“If he’s just going to be vaporized and have his life’s work wiped out, we should know what he did and who he did it to.”

Red Nation Rising‘s headline works best

The backlash is coming.  Men will begin to feel it’s not worth the risk and fewer women will be hired because of fear of accusations, real or unfounded. 

Here’s the clip.

Here is Tucker Carlson’s full interview with Mark Steyn.

4:40 to 6:20

Regarding Garrison Keeler . . . if he’s just going to be vaporized and have his life’s work wiped out, we should know what he did and who he did it to.

There’s a general agreement on the Left—and this has been driven by left wing dominated industries (for example?)—that they’re now weaponizing sex as they’ve weaponized race.  That they’ve concluded that it’s a useful weapon to them and that necessarily includes a clearing out the decks. 

On the vast empty plains of the PBS schedules, All the septuagenarian hosts are gone.  Just gone in moments.  It’s absolutely astonishing to me, and in the end it will make social relations impossible.  You must think as I think occasionally, do I really want to be alone with a female employee now?  Who knows how she’s going to feel about it 20 years’ time?

Perhaps his best point came at the end, where Steyn points out that Hollywood is getting clobbered financially, that supply far out paces demand.  

TV and motion pictures are being clobbered.  The supply far out outpaces demand.

That may be true for Hollywood and the entertainment industries.  We’ve recently learned that the NFL will be live-streaming their games.  And more recently that net neutrality is banned, opening up the market for more subscriber networks online.  Net neutrality seems implicated in a lot of this.  Look at the industries that it will serve–entertainment, sports, and politics.  

How does this explain the purges in D.C.?


O, Hypocrisy!

Trump’s UN Speech

I missed President Trump’s speech.  Thank God.  One of the reasons people long for the Reagan years is not because of Reagan’s fiscal conservatism, but that he at least had style. He told a joke while he was fleecing you, and his opponents and detractors laughed and loved it.  He at least brought style to the podium.  Whereas Trump’s style is, alas, militant.

Early on in his speech, he goes to bat for the Pentagon.  After touting the economic successes that his presidency has brought, he brags about the size of the military’s budget.

Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

When has our military ever been strong?  The Chinese kicked the hell out of the American army during the Korean War.  So what is Trump bragging about?  The Marines who landed on the shores of Normandy invaded a greatly reduced Germany army with most of their forces on the Russian Front or depleted.  Can’t really celebrate that one. Spent almost 30 years in total trying to subvert the regimes in North and South Vietnam. And, oh, shhh!, don’t mention Afghanistan or that War on Terror.  It’s a boondoggle, folks, a cash cow for the Pentagon and weapons manufacturers.  There is no real enemy. I mean none of these examples are proof of a strong military.  We have a strong military budget.  

The Neo-Con sales pitch continues . . .

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Why is there a question as to who wrote Trump’s speech?  The Daily Caller says that it was former Advisor, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, while other reports, coming from WaPo, say that it was Stephen Miller.  Regardless, it was all Neo-con rag drek.

Trump invoked the Marshall Plan?  Bizarre.  And he sells it as some rescue mission.  It was a plan of deterrent against the Soviet invasion of Europe as the war came to an end.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

O, Hypocrisy!  How can a sitting U.S. President or any candidate for president or any past president even think to utter these words?

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

“we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”  You have got to be kidding me.  The other UN delegates must have privately chuckled at this one, including anyone else who knows about the U.S. foreign adventures.  Can you say Afghanistan?  How about Iraq?  Libya?  Vietnam?  Greneda?  El Salvador?  Just to name a few.  When has the U.S. ever respected the sovereignty of any nation?  How many military bases does the U.S. have around the world?  If you need a visual, this might help.

US Military Bases around Iran

Here is the rest of the Trump’s speech if you can stand it.  

Gawd, the only task one has when listening to Trump’s speech is to parse out and rebutt his lies.  


Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.

“. . . allows individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.”  How in the hell does Trump know what God intends for any life?  The hutzpa.  The insults to God that he gets away with.  Amazing.  

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch. This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example. We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in the world today.

“In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.”  Okay, Lie #10,676.  How many times have you heard that we’re going to war to spread democracy around the world?  There’s always the justification for democracy, like that’s worked out so well here in the U.S.  

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are: “We the people.”

“We the people” are the three most beautiful words?  Really, a call for collectivism is the most beautiful?  Not “shall not be infringed,” as in “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . .”  December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution).  And here is how North Korean, Kim Jong Un responded.  Incredible really when you begin to see foreign leaders behave with more gravitas and intelligence than our own president.  However you may feel about him, Trump’s performance is at best disappointing. 

North Koreas response to TRump UN speech

For the snapshot of the Jong Un’s speech, a h/t TargetLiberty.

“. . . being named US Ambassador to the UN . . . brings out the inner mass murderer in people”

First up: Why Do Politicians Lie?

GoldSilver.com explains that

Politicians are known to be avid liars. Why is that? The obvious reason is because there are no ramifications. When a politician campaigns, he’s not under oath or contract. Legally, he can say whatever gets the votes. Once a government moves beyond the protection of liberty, it becomes a government by, for, and dominated by the greatest liars.  

We’ve got different kinds of lies with degrees of severity from little white lies to perjury. White lies, textbook lies, broken promises, the failure to keep one’s spoken commitment or promise . . . .  The lie of fabrication, the Bold-faced lie, the lie of exaggeration, lies of deception, plagiarism, compulsive lying, lies of omission, lies of commission, perjury, fraud, and other lies.

On the topic of textbook lies, Michael S. Rozeff asks the question, “Why Do Politicians Lie?”  He does an excellent job of examining Nikki Haley’s big lie 

A textbook example of a politician lying is Nikki Haley’s big lie about the Iranian deal. Another big lie is George Bush’s lie about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and “arsenal of terror”. Why do politicians lie?  

Continue reading.

And on the topic of the Nikki (Medusa) Haley, check out Daniel McAdams’ poignant appraisal.

There must be something about being named US Ambassador to the UN that brings out the inner mass murderer in people. Madeline Albright famously admitted that she thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to US sanctions was “worth it.” John Bolton never met a disagreement he didn’t want to turn into a war. Samantha Power barked about human rights while her Administration’s drones snuffed out human life in unprecedented numbers. The real “butcher of the Balkans” Richard Holbrooke sold the Yugoslavia war on lies. John “Death Squad” Negroponte sold the lie that Saddam Hussein needed to be killed and his country destroyed for democracy to flourish, and so on.

Continue reading . . . . 

Jeremy Corbyn Tells British People to Accept Socialism

This is incredible.  Didn’t they already have socialism under Winston Churchill? And yet socialists, students of cultural marxism, SJW’s, and Liberation Theologists alike all want socialism without ever having to account for mass murder, destruction of wealth or destruction of life that is left in its wake.  Now I know that this same horde will say in reply, “Well, look at capitalism!  Look at its horrors!  Look at the wars.”  Yes, look at the wars.  And look, too, who launched them.  Government ghouls.


h/t EconomicPolicyJournal

How Sophomoric . . . or Is It?

Nobody wants to ban Shakespeare.  So don’t go wacko on me.

But if this were an isolated incident, something outside of all political contexts that one can imagine over the last year, ahem, sure, this theater-in-the-park would form an interesting mixture of art and politics.  And public figures, if such a thing exists, are expected to be the target of envious tax-payers.  In poor taste perhaps, but art nonetheless.  But it isn’t isolated, which makes this more than art. It is politics.  And politics is nasty.  I see Facebook pages of former colleagues, intelligent men and women, who in any lecture would condemn ad hominem attacks.  But because it is Donald Trump whose rhetoric flies to what resembles extreme for modern liberals, why these former colleagues feel liberated from circumspection not by hate but by outrage to stop the man in his oratorical tracks . . . or at least to counter them.  The Left really wants to get rid of Donald Trump.

The woman at the 1:10-minute mark who says that “I don’t think it’s disrespectful for the president to be assassinated on stage.  It’s not the president, it’s theater.  Everybody knows it’s theater” is clueless as to signaling.  Somebody is signaling.  I don’t think Trump is that big of a threat to the bureaucratic establishment.  I do think that the unwieldy debt crisis in this country is.  No one is addressing that.  And still Trump boosts the Pentagon’s budget.  But that woman in the video should cultivate a better historical context.  When JFK was murdered in Dallas back in 1963, leaflets were distributed by General Edwin A. Walker condemning JFK as a communist.  True it was found that Walker had zero to do with the assassination, which to some might make that a moot point.  But do we spike an inflammatory situation?  Do we escalate?  Is that just theater? Is that just independent journalism?  Is it Charlie Hebdo?   At a minimum it is signaling. What, words, scenes, acts have no meaning or intention or make no statement beyond the confines of the stage or curtain? How big of an idiot or prop is she?

Imagine if Hillary or Obama were the target of someone’s politic theater.

And the reaction is mixed.  Delta and Bank of America, the only two so far, have withdrawn their financial support . . . sort of .  Like I said the withdrawal is mixed. Time Warner still funding the festival.

New York’s Public Theater lost financial support from two high-profile corporate donors, Delta Air Lines and Bank of America, on Sunday amid intense criticism of its production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” which depicts the assassination of a Trump-like Roman ruler.

The companies’ decisions came after days of criticism online and in right-leaning media outlets that was amplified by Donald Trump Jr., a son of the president, who appeared to call into question the theater’s funding sources on Twitter on Sunday morning.

“No matter what your political stance may be, the graphic staging of ‘Julius Caesar’ at this summer’s free Shakespeare in the Park does not reflect Delta Air Lines’ values,” Delta said in a statement on Sunday night. . . .

Bank of America followed hours later, saying it would withdraw financial support from the production of “Julius Caesar” but would not end its financial relationship with the theater, which a bank spokeswoman, Susan Atran, said had lasted for 11 years.

I have no problem criticizing any administration, condemning their policies when they require it or praising policies and law abiding when that presents itself.  But to use the play as justification for contemporary relevance and a veiled threat like that is sophomoric.  You see this kind of play within a play at high schools where one group of teachers and students will collude to publicly humiliate, even threaten one of the teachers on staff.  Not nice.

Robert Wenzel says the Left is desperate.  Boy, are they!

The Left desperately wants a lefty in power. They have nothing else on their minds.

The Left is relentless. David Stockman, former Reagan OMB Director, thinks that the thousand knives are out for Trump and that he will be driven out by midterm elections, 2018. He draws an interesting comparison to Nixon, who actually won the popular vote, whereas Trump won only the electoral vote.  I hope that Trump sees a full term or even two.  Not because I am such a fan of Trump but that I do enjoy that he is a source of such displeasure to the establishment.

But it’s not like Americans win if Trump remains in office or if he is ultimately impeached.  I don’t think he’ll be removed from office.  What do the Democrats want, Pence?

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, assesses the bureaucratic establishment better than any politician I’ve ever heard.


“The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. “

Democracy really is an evil system that uses majority and mob rule to enjoy empire. Mob rule means gangs–but it’s not the 18th Street Gangs that rule: the state is one large gang constantly vying for legitimacy.  It means the use and legitimization of violence to exact theft and confiscation of property.  Democratic governments will kill to get what it wants. Yet democracy is sold as the most liberating political system the world has ever known. It isn’t.  It is simply took the property of kings, dukes, and princes and transferred that property to democratic governments, sold as “for the people” to gain ongoing support from the people.  Oh, your highness!

The alternative to democracy is liberty.  Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides a definition:

A society is free if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously unowned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is unfree to the extent of such aggressions.

DAILY BELL: Please answer these questions as our readers were not already aware of your fine work and considered opinions. Let’s jump right in. Why is democracy “The God That Failed?”

DR. HANS-HERMANN HOPPE: The traditional, premodern state form is that of a (absolute) monarchy. The democratic movement was directed against kings and the classes of hereditary nobles. Monarchy was criticized as being incompatible with the basic principle of “equality before the law.” It rested on privilege and was unfair and exploitative. Democracy was supposed to be the way out. In opening participation and entry into state-government to everyone on equal terms, so the advocates of democracy claimed, equality before the law would become reality and true freedom would reign. But this is all a big error.

True, under democracy everyone can become king, so to speak, not only a privileged circle of people. Thus, in a democracy no personal privileges exist. However, functional privileges and privileged functions exist. Public officials, if they act in an official capacity, are governed and protected by “public law” and thereby occupy a privileged position vis-à-vis persons acting under the mere authority of “private law.” In particular, public officials are permitted to finance or subsidize their own activities through taxes. That is, they are permitted to engage in, and live off, what in private dealings between private law subjects is prohibited and considered “theft” and “stolen loot.” Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — will not disappear under democracy.

Even worse: Under monarchy, the distinction between rulers and ruled is clear. I know, for instance, that I will never become king, and because of that I will tend to resist the king’s attempts to raise taxes. Under democracy, the distinction between rulers and ruled becomes blurred. The illusion can arise “that we all rule ourselves,” and the resistance against increased taxation is accordingly diminished. I might end up on the receiving end: as a tax recipient rather than a tax payer, and thus view taxation more favorably.

And moreover, as a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this: instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his and his protégés’ advantage. He owns its current use — usufruct — but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. Exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted.

DAILY BELL: If democracy has failed what would you put in its place? What is the ideal society? Anarchocapitalism?

HOPPE: I prefer the term “private-law society.” In a private-law society, every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons or functions exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by means other than through original appropriation of previously unowned things, through production, or through voluntary exchange; and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.

DAILY BELL: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

HOPPE: In a private-law society the production of law and order — of security — would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele — just like the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference — and advantage — of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game.

Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you — but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients.

Read the rest of the interview.  It is excellent.  Then get the book and read it.

Originally appeared at Lew Rockwell.com.