Some Ideas Can Get You Killed

From the comments section of this Tom Woods episode. . . 

In addition, the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state and the nonaggression axiom (that one shall not initiate or threaten to initiate physical force against others and their property) imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers. Subsequently, the countercultural ambiance and multicultural-relativistic “tolerance” of the libertarian movement attracted even greater numbers of misfits, personal or professional failures, or plain losers. Murray Rothbard, in disgust, called them the “nihilo-libertarians” and identified them as the “modal” (typical and representative) libertarians. They fantasized of a society where everyone would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity. Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.” —Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed

Self-described libertarians are, in general, even more degenerate than people who describe themselves as very liberal. It is very telling that rather than focusing on increasing property rights, reducing taxation, etc, many libertarians focus more on legalizing drugs, reducing things that would almost definitely be in effect even in a stateless society (such as driver’s licenses and other such regulation), and open borders as if the western states do not have an interest in importing barbaric and socialistic peoples and reducing the social capital of whites. The future of human accomplishment, property rights, of stable, socially conservative white societies, will not be in a social order that average libertarians desire.


“If you have your children in a school and they talk about equity, diversity, white privilege, take them out of class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated”

h/t Lew Rockwell

Peterson made an excellent retort to the feminist tenet of “patriarchy” as “a reprehensible . . . rewrite.”  I would call it an abominable lie but who am I to mince words?

Men and women have lifted themselves up over the millennia in a “cooperative endeavor,” and for feminists to characterize the history of the world as “centuries of the oppression of women by men” is an “absolutely reprehensible ideological rewrite of history.”

Peterson tells parents with boys to teach them courage.

His advice for parents of young boys was to “encourage them,” meaning to “instill courage in them, to support their courage.”

“That doesn’t mean protect them from what’s dangerous,” he said. “It means teach them how to be competent and teach them that they can rely on themselves to prevail in even the darkest of circumstances.”

And his coup de grace was this

Peterson also had some very specific advice for parents: “If you have your children in a school and they talk about… equity, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism–any of that–you take your children out of the class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated,” he declared.


MLK Assassination Unearthed


Let us Commemorate Martin Luther King Day, January 15 2018. This article was first published by GR on September 5, 2016.

For one bright moment back in the late 1960s, we actually believed that we could change our country. We had identified the enemy. We saw it up close, we had its measure, and we were very hopeful that we would prevail. The enemy was hollow where we had substance. All of that substance was destroyed by an assassin’s bullet. – William Pepper (page 15, The Plot to Kill King)

The revelations are stunning. The media indifference is predictable.

Thanks to the nearly four-decade investigation by human rights lawyer William Pepper, it is now clear once and for all that Martin Luther King was murdered in a conspiracy that was instigated by then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and that also involved the U.S. military, the Memphis Police Department, and “Dixie Mafia” crime figures in Memphis, Tennessee. These and many more incredible details of the King assassination are contained in a trilogy of volumes by Pepper culminating with his latest and final book on the subject, The Plot to Kill King. He previously wrote Orders to Kill (1995) and An Act of State (2003).

With virtually no help from the mainstream media and very little from the justice system, Pepper was able to piece together what really happened on April 4, 1968 in Memphis right down to who gave the order and supplied the money, how the patsy was chosen, and who actually pulled the trigger.

Without this information, the truth about King’s assassination would have been buried and lost to history. Witnesses would have died off, taking their secrets with them, and the official lie that King was the victim of a racist lone gunman named James Earl Ray would have remained “fact.”

Instead, we know that Ray took the fall for a murder he did not commit. We know that a member of the Memphis Police Department fired the fatal shot and that two military sniper teams that were part of the 902ndMilitary Intelligence Group were sent to Memphis as back-ups should the primary shooter fail. We have access to the fascinating account of how Pepper came to meet Colonel John Downie, the man in charge of the military part of the plot and Lyndon Johnson’s former Vietnam briefer. We also learn that as part of the operation, photographs were actually taken of the shooting and that Pepper came very close to getting his hands on those photographs.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media has ignored all of these revelations and continues to label Ray as King’s lone assassin. In fact, Pepper chronicles in detail how a disinformation campaign has featured the collaboration of many mainstream journalists over almost half a century. He says he suspects that those orchestrating the cover-up, which continues to this day, are no longer concerned with what he writes about the subject.

“I’m really basically harmless, I think, to the power structure,” Pepper said in an interview.

“I don’t think I threaten them, really. The control of the media is so consolidated now they can keep someone like me under wraps, under cover, forever. This book will probably never be reviewed seriously by mainstream, the story will not be aired in mainstream – they control the media. It was bad in the ’60s but nowhere near as bad as now.”

And the most stunning revelation in The Plot to Kill King – which some may question because the account is second hand – is that King was still alive when he arrived at St. Joseph’s Hospital and that he was killed by a doctor who was supposed to be trying to save his life.

“That is probably the most shocking aspect of the book, that final revelation of how this great man was taken from us,” Pepper says. (By the way, when I quote Pepper as having “said” something I mean in our interview. If I’m quoting from the book, I’ll indicate that.)

The hospital story was told to Pepper by a man named Johnton Shelby, whose mother, Lula Mae Shelby, had been a surgical aide at St. Joseph’s that night. Shelby told Pepper the story of how his mother came home the morning after the shooting (she hadn’t been allowed to go home the night before) and gathered the family together. He remembers her saying to them, “I can’t believe they took his life.”

She described chief of surgery Dr. Breen Bland entering the emergency room with two men in suits. Seeing doctors working on King, Bland commanded, “Stop working on the nigger and let him die! Now, all of you get out of here, right now. Everybody get out.”

Johnton Shelby says his mother described hearing the sound of the three men sucking up saliva into their mouths and then spitting. Lula Mae described to her family that she looked over her shoulder as she was leaving the room and saw that the breathing tube had been removed from King and that Bland was holding a pillow over his head. (The book contains the entire deposition given by Johnton Shelby to Pepper, so readers can judge for themselves whether they think Shelby is credible – as Pepper believes he is.)

It’s fascinating.  Continue reading.  

INDISPENSABLE: How the Left Conquered the Right–Paul Gottfried, 2011

This presentation was held at the Property and Freedom Society’s 6th Annual Meeting in Bordrum, Turkey on May 26-30, 2011 at the Karia Princess Hotel

How the Left conquered the Right. 

General historical context, the left has become the only or dominant ideology.  There is nothing else but the Left that frames and shapes the political debate. 

A few weeks ago, Krauthammer, a Republican, that Obama’s presidency will fail because most americans are on the right or conservative, for last 50 years, and won’t change.

The Left has moved from one giddy triumph to the next for the last 50 years.  The Left won every single one of those political/ideological battles.  

  h/t TargetLiberty

Conservatives resisted federal attempts to integrate schools racially in the south.  They fought against the notion that men and women would be treated exactly the same way, arguing instead that there were some ineradicable gender differences, traditional social roles were defensible, certainly as they existed in the western world.  Conservatives doggedly resisted the feminist movement.  The Gay movement was not even on the horizon.  

On social issues today, the authorized established conservative movement in the U.S. would argue that feminism is a great western achievement.  we just don’t want to push it too far.  In fact, as Jonah Goldberg, one of our leading conservative journalist, argued in a widely read column, it would be proper to bring feminism to the rest of the world, those parts that are benighted and who might enjoy these blessings.  

Gay Rights will be treated as a conservative accomplishment.  Most things that the left are able to push through, conservatives will consecrate at some point in the future and recreate as a conservative accomplishment.  The civil rights leader, MLK, who expressed marxist economic views, who was certainly not a traditional christian but  asocial radical is now praised by all the leading conservative foundations and self-described conservative foundations in the United States and by the public and press as conservative Christian theologian and a conservative Christian thinker. 

In this sense, of course, Krauthhammer is correct.  There was something called conservatism 50 years ago that people believed and accepted as the status quo are therefore conservative and they accept the same or whatever propositions are accepted now as  conservative, they are just the party of resistance of further change.  That is until the democrats come along and introduce Obamacare and becomes established, which the republicans will accept it as conservative measure and which has to be properly managed.  It’s just a matter of the Right consecrating what the Left has already done and redefining them as conservative achievements. 

Why has the left been successful, and why has the right been retreating?  What do we mean by right and by left? What puts you on the right is that you oppose the doctrine of human equality.  They believe that human beings are by nature unequal. And if you’re a traditional conservative you defend hierarchy as better than its alternatives.  You oppose any state attempt to level down differences.  Social differences, gender differences.  

2nd criteria I would suppose is preference or strong commitment to traditional social morality.  Whether you want to use the state to enforce this, and I do not because I think he state is pernicious and will always work in the opposite direction and therefore I am strategically a radical libertarian, and therefore I do not think that anyone should have that people should have right to any form of lifestyle [as a human right? or a uniright?] that given what the political configuration or situation at the present time what is likely to be in the future I would like to remove the state from public or from private life.  But a traditional conservative beliefs are those morals upon which society have rested, certainly in the western world, often referred contemptuously as bourgeoisie morality, should be defended and are necessary for the social good and they’re necessary for the individual developement. 

The Left, on the other hand, is opposed to this.  A Catholic who believes in catholic natural law doctrine is opposed to nature itself.  But they believe that nature is malleable and that society until now is based on social, cultural injustice.  And the modern therapeutic welfare state is the ideal, convenient, expediential instrument to change everything and to create a more egalitarian world in which national boundaries other things that have divided us in the past–gender differences, religion, all of these things will be removed.  And human beings for the first time will become more sensitive and just.  The more radical multiculturalist will argue that these thins already exist in non-western societies, and that the west is behind, and what this requires that we do is radically reconstruct every other non-western society to make it look more progressive in terms of this model, this future model that we’d like to introduce to the western world.  The writing opposes the Leftist Project has done extremely well and unstoppable.  May stop at some future point when the western world is going to be repopulated by non-westerners who have no committment to Leftist propositions.  At that point, all bets will be off.  We’re not talking about the Marxist/Leninist left.  The cold war brought an end of the garrison state, reactionary geriatric form of socialism.  That is not what the Left is.  The Left exists in the United STates, that the US previews this model.  It is multicultural.  It is bureaucratic.  It uses public administration to make us like each other and to create a world where we constantly fight against discrimination, hate speech, hate thought, and which we use all public institutions, particularly public education to carry this on.  For success of the Left’s triumph is the growth of public administration.  Everything else is ancillary or derivative from public administration.  I must say I am a political determinist.  Culture is shaped by public administration.  It pays for culture.  It educates people.  It passes antidiscrimination laws.  You cannot separate culture from the modern democratic welfare state.  Society is being constantly reshaped by the state, not the medieval state, not the american federal government of 1820, but the state that reaches into the lives of all its people, one that you can never vote out of office because both political parties are an extensions of the state, the authorized national parties.  After the second world war when the Americans re-educated the Germans, in order to have democracy Germans must be instructed in democracy.  There are to be X number of parties which correspond to the American political parties, and there’s to be a large public administration which will re-educate the Germans.  This is the model that established itself in teh US where Americans feel free then to export the countries they defeated in war and in which they’re going to re-educate.  The Americans really preview this public administration committed through social engineering of the creation of a pluralistic society and replaced by multiculturalism in the last 20 years.  Not against natural pluralism.  Spoke fondly of the Hautpsut Empire.  American project is about bringing as many people in as you can and then socializing them to the state. 13-minute mark.  One of the events that is misunderstood and helps the Left take power is the Cold War.  IT was very popular to describe anti-communism as an ideology of the right or the far-right.  The right were in favor of prosecuting the Cold War and against the Soviet Union.  Later the Civil Rights issue was a secondary issue.  Civil Rights Act was passed predominantly by Republicans.  Even when the democrats were the party of segregation in the United States.  But Civil Rights issues were not as important, as one American conservative, James Burden speaks of a “protracted conflict” which is a struggle against Soviet Communism.  National Review was about communism and anti-communism; this was the overriding issue.  It was not about whether the government should pass laws dealing with discrimination against women, whether there should be affirmative action for gays, whatever, you know, those things that define our politics now.  It was simply a foreign policy issue.  And I’ve met some people who are profoundly conservative on domestic issue but whom I considered pinkos or radicals because they were soft on the Soviets.  For most of Gottfried’s life, he considered George Kennan, one of the most conservative figures in American intellectual life, to have been a LEftist because he was soft on the Soviets.  The anti-communis side will be taken over by the Left, by the anti-communist Left, and becomes an extension of what is America’s Liberal Internationalism which goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the first WW.  IT based on the view that the UNited states is to bring democracy to other countries, that American foreign policy is to served democratic missionary ends.  And it sounds like Bolshevism or French Jacobinism.  But this is not to be done in the name of Bolshevik Revolution or the French Revolution but in the name of American [Democracy] values.  By the 1970s, the dominant form of anti-communism becomes liberal internationalism.  Pope Pius XII who stood up and proclaimed against the communists.  But Anti-communism, when it was unknown to many Europeans became in the United States the ideology or the carrier of liberal internationalism.  Civil Rights Acts civil rights laws were justified as being necessary to win the war against the Soviets.  This was an argument made by LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Harry Jaffa, and in the National REview by the 1970s.  In Europe we have the same kind of Anti-communism becomes more and more identified with the anticommunist Left.  Or the left center, not the far left, but the left center.  And you have the labor movements, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson democrats [aka, Henry Martin “Scoop” Jackson, US Senator 1953-1983], neoconservatives, who ended up taking over the conservative movements and who are part of the liberal internationalist, Zionists, pro-labor union, moderate Left and certainly anti-Soviet or anti-communist. But this is inevitable because the political momentum is on the Left.  So much so that by the time that you get what is viewed as a conservative revolution with the election of Ronald Reagan, there’s no revolution of any kind, simply a brief interruption in the continued movement leftward in American government and American society.  There is no conservative revolution of any kind that occurs in the United States.  But the liberal media is happy to run with this and so are conservative think tanks because people are going to give you money to see you carry out a conservative revolution.  You can’t say no we failed.  Or we didn’t even try, they’ll give you less money.  So you see we carried out a revolution, you just didn’t notice it. The official liberal, neo-conservative view in the U.S. is that there was a great conservative view in the United States in the 1980s.  And it continues with the election of George H. W. Bush, four more years of the counter-revolution and it resumed with George W. Bush.  Picking up a French newspaper, maybe Le Monde, or Le Monde de Dumair, explaining that the thinker who most influenced George W. Bush was the Catholic counter-revolutionary, Joseph Numesc [spelling?  I’ve never heard of him, nor can find anything about him.  Could it be Josef de Maistre?  Boy, my French is bad.] looking at this, thinking George W. Bush is kind of a fraternity member who drank too much, who politically always sounds like a Leftist, where he’s talking about global democracy, women’s rights,  . . .   Even Christianity is usually comes down to giving everybody democracy and human rights.  How is he Josef de Maistre?  But for the French, Secularism is such a dominant, militant ideology, that any American or reborn Christian is automatically identified with the counter-revolution in France.  The European press and liberal press will play along happily because the Right has proclaimed what is really inaction and nothing in terms of a counter-revolution, to get counter-revolution.  The Left is able to continue winning all the culture and political wars but claiming either its a stalemate or they’re losing because a counter-revolution is taking place.  Most interesting thing is that American militarism is Leftwing militarism.  It is not the militarism of the fascist movement.  Not the Catholic counter-revolution in Spain.  It is nothing but pure Jacobinism.  It is wars carried out to spread human rights, now to women’s rights.  Why these things should be considered part of the Right is unclear unless someone looks at American party politics.  There you discover that the campaigns to spread democracy are only attacked as fascistic, right-wing enterprises when Republicans undertake them.  When Bush does it, it is fascistic, it is evil, it is the Catholic counter-revolution, or whatever.  When Obama comes into office and carries on the same war, we all have to get behind him and help.  Which has been pretty much the view that I’ve been encountering in the American liberal press.  There’s one black journalist, Herbert Matthew, said “It’s really a shame how people are not volunteering for the military.”  This was after Obama came.  Before that he was screaming against this, saying “Not that I am defending these wars but now that we’re in these wars, we should not embarrass President Obama.”  All of this is a function of party politics.  The Left is not inherently pacifistic now any more than it ever was in the past.  I remember once hearing George McGovern who deplored the bloodshed in the Vietnam War say “He bombed Salzburg and other cities in Europe during WWII and he’s proud of his record.  Well, he murdered a civilian population.  Well that was okay because he was fighting fascism.  When you fight communism, it’s a different matter.  Then you’re supposed to weep over every communist guerilla that is lost.  A lot of what is seen as the anti-militarism of the Left is purely for show.  And it depends whether their guy is in power or whether their guy is out.  And in the United STates there’s also a tendency to identify conservatism with the Republican Party and Liberalism with the Democratic Party.  This is mostly arbitrary.  The Republicans repeal very little of what the Democrats do.  Though occasionally use the rhetoric of the Christian Right in order to pull in the votes of Protestant leaders in the United States.  And possibly get anti-abortion Catholics to vote for them.  Once their in power, they change very little, and they typically manage the programs of the other side.  The problem is that for journalistic purposes in the United States, dividing up people into Republican and Democratic camps is very useful.  This way all politics is structured, will be centered around these two parties, and their alterations.  Which one is elected at a particular time.  And then the International Media will proclaim Democrats to be Progressives and Liberals and Republicans to be counter-revolutionaries.  The overall picture is very different.  The Left continues to win on the cultural and social front, and the indispensable means by which it does this is through public administration.  How do you engage this?  Destroy the state.  I say this not as an anarchist, not as a libertarian but simply someone who doesn’t want to see the Left win all the battles.  The State must go down.  What it must be replaced by is local government, distributive power, and I’d be very happy to see the United States divide up into 7 or 8 or 20 parts.  I think the American Empire is a Leftist Project that also accelerates Leftist changes at home.  And that is the main reason I am opposed to it.  Now this is different than saying that this country should not protect itself against enemies. I’m all in favor of doing that . . . real enemies.  And I’m not in favor of changing the opinions of Afghans about gender relations, something which seems to obsess George Bush.  Sadly enough to devote the remainder of his life .  Important that state power be controlled, power be decentralized.  The attempt by Ron Paul and people of that ilk to play down social and cultural issues is correct.  You’re not going to win any points on that, you don’t even want to raise those issues, and they been used in a totally demagogic fashion.  The Republican Party pulls out the social card every time it wants to vote out some poor rube in Iowa or something.  They make very few differences and the Left continues to win.  The only practical solution is decentralization, and decentralization that would allow different regions, different communities to do what they want.  That does not mean you’ll have anti-abortion laws passed across the country.  Point that John O. Sullivan raised about Poland.  Once Poland became part of the European.  danger of international bureaucratic class.  

Nation states have been replaced with regional public administrations.

As to immigration in Europe and the United States will continue to go on and on.  Decentralization can have an effect on immigration only decentralized states can control immigration.  But as it stands now, this international public administration is the entity who is controlling a free flood of strangers into our countries.  You break off and you also insist who has a right to come and live in your region.  Absolutely indispensable to retain these regional liberties and regional communities.  Continuing march of the Left through all of our political and social institutions. 

“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 gamesAnd 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.?

As to Steyn’s comments about septuagenarian hosts being gone, might that not be an attempt by the media to manage a soft landing of pensioners as they begin to see pensions cut and fractured?  Who knows?  I initially thought when Anderson Cooper came online that his white hair was used to portray the accepting grandfather and New York liberal demographic.  On the gay issue, he certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on that score with Maddow, Greenwald, and others.  So why the dumping of the septuagenarians in a way that makes them look foul?  Steve Edwards walked off the set after he was fired?  I don’t get this.  The sexual harassment charge, whether true or not, is the complete evisceration of law and due process in this country.  It tells the victim to get lost, oh, and by the way, you’ll never work in this town again.  I mean the numbers are huge.  I don’t really think this is a real issue.  I don’t think that these guys were particularly guilty of anything.  But the sexual harassment charge says, you’re gone and you’re done.  From Chef Mario Bartoli to Garrison Keeler to Charlie Rose (not my favorite anchor) to Tavis Smiley.  No gay or female purges to speak of.  Who’s greenlighting this purge?  Jon Rappoport believes this to be a complete and total collapse of major media. 

UPDATEBilly Graham took precautions against the same sort of invented accusations.  Thanks to Gary North.  

Politicians saw the revivals as a hedge against communism; entertainers saw a chance to promote themselves. Temptations loomed. To guard against allegations or the actual abuse of money, sex, and power that had felled previous evangelists, the Graham team decided to take concrete steps to avoid the slightest whiff of controversy. 

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? 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 . . . .