MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘personal liberty’

The FBI and Personal Liberty – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 19, 2023

The FBI admission that it uses the CIA and the NSA to spy for it came in the form of a 906-page FBI rulebook written during the Trump administration, disseminated to federal agents in 2021 and made known to Congress last week.

Needless to say, the CIA and the NSA cannot be pleased. The CIA charter prohibits its employees from engaging in domestic surveillance and law enforcement. Yet, we know the CIA is present physically or virtually in all of the 50 U.S. statehouses.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/andrew-p-napolitano/the-fbi-and-personal-liberty/

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.

Those of us who monitor the government’s destruction of personal liberties have been warning for a generation that government spying is rampant in the U.S., and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the FBI admitted as much.

Here is the backstory.

After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his abuse of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.

What is lawful spying? The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial disgust with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London. General warrants did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.

General warrants, as well, did not specify what was to be searched or seized. Rather, they authorized government agents to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found; stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.

When Congress learned of Nixon’s excesses, it enacted FISA, which required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of being a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.

How can Congress, which is itself a creature of the Constitution, change standards established by the Constitution? Answer: It cannot legally or constitutionally do so. But it did so nevertheless.

Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall consisted of regulatory language reflecting that whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant could not be shared with law enforcement.

So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really a KGB agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, and all this was learned via a FISA warrant that authorized listening to phone calls from the embassy, the telephonic evidence of his drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.

The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

A Totalitarian Virus – Physicians for Civil Defense

Posted by M. C. on July 2, 2020

If governments claim they are “following the science,” why didn’t scientists speak out? Wittkowski notes that most depend on government for funding (https://tinyurl.com/y83jh4sh).

Policy has been dictated by technocratic planners, “self-appointed tyranny experts,” writes Douglas Wilson. If the results are disastrous, they claim things would have been much worse without their interventions (tinyurl.com/y8v9hmgp). As Thomas Sowell writes, “No matter what happens, the vision of the anointed always succeeds, if not by the original criteria, then by criteria extemporized later—and if not by empirical criteria, then by criteria sufficiently subjective to escape even the possibility of refutation. Evidence becomes irrelevant” [emphasis added].

In Saxony, Germany, rooms in psychiatric hospitals are being freed up to confine, under police supervision, persons who resist home-quarantine orders. It is supposed to be a last resort, when all other measures have failed (tinyurl.com/utdf5q8).

Dress Rehearsal for a Police State

https://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/2020/06/23/a-totalitarian-virus/

Civi Defense Perspectives May 2020 (vol. 35 #3)

A virus is not exactly alive itself. It is a bundle of chemicals so arranged that they attach to a living host’s cell membranes and are transported into the cell. The cell’s own metabolic machinery then begins to use the viral genetic blueprint to make more viruses. The raw materials, the chemical energy, the milieu that permits the synthesis of viral components to occur (such as pH and temperature) are all supplied by the host cell, bringing about its own destruction. The virus released into the environment can then repeat the cycle in other hosts, until there are no more receptive hosts because they are isolated, immune, or dead.

As viruses are replicated, many errors (mutations) occur, especially in RNA viruses, so that progeny may be more or less effective in causing infection.

All viral pandemics have come to an end, even those that have been far more devastating than the current COVID-19.

The world is full of pathogenic organisms. Animals survive only because their immune defense mechanisms rid them of the invaders or keep them in check. At times, an over-exuberant immune reaction, instead of the virus itself, kills the host.

Many deaths in COVID-19 are attributed to a cytokine storm, a term coined in the context of graft-versus-host disease and popularized for avian H5N1 influenza virus infection. It applies in many infectious and noninfectious diseases (e.g. pancreatitis). Cytokines are proteins serving as hormone-like messengers that coordinate the immune response. They can be pro- or anti-inflammatory. Infiltration of excess inflammatory cells can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failure in COVID-19 (tinyurl.com/y9hd7n5m). Balance in the coagulation system is also disturbed; many die with microthrombi blocking capillaries or clots in major vessels (tinyurl.com/yapo24xv).

The incidence of blood clotting problems in seriously ill COVID-19 patients is remarkably high. A series of 12 autopsies from Hamburg, Germany, showed that 58% had unsuspected deep vein thrombosis, and in four patients, pulmonary emboli were the direct cause of death (https://tinyurl.com/ybaqfjno).

Lockdown Nation

Initially, when an extraordinarily lethal virus was thought to have arrived recently and to be confined to a few hotspots, restrictions for the duration of the incubation period made sense. But when the computer projections of lethality were found to be wildly inaccurate, and the virus had in fact been widely circulating, probably at least since November, the unprecedented quarantine appeared to be both unnecessary and futile. Rather than lifting the restrictions and protecting those at greatest risk—tacitly admitting to an egregious error, government kept extending the lockdowns, month after month.

The healthy parts of the population were attacked, their livelihoods destroyed, and the arteries of commerce were clotted off, with wreckage up and down the whole supply chain. Has their oxygen been cut off too long to permit resuscitation?

Good citizens have complied with very little resistance, if not out of fear for themselves, out of a wish to protect others in case they were asymptomatic carriers. Those who dared to venture out, especially without a mask, have been shamed for being “no better than a serial killer.” Snitch lines to report noncompliance have lighted up.

As re-opening is being “phased in,” the “suspension” of personal liberty may become permanent. A massive surveillance system is being developed, using smartphone and Bluetooth technology. It could alert everyone who pinged within range of an infected person during the contagious period—and tell that person to self-isolate. A huge army of up to 100,000 “contact tracers” is proposed; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans to hire 17,000. Texas signed a $295 million contract with the MTX Group, which soon plans to staff up with 4,000 Texas employees, including case investigators, epidemiologists, and contact tracers. Applicants will need to pass a six-hour-long online training course offered by an authorized organization such as Johns Hopkins University. Such a person might be empowered to make a quarantine decision for an exposed individual deemed incapable of “voluntarily” deciding that for himself, writes Larry Bell (https://tinyurl.com/ybd8ulxd).

Who Decided?

Governments did not have an open discussion that included economists, biologists and epidemiologists, writes Kurt Wittkowski, who for 20 years was the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at the Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science. “In Britain, it was the voice of one person—Neil Ferguson.” His fundamental flaw was “the assumption that one per cent of all people who became infected would die. There is no justification anywhere for that.”

If governments claim they are “following the science,” why didn’t scientists speak out? Wittkowski notes that most depend on government for funding (https://tinyurl.com/y83jh4sh).

Policy has been dictated by technocratic planners, “self-appointed tyranny experts,” writes Douglas Wilson. If the results are disastrous, they claim things would have been much worse without their interventions (tinyurl.com/y8v9hmgp). As Thomas Sowell writes, “No matter what happens, the vision of the anointed always succeeds, if not by the original criteria, then by criteria extemporized later—and if not by empirical criteria, then by criteria sufficiently subjective to escape even the possibility of refutation. Evidence becomes irrelevant” [emphasis added].

The Last Battle?

“The shutdown’s goal was not eradicating the [corona]virus. That’s not possible,” writes Betsy McCaughey. “Shutting down won’t stop the virus, but it will destroy our rights and the nation we love” (https://tinyurl.com/ybr2tn8s).

Czech physicist Luboš Motl asks whether freedom and prosperity can return at all (tinyurl.com/yaaxlyh5). There is no exit strategy from the extreme measures. If a society is ready to switch to martial law or a similar type of heavily centrally regulated regime “because of such numbers of infections that are still a tiny percentage of the population,…then it means that the switch to these de facto totalitarian regimes is basically unavoidable.”

Now that the totalitarian virus nurtured in our system has become visible to all, will we develop immunity—or succumb?

For Memorial Day

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

John McCrae (1872-1918)

Quarantine Enforcement

In Saxony, Germany, rooms in psychiatric hospitals are being freed up to confine, under police supervision, persons who resist home-quarantine orders. It is supposed to be a last resort, when all other measures have failed (tinyurl.com/utdf5q8).

Dress Rehearsal for a Police State Read the rest of this entry »

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

PETER HITCHENS: Have five weeks of mad lockdown panic actually done us good?  | Daily Mail Online

Posted by M. C. on April 20, 2020

Some police officers have also acted with shocking arrogance, and appeared to enjoy it. The harm done by this behaviour may never be repaired.

I pointed out that we also needed to care about the deaths which experts, such as Germany’s Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, repeatedly warned would come from closing down both social life and economic activity for any length of time. It was not life versus money. It was life versus life.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8233479/PETER-HITCHENS-five-weeks-mad-lockdown-panic-actually-good.html

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

I find it incredible that it is now five weeks since I wrote here: ‘We have gone quite mad. I know that many people are thinking this, but dare not say so. I will be accused of all kinds of terrible things for taking this view – but that is another aspect of how crazy things are.’

I said we had got our policy on Covid-19 out of proportion.

I said the worst effect of the Government’s behaviour was to savage the economy by scaring people away from normal activities.

Calm, reasoned responses are almost always better than frantic, panicking ones. A police officer is pictured above speaking to a man relaxing on Brighton beach amid the lockdown

Calm, reasoned responses are almost always better than frantic, panicking ones. A police officer is pictured above speaking to a man relaxing on Brighton beach amid the lockdown

 

It was only a week later I realised that there was also a grave threat to personal liberty, and raised that alarm too.

I recall these words because you will all by now have noticed they stand up well to the test of time.

The report from the Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear that the damage done by crashing the economy is deep and dangerous. It may last for many years. And much of it was avoidable.

Some police officers have also acted with shocking arrogance, and appeared to enjoy it. The harm done by this behaviour may never be repaired.

I suspect that many of you know this in detail.

The pain is spreading fast in the form of strangled business, often small enterprises built on brave risk-taking and mortgaged homes. Many are now sinking into bankruptcy – not because they failed, but because the Government’s policy killed them.

Then there are the vanishing jobs, the wage cuts which many are already experiencing, and which more face with every day that this shutdown continues.

The NHS has a huge number of empty beds for the time of year. The mortality figures show a confused picture, not least because it is not clear how the authorities decide who is and who is not recorded as a Covid-19 death. A mural is pictured above in Liverpool

The NHS has a huge number of empty beds for the time of year. The mortality figures show a confused picture, not least because it is not clear how the authorities decide who is and who is not recorded as a Covid-19 death. A mural is pictured above in Liverpool

It really is time that the Cabinet took responsibility for at least limiting this damage. I for one will not jeer at them for doing so. When you make a mistake, as we all do, the test is what you do to put it right.

I was accused when I warned of this of not caring about deaths from Covid-19.

This was false. In fact it poisoned the wells of debate.

I have never doubted the good intentions of those who supported the Government’s policy, I just thought they were mistaken and counter-productive.

I pointed out that we also needed to care about the deaths which experts, such as Germany’s Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, repeatedly warned would come from closing down both social life and economic activity for any length of time. It was not life versus money. It was life versus life.

My warnings would have been fainter (though not wrong) if the Government’s policy had been successful. But has it been? I would say not so far.

Yes, the virus has killed a significant number of people, but the expected mass onslaught of deaths has not arrived. The NHS has a huge number of empty beds for the time of year. The mortality figures show a confused picture, not least because it is not clear how the authorities decide who is and who is not recorded as a Covid-19 death.

The unprecedented, sweeping decision to put the healthy in quarantine has gravely affected society.

But did it lead to a laxness on detailed policy decisions, on the provision of personal protection equipment to doctors and nurses, and on the care homes whose treatment looks to me like a major scandal?

The evidence from Stockholm, which has so far pursued a rational, proportionate, limited policy, still suggests that Sweden will emerge from this less damaged by far than we will.

Calm, reasoned responses are almost always better than frantic, panicking ones. What we are doing isn’t working on any terms. It is time we tried something else.

A question of dodgy justice

I could never stand the quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

The questions were either insultingly easy or demanded a profound knowledge of soap operas or sport, which I don’t want to know about. And it was so slow.

So I paid little attention to the ‘Coughing Major’ case, and merely thought it funny.

Now, thanks to the dramatisation of the episode in the ITV series Quiz last week, I have totally changed my mind.

I don’t know if Major Charles Ingram and his wife Diana were guilty of cheating their way to a million-pound prize.

But if the drama was even vaguely true, I don’t believe the case against them was proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is what the law demands. I also have a nagging feeling that the police have better things to do than investigate quiz shows.

The questions were either insultingly easy or demanded a profound knowledge of soap operas or sport, which I don’t want to know about. And it was so slow. So I paid little attention to the ‘Coughing Major’ case, and merely thought it funny. Now, thanks to the dramatisation of the episode in the ITV series Quiz last week, above, I have totally changed my mind

The questions were either insultingly easy or demanded a profound knowledge of soap operas or sport, which I don’t want to know about. And it was so slow. So I paid little attention to the ‘Coughing Major’ case, and merely thought it funny. Now, thanks to the dramatisation of the episode in the ITV series Quiz last week, above, I have totally changed my mind

 

It is odd how many times you find that what you thought was clear and beyond dispute is not, as soon as you know the details.

I discovered this when I read Josephine Tey’s marvellous novel The Daughter Of Time, in which a Scotland Yard detective, stuck in hospital with injuries suffered while pursuing a criminal, investigates the claim that Richard III murdered the Princes in the Tower. And lo, it turns out that he didn’t.

The dangerous, greedy campaign to legalise marijuana now has powerful allies on all sides of politics.

In my view, it has never been closer to success here, and the pressing need to raise new taxes may bring that day even closer.

Well, before they fall into this trap, MPs and Ministers should listen to Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of this country’s most distinguished psychiatrists who had until recently favoured limited legalisation.

But now that he has seen how this has actually worked out in North America, he has absolutely changed his mind. Not only is he sure that the drug’s use is linked with mental illness, he now says: ‘I didn’t appreciate how big the cannabis industry was going to be.’

He compares Big Cannabis with the death-dealing Big Tobacco lobby which cynically used its wealth to defy health campaigners for many decades.

He now fears that this ultra-rich pressure group will seduce our cash-strapped Government into giving way.

At any other time, Prof Murray’s intervention would have been big news. Don’t let it be forgotten.

How dare they steal our flag

The awful Blair creature thought he was a British Bill Clinton – more President than Prime Minister. He marked his arrival in Downing Street in 1997 by staging a fake celebration with Labour Party workers waving Union Jacks, a flag they despised

The awful Blair creature thought he was a British Bill Clinton – more President than Prime Minister. He marked his arrival in Downing Street in 1997 by staging a fake celebration with Labour Party workers waving Union Jacks, a flag they despised

The awful Blair creature thought he was a British Bill Clinton – more President than Prime Minister.

He marked his arrival in Downing Street in 1997 by staging a fake celebration with Labour Party workers waving Union Jacks, a flag they despised.

Even the Blairites became embarrassed about how much they were trespassing on Royal territory.

When I found out in 1998 that Blair’s wife, Cherie Booth, had used the Royal Train, his spin machine used all its wiles to bury the story, and nearly succeeded.

Blair also used to love posing with soldiers, during the many wars he dragged us into.

I suspect it was he who introduced the habit of holding Government press conferences in front of the national flag.

It is a bad idea, whoever does it. The government of the day does not stand for the whole nation.

The Queen stands for the nation. The government is temporary, party political and made up of ambitious careerists.

There’s nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with the present Cabinet. So I object strongly to them appropriating the national flag as a backdrop during the daily Covid-19 briefings. It’s not theirs to use

There’s nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with the present Cabinet. So I object strongly to them appropriating the national flag as a backdrop during the daily Covid-19 briefings. It’s not theirs to use

There’s nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with the present Cabinet.

So I object strongly to them appropriating the national flag as a backdrop during the daily Covid-19 briefings. It’s not theirs to use.

I don’t much like the 1984-style slogans, either, but I really do think this fake-American presidential posing is wrong and annoying. They should stop it.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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

We Have a Choice To Make – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2020

But even if that false dichotomy were true (and the past century of human history screams to us that it is not), the question that remains hanging in the air is: What kind of lives? Do we want to live lives in which we get to make our own choices and decisions, or do we want to live the kind of lives where our choices are made for us, by some centralized authority?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/bretigne-shaffer/we-have-a-choice-to-make/

By

As I write this, I am no longer “allowed” to frequent businesses the state has deemed to be “nonessential.” Doing so has been prohibited by a man who has the power to shut down an entire economy with the stroke of a pen. Meanwhile, the mayor of a neighboring city has said that water and power will be turned off for any of these “nonessential” businesses that do not comply with the order (while his own office, the only purpose of which seems to be getting in everyone else’s way, remains open.) We now have to stand in line to get into the grocery store, are only able to purchase limited quantities of food and other supplies, and the California National Guard has been activated in my state to help “distribute… food and medical supplies…” among other tasks.

There has been plenty of debate as to whether these draconian measures are necessary to halt the spread of Covid-19; about what the socio– economic costs will be (devastating); and about whether the virus is even as deadly as was originally projected.

But lost in all of this is a much bigger question: The question as to the kind of world we want to live in.

In a crisis like this one, words like “personal liberty” are brought up and almost immediately tossed aside by politicians and commentators, as if they are mere luxuries–and selfish ones at that. Because “saving lives is more important.”

But even if that false dichotomy were true (and the past century of human history screams to us that it is not), the question that remains hanging in the air is: What kind of lives? Do we want to live lives in which we get to make our own choices and decisions, or do we want to live the kind of lives where our choices are made for us, by some centralized authority?

Because that is what we are talking about. When a few politicians can order entire economies to grind to a halt, when they can dictate to us what goods and services are “essential” (a category that always includes themselves) and which are not, then there is very little they cannot do. I would argue that there is nothing at all they cannot do.

And now they and their mad-scientist cohorts are talking about “digital certificates” to indicate everyone’s infection and vaccination status. Bill Gates, in a recent Reddit forum, said:

“Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Would Gates’ “certificates” be required in order to board an airplane? To get a driver’s license? To shop in a store? Gates did not say. But already, vaccination records are required in Argentina, in order to get a passport or driver’s license. So the idea is not far-fetched.

Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said that a vaccine could be available for widespread use within 12-18 months. And then what? Will everyone be required to be tested for Covid-19? And to have this vaccine? Regardless of any possibly dangerous side effects, regardless of how quickly it has been developed and tested? regardless of the waiving of product liability for those who make the vaccines?

How about: No.

The most critical issue in all of this is not, and never was, determining the most effective way to deal with crises like this one (and if it were, there is more than enough evidence from this outbreak alone to entirely disqualify state action from that competition.) This is not about whether government-ordered lockdowns “work” to stem the spread of a deadly virus. Nor is it even about how deadly that virus is or is not.

The much more important issue is: What kind of world are we creating when we allow a government to have this kind of power?

Fortunately–or perhaps not so fortunately–we don’t have to use our imaginations to come up with an answer. The 20th Century’s tragic experiments with all-powerful authoritarian regimes give us plenty of real-life examples. Those regimes were born out of dreams of perfect societies, crafted by “experts” and directed from above.

It’s a shame that nearly everyone in the US has learned entirely the wrong lessons from these tragedies. We say “never again,” we visit Holocaust memorials, we condemn the internment of Japanese Americans, and we vow to treat all people as equals, never to hate an entire group of people because of their race or ethnicity or sexual preference.

And all of that is beautiful. But it completely misses the point. The atrocities of the century before ours did not take place because a lot of people hated a lot of other people. Those atrocities were the product of all-powerful states that could do whatever they wanted to the people living under them. Not a single one of the living nightmares of the Nazis or the Soviets, of Pol Pot or Mao or any of the others could ever have happened without total state power. And once a state has that kind of power, there is very little that anyone living under it can do to stop it.

And here we are.

Meanwhile, as the state grabs more and more power for itself, everywhere there are examples of private individuals and businesses rising to the occasion to help solve the problem:

Individuals sewing masks to donate to hospitals; businesses repurposing their manufacturing to make needed items like hand sanitizer; open-source 3D printing of scarce ventilator parts and other medical supplies; a hackathon to create an open-source ventilator; open-source real-time tracking of the genetic evolution of Covid-19; and of course the labs who tried to create tests at the outset but were prohibited from doing so by the CDC. And as always, there are the neighbors (and non-neighbors) helping each other everywhere, however they can.

Likewise, there are examples of jurisdictions that have not implemented such heavy-handed state restrictions and are so far dealing well with the outbreak. Human beings are in fact pretty amazing, especially in a crisis. And they are perfectly capable of handling crises without using force against each other.

But again, that is not the point.

The point is that, quite apart from what will surely be the devastating costs of an unprecedented economic shutdown, there is a tremendous human cost incurred by allowing any state to have this much power over us. It is a cost that very few are even talking about. But it is the one we most urgently need to be talking about.

Each one of us needs to ask ourselves this question. Each one of us needs to decide which side of this they are on, which side they will stand up for. And yes, there really are only two sides: Choosing to go in the direction of a more free society, or choosing to go in the direction of a more authoritarian one.

For myself, I would much rather take my chances with the sum of the people around me making their own decisions about this virus (and me and my family making ours). Not because I think they are better people than our rulers, but because there are ways to hold individuals accountable for their actions and for harm they inflict on others. The same can never be said for the state.

We should all be far more frightened by the consequences of letting a government have this much power over our lives, than we should be of any pathogen. Why? Because human beings have the tools and the capacity to deal with viruses.

But after all this time, after all the man-made famines, the endless wars, the gulags, the killing fields, the death camps… after all of this, we still have not yet found the tools to effectively deal with the problem of an all-powerful state.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

The Fruit of College Indoctrination – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 22, 2018

The right to say what they please is their tool for indoctrination, propagandizing and proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/walter-e-williams/fruits-of-college-indoctrination/

By

Much of today’s incivility and contempt for personal liberty has its roots on college campuses, and most of the uncivil and contemptuous are people with college backgrounds…

Mayhem against people with different points of view is excused as just deserts for what is seen as hate speech. Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray discovered this when he was shouted down at Middlebury College and the professor escorting him was sent to the hospital with injuries. Students at the University of California, Berkeley shut down a controversial speaker and caused riot damage estimated at $100,000. Protesters at both UCLA and Claremont McKenna College disrupted scheduled lectures by Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. Read the rest of this entry »

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