So how long did it take for a movement called “libertarians for Trump” to realize that they are dealing with a politician? What is it about certain libertarians that they simply refuse to accept historical facts about the nature of politicians, and aspiring politicians once they are in power? The phrase “fool me once, shame on you…” does not even apply here, as these libertarians allow themselves to be fooled time and time again. Continue Reading
Only a couple of weeks before Donald Trump takes a 4 year seat in the White House. Yet we are to wonder if nothing cataclysmic will happen before that happens, as, despite Trump’s promises to strengthen ties with Russia, the United States has now sent 100s of tanks and trucks to Eastern Europe, close to the Russian border, allegedly to “protect” the area from a “Crimean-style annexation.”
Never mind the referendum in Crimea that clearly showed inhabitants’ support for ties with Russia after a Russia-hostile coup took place in Kiev. Never mind that such a situation does not even apply in the smallest degree to any other country in Europe. Never mind that it will only be a few weeks before Donald Trump will take over the reigns from Obama. This all smacks of something sinister happening. Will we see an “incident” occurring just before Trump takes over, that would serve as an excuse for genuine conflict? To potentially force Trump to accept “reality” of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia and thus sabotage his intentions for peaceful relations? Continue Reading
Finally, the “intelligence community” has released a full report of alleged Russian “hacking” of the DNC, in order to influence the U.S. presidential elections.
And it managed to have 25 pages of absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever. Only mere assertions. Words like “we are confident” and “judge” are rampant, yet anyone with half a brain knows what this really means.
To have evidence is to “know for a fact”. To have mere suspicions, or worse, mere assertions, is to be “confident” and to “judge”. Why are they confident? Why are they not SURE? Because they have clearly not found any actual evidence. This being the U.S. intelligence agencies of CIA, FBI and NSA, this should speak volumes. Between the three of them they could not find any solid evidence. Could it be because it is not there to begin with? Continue Reading
In a fit of honesty, Hillary Clinton could have said the following in private circles:
“I’ve lost the elections because the whole country wasn’t behind me and kissing my dimpled arse. I’ve lost especially because there have been individuals and organizations that have revealed me to be a corrupt witch that has privately asked a large number of mainstream media reporters for cooperation, for the purpose of achieving victory; cooperation which she subsequently received, for instantly by being given debate questions ahead of time. Continue Reading
A CNN commentator claimed Saturday that Donald Trump will put people in camps and do away with the writ of habeas corpus if he is elected President.
Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn was taking part in a CNN panel, and when asked what her final thoughts were, she blurted out that Trump would become a rabid dictator.
It is highly unlikely this would happen, but what is most interesting thing about this is that two presidents in history which are generally regarded very highly by liberal Democrats did precisely this: suspend the writ of habeas corpus and/or use internment camps.
I am talking about Abraham Lincoln and Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, of course.
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the American civil war.
Franklyn Delano Roosevelt suspended the writ of habeas corpus by putting Japanese-American citizens in internment camps.
Yet how many liberal Democrats do you hear bemoan these actual historical dictators? They are widely regarded as heroes and “great presidents of history.”
However, the mere ridiculous hypothesis that a president that is not preferred or admired by liberals may actually resort to the same totalitarian and unconstitutional tactics has them sent some of them into a hysterical, hypocritical panic. I would almost say: “not nice when the shoe of big, totalitarian government is on the other foot, is it?”
Of course, we also have Barack Obama, who issues executive orders to have American citizens that are merely suspected of terrorist ties assassinated; who kept and keeps Guantanamo Bay open; who likes using drones; who supports the Patriot Act and the NSAA; who keeps Homeland Security in existence as well as the TSA; under whose watch the NSA has engaged in massive surveillance of the population; who punishes whistleblowers etc etc. Need we go on about the ways in which liberal darling Obama and his administration fascistically violate constitutional rights?
The pot calling the kettle black simply doesn’t do it justice. Liberals are champions of big government overreach, constitutional rights violations and using presidential power to attain certain goals supported implicitly or explicitly by the liberal-left.
I almost… almost … want to see disgustingly hypocritical liberals like Sally Kohn experience what it’s like to be under the boot for a change, instead of in it.
P.S. Sally, don’t you think it would be a good idea to have a right to bear arms, just in case your worst nightmare about Trump comes true?
Well, at least to some degree.
West Virginia lawmakers have managed to override a veto by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of a bill that would allow adults to carry concealed handguns without a permit.
The Democratic Tomblin used his veto to override peoples’ second amendment constitutional right to bear arms but the West Virginia legislature didn’t let him get away with it. The state’s house of delegates and the Senate completed the override of Tomblin’s veto with a vote of 23-11. The vote was bi-partisan in both chambers, therefore a number of WV Democrats deserve credit in this particular case. Continue Reading
Mitt Romney has made a speech attacking Donald Trump.
Could there be any more inconsequential mainstream Republican to come out and attack Trump? Serious LOL! Who cares what Romney thinks about anything?
Mitt Romney is exactly the type of guy that has made so many conservatives abandon the GOP establishment in disgust. Romney was the guy nobody on the right even liked in the previous elections but was regarded as the least objectionable of the rotten bunch. Mitt Romney attacking Donald Trump is like an endorsement for “The Donald.” Maybe Trump paid Romney to attack him to give him even more street cred.
But seriously, if this proves anything, it is that the Republican elites truly have no clue why Donald Trump is so popular, and what to do in order to stop him.
Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Apparently there is doubt at Reason Mag that virtually all current mainstream politicians are fascists at heart. This despite their love for aggressive wars, imperialistic foreign policy, centralized economic policies that especially benefit big corporations and other special interests, a love for more and more surveillance of the population and a militaristic police state, cult-of-personality level president-worship, a desire to disarm the population, an ever-growing state apparatus in general, and other clear indicators. And this goes for virtually all mainstream politicians, because virtually all of them, left and right, support the above.
The only difference between them and Trump is that Trump dares to focus on the group of people that, by and large, spawns most terrorists and therefore national security threats. It is certainly generalistic, and collectivistic of Trump to cast doubt on the whole muslim community for what an extremist minority of them do. But at least he is not avoiding the elephant in the room entirely out of political correctness like the rest of them do. How stupid can you be, or how despicably hypocritical, to generate a continuous stream of muslim terrorists by waging endless wars on the Middle East and bombing people, after decades of propping up and supporting oppressive puppet regimes, and with unwavering, uncritical support for Israel, and then to pretend that there is no threat to be expected from people who adhere to the islamic religion?
This is not bigotry. This is a realistic assessment. What makes politicians despicable is not that they are ‘bigoted’ if they make such assessments, but that it is politicians themselves whom have largely created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it, with their foreign policy past and present.
It is easy to call Donald Trump a “bad person” based on some of the evidence used in the Reason piece. But as usual with Reason Magazine, this is simply a bunch of hypocritical bullshit disguised as a reasonable and ‘factual’ piece from a ‘libertarian point of view.’ It is sin by omission.
Because, from a libertarian point of view, a politician is by very definition a bad person, for the endless stream of lies, dishonesty, moral corruption, law-sanctioned criminality (aka criminal behavior that is law-sanctioned because the behavior is exhibited by government personnel), pro-fascist domestic policies, and other disreputable characteristics. Donald Trump would be no exception to any of this.
What he does seem to be an exception to, is that at least he is honest about all the shitty things he would want to do.
I understand, between the lines, from the likes of Peter Suderman, that politicians are kinder, nicer, more morally acceptable people if only they cover their immoral lard with sprinkles of dishonest sugar dust. Apparently he likes shit sandwiches so long as they look and smell like donuts.
After all, we can call the likes of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama “civil” in comparison to Trump. But how many people are now DEAD because of the three current or previous presidents? How many civil and especially libertarian rights have they wiped their asses with? How many more did they wish they could violate (the second amendment being one example)? How many bombs have they dropped? How about torture? The Patriot Act? Rendition? Warrantless searches? No knock raids? The war on drugs? Executive decision making on executions without so much as a trial? The list goes on and on eternally of the various policies, agendas and rights violations that presidents – and politicians in general – impose on the people. That’s what they do. That’s why we’re libertarians.
But hey, they’re nice about it, aren’t they? They smile at you. They listen to you as if they care about your opinion. They shake your hands and kiss your babies.
And then they turn around and screw you. Because they’re politicians. Because they’re government. They’re the state. Because they get away with it.
There have been all kinds of soft or hard ways in which governments have always been bigoted to specific sets of people, mostly through laws. Whether it was women, blacks, gays, or simply freedom-loving individuals in general. Leftist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for right-wing people, and Rightist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for left-wing people. Both camps refuse to hide their contempt for libertarians. In the culture war, white heterosexual men are often talked about as one step up from Nazi’s by virtually all the groups that are somehow “oppressed” even today as a black man is president and a woman is one of the two main candidates for the next presidency, and as anyone on college campus who so much as sneezes politically incorrect is pressured and intimidated out of his position.
So is a bigoted politician really anything new? No. But an honest one may be. Trump simply says what he really thinks. He is refusing to don the mask that politicians usually wear to hide their contempt for societal groups, and to hide their fascistic fantasies.
I would never vote for someone like Trump, because a powermad statist is a powermad statist. But call me a fool: i have at least more respect and more admiration for an honest scumbag than for a lying and deceitful scumbag, who pretends he is making love to you when he is really sodomizing you.
Reason magazine is simply showing off its preference for meaningless and deceitful social justice platitudes out of the mouth of people no less evil, as proven by their votes and actions, than Trump.
Because social justice platitudes matter to politically correct, progressive faux-libertarians such as those at Reason.
“It is interesting to remember that terrorism is not bad for everybody. For the Pentagon, Nine-Eleven was a windfall, providing wars and new drones; for NSA, a massive expansion in its powers; for Israel and AIPAC, the destruction of Israel’s arch-enemy, Iraq; for the arms manufacturers, hundreds of billions; for the federal government in general, near-dictatorship and, for jihadists, the involvement of the US in crippling and endless wars. Which is what they wanted. Everybody profited except the American public.” — Fred Reed
Those with political power cause the sentiment that justifies terrorism to those willing to use it. Those with political power are not the ones victimized by terrorism. Those with political power profit politically and economically from terrorist attacks.
Never trust those with political power. War is the health of the state.