LGBT base.

“We have a lot to root out, but most of all the systematic racism that most of us whites don’t like to acknowledge even exists,” Biden said in a 2019 speech delivered for Al Sharpton and the National Action Network. Within one day of Biden’s taking office, Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald notes in a Newsweek article that Biden pledged to fight systemic white racism with the assistance of all branches of the federal government and to give amnesty to illegals. Neither theme was new; both issues had furnished the incoming president with campaign rhetoric for many months.   

Moreover, Biden’s open-border policy, which voters are now complaining about, did not result from a post-election decision by the new president. It is exactly what he promised to do while on the campaign trail. He also promised in the spring of 2020 to close the Keystone XL oil pipeline bringing in oil exports from Canada. Thus, his action to do so immediately after he became president should not have surprised anyone who was paying any attention to national politics.

Biden was every bit as forthcoming about his presidential plans as Trump had been about his own, four years earlier. The idea that Biden hid his intentions when running for the presidency is utter nonsense. It was invented by those who willfully ignored what he said because they hated Trump or because they agreed with Biden’s proposals at the time that he made them. Those who supported him deserve our stern disapproval rather than inappropriate expressions of sympathy.

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried is editor in chief of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is also the Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.

Be seeing you

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

Freedom Is a Stabilizing Influence – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

Free to try, and fail, Americans prospered, building a country that became the envy of the world. Economic barriers and restrictions on movement between the states were forbidden, making the United States the largest free-trade zone since the Roman Empire. There were no feudal obligations or status; no military conscription (except during the Civil War); no income tax or Social Security tax; no licensing laws or monopoly privileges to protect favored interests

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/freedom-is-a-stabilizing-influence/

by Scott McPherson

The nativists at Breitbart are sounding the alarm. “Reports: U.S. Society Grows More Divided Amid Diversity” was a headline at Breitbart on January 28. The reports noted come from the Associated Press and the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. Both suggest a growing divide between different people in the United States, and apparently foreigners are to blame.Freedom was the crucible for generations of diverse peoples, raising productivity, wages, and living standards to levels never before seen in all of human history.
[Click to Tweet]

According to the Breitbart story, “the AP report comes as academics admit that the United States is being politically divided by the ‘demographic shift’ caused by immigration of global migrants into an otherwise stable society.” In other words, things would be great if poor people from other countries just stopped trying to improve their lot in life by emigrating here. The Carnegie Foundation claims that the United States is “perniciously polarized” and “especially susceptible to polarization” through “the durability of identify politics in a racially and ethnically diverse democracy.”

It cannot be denied that considerable effort is employed to push people into warring tribes, based on superficial differences of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or the politics of envy that vilifies the prosperous and productive. But handwringers on the right who fret about immigration misdiagnose the problem. A quarter of Republican voters, according to a recent YouGov poll, think their candidates should prioritize “securing the border,” compared to 5 percent who want tax cuts. Only 8 percent of the “law and order” party cares most about rising crime. Leftists, finding in every perceived problem the catalyst for another government program (like secret, government-funded flights of immigrants to locations around the country and generous welfare handouts), fuel the fire.

The first issue that ought to be addressed is the very notion that the United States is a democracy. The word never appears in our Constitution or its political antecedent, the Declaration of Independence. Early American statesmen warned against democracy and had no use for it as a system of government. The failure of the political right and left to uphold the principles of our constitutional republic politicizes everything and polarizes everyone. A return to limited, constitutional government would do more to stabilize our society than any border wall.

The diversity found on this continent throughout the history of European settlement is beyond comparison. People with different languages, customs, and religions found their way from Great Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, laying the foundation of a thriving society. Dreams of personal liberty, security against religious and ethnic persecution, and the opportunity to own land drove millions of people to leave everything behind, most likely forever. No officious bureaucrats, “swarms of Officers,” harried the people. These colonists were poor, insular, and provincial, to be sure, but the cold, stark reality of hacking their lives from a forbidding wilderness was foremost in their minds. Through the cold, stark reality of a North American winter, and the brutal summer heat and biting insects, these different people from many cultures built cities, towns, and villages from the Atlantic seaboard to the foot of the Appalachian mountains, their independent spirits, ironically, binding them closer to each other even as they became estranged from their home countries. They rejected the ancien regime in their hearts if not yet in form.

When the lone remaining colonial power in the region, Great Britain, began to exercise arbitrary authority over these people in the 1760s, tensions increased until they reached a literal breaking point. War brought political independence and a new country uniting all, in several states, under a federal government. The Constitution of 1787, which became the law of the land in 1789, ushered in a new age. Political stability was provided by a written document to restrain this new government, specifically limiting and enumerating its powers and including a Bill of Rights. Radical notions like equality before the law, individual rights, and reverance for private property and freedom of contract would take root and grow, and the result was an explosion of effort and ever-expanding opportunities.

Free to try, and fail, Americans prospered, building a country that became the envy of the world. Economic barriers and restrictions on movement between the states were forbidden, making the United States the largest free-trade zone since the Roman Empire. There were no feudal obligations or status; no military conscription (except during the Civil War); no income tax or Social Security tax; no licensing laws or monopoly privileges to protect favored interests; no regulations dictating working hours or a minimum wage; no free housing or government healthcare or food stamps; no war on drugs or restrictions on gun ownership. General education and literacy rates were quite high, despite the absence of a large and expensive public school system. Teachers were often itinerant, and certainly not unionized. Foreign visitors marveled at the motivation and cooperation of Americans and how little interaction they had with their government.

A glaring exception was slavery. This evil institution was allowed to continue for nearly eight decades. It was abolished in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment and the last obstacle to fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal, was finally removed.

To this land, the poorest and most ignorant of the world would flock. By the millions they came, in wave after wave, from Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Eastern Europe, and the Orient. Throughout the 19th century, they came relentlessly, escaping centuries of persecution, religious intolerance, and economic stagnation. Except for occasional and short periods, there were no restrictions placed on newcomers. From the end of the Mexican War in 1848 until 1920, there were no immigration restrictions at all. In a January 29 piece for RedState, the writer Bonchie said that “a country cannot sustain itself with the rule of law being so ignored and its borders so flaunted,” but during a century of open immigration, the population and economy of the United States flourished. The arts and humanities thrived. Freedom was the crucible for generations of diverse peoples, raising productivity, wages, and living standards to levels never before seen in all of human history. What we need is a return to the principles that made such a revolution possible.

Be seeing you

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

Claim Jumpers – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/02/claim-jumpers-2/

Paul Craig Roberts

The shots he heard were too numerous to be a hunter’s work. Maybe Indians had come upon a trapper. Better check it out. If Indians got the trapper, they would be onto him next. Two guns stood a better chance than one, especially when the second wasn’t expected.

The firing had stopped as he peered into the creek bed. A downed man was being clubbed with a rifle butt, while two men looked on with drawn pistols. Instinctively he ordered, “Hold it.”

Three weapons swung in his direction. What have I gotten myself into flashed across his mind as he squeezed the trigger on his .52 caliber Sharps carbine. The 475 grain projectile found its mark. He dropped his Sharps and ducking moved to the right. Then he stood up and fanned off two shots from his ’51 Navy Colt.

Three men were dead. What was it all about?

“Thanks, mister,” said the gold miner. “You’re too late for me, but not for my wife and daughter, if you’re an honest man. I’ve found a rich vein of gold. Promise me you will file my claim for them. Name and address is on a letter in my pocket.”

He had had a wife and daughter. They had been raped and murdered by Sherman’s war criminals. By the time he found his way home from Appomattox, he had been claimed jumped. Carpetbaggers had stolen his land. After killing them, he fled west to the frontier.

The gold vein was riches in his hands. The gold bequeathed him a new life, a California ranch or a saloon in San Francisco. He had tried to stop the killing of this man, but had no further obligation to him. To head back east would put his own life in jeopardy. Reconstruction justice would make short shrift of him. Better to fill his saddle bags with gold and head on west.

Have to bury this man, he thought. And the claim jumpers. That meant digging two graves. Couldn’t put murderers in the same grave with their victim.

He retrieved the letter. He would write to the wife and let her know that her husband was dead.

What were they like, he wondered, the wife and daughter. How would they fare under Reconstruction? Would they have to earn their keep in a brothel for carpetbaggers and occupation troops? The thought stirred his remorse. If only there had been someone there for his wife and daughter. Still, it was stupid to go back.

But the thought wouldn’t leave him. The more he thought about it, the more conflicted he became. It made sense to ride on with his pockets full of gold. There was no reason to return to a prostrate South where he was hunted and powerless.

He was sleepless that night, haunted by the fate of these two women. Staring up at the stars, he attempted to free himself from the obligation with the question, why did he care? But he knew he should. And he did.

Best to return with a beard and hides. A trapper coming to market would throw off suspicion. That meant delay and time to think how to break the news to the wife.

When he reached what passed for civilization, he sent a letter: “Madam, I came upon your husband too late to save him, but in time to receive his last words and request that I complete his affairs in your interest. I am on my way to you.”

He found her clerking in a dry goods store. The daughter, pretty like the mother, had cropped hair and was dressed as a boy with loose clothes to hide her budding figure.

He told her about the claim.

“Why didn’t you take the gold?”

He tried to explain. She saw that he was providing the protection to a stranger’s family that he had been unable to provide for his own.

“The claim can’t be filed,” she said. There was no law. She would simply be robbed of the claim by carpetbaggers.

The door swung open. Blue coated riff raft had come to leer at the woman. He turned. The blue coats looked into hard eyes radiating fury. The blue coats understood that in seconds they would be dead on the floor and quickly departed.

She was weary of the strain. Whoever this man was, she wanted his protection for herself and her daughter.

“Let’s go get the gold,” she said, and head on west.

Be seeing you

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

400,000 Vaxx Abortions: Military Data Confirms 300% Increase in Miscarriages – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2022

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/no_author/400000-vaxx-abortions-military-data-confirms-300-increase-in-miscarriages/

By Stew Peters
Stew Peters Show

Be seeing you

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