Category Archives: Politics

Is This January 6 Show Trial Even Real Life?

Posted on by
Reply

Tucker Carlson’s Thursday night show was a special feature on the January 6 war crimes trial

I have mostly stopped following the whole January 6 drama. It’s just too much, and I just don’t care.

But now they are doing the actual hearings, which appear to be some kind of Nuremberg-style war crimes trial against Americans who protested the 2020 election. If you want to be more politically correct in your analysis, you could call it a “Soviet-style show trial,” but I think that would be less accurate. The Soviets built a system of laws designed to facilitate show trials, whereas Nuremberg was a drastic and totally unprecedented departure from Western norms of jurisprudence. This January 6 circus show is a drastic departure from the established laws of this country, and appears to be setting the standard for a new kind of legal system.

So, what exactly is going on here?

For some background, here is what Wikipedia has to say about January 6:

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But that isn’t enough for those in the government. They are continuing to claim that the January 6 protest was an “insurrection,” despite the fact that no one had guns.

For a bit of context, while this is the number one story in America, several other things are happening:

  • We are the closest we’ve ever been to a nuclear war in all of history
  • Inflation is increasing so rapidly that it is wrecking the ability of even well-off people to live normal lives
  • We’re headed straight toward some kind of monumental economic crisis
  • Kids are being turned into trannies on purpose by government schools
  • Crime has skyrocketed to the point where it is virtually impossible to live a normal life in any major urban center

The Sanhedrin said – and the media agreed – that “our democracy is at risk.” I don’t really understand what that means when they say it, but as a statement in a vacuum, it’s obviously true. I’m not a huge fan of democracy – at all – but it’s the system we’ve had for 150 years or so now, and it’s a system that at the very least will assure some rights of the people, even while it causes severe social degradation and corruption.

This system of democracy is now being phased out in favor of an open authoritarian system. By giving these new powers to the Congress, which effectively allows the legislative branch to take on executive powers, we’re fundamentally altering the entire structure of the government.

This is not a joke – the FBI is rounding people up for refusing to participate in this scam. Congress doesn’t have the power to order the FBI to round people up, but they’re just doing it anyway. When the FBI rounds you up, it has been, up until now, for the purpose of putting you before the judicial branch of government – not the Congress. There are various loopholes and technicalities being exploited here of course, but we are seeing the final result now, which is this Nuremberg thing. This has never happened before in American history.

You can talk about Ray Epps and the pipe bombs and the police opening the doors and the secret security camera footage – but the point is, none of that is required to be entered into the record here, because this is not a real court. It is a fake court, with a Congressional committee pretending to be a court, and it nullifies the concept of separation of powers, which if you graduated third grade, you know is the basis of our government’s structure.

So beyond simply destroying democracy, they are going back further, and wrecking the Constitutional foundation of the US government.

From this point forward, everything is going to be very different. Obviously, we’ve been seeing the erosion of all of the systems of government for a long time now, and it’s been speeding up, but this January 6 Sanhedrin is a horse of a different color.

The implications of this are that the government is in the process of solidifying total power, where they are just able to do anything they want. This obviously isn’t about January 6 – no one cares about that, including the people conducting this farce. This is about completely destroying the remnants of a civilized system of law and order.

It’s hard to believe this is even real life. It feels, on some level, like I am living in some kind of surreal false reality.

Liz Cheney should have a sign over her head reading: “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here.”

From here on out, things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.

We’re going as far south as south goes.

Don’t Get Rid of Guns. Get Rid of the GOVERNMENT.

Posted on by
1

Gun owners: JUST IGNORE any gun control legislation. Our rulers are EVIL and LAWLESS.

******************

Secure the schools? Better idea: DEFUND THE SCHOOLS. Private schools are not killing fields; only government-run schools are.

******************

President Joe Biden’s approval rating with Hispanic Americans has plummeted to just 24 percent, a new Quinnipiac Poll finds.
So what? So long as we have subjective mail-in voting and a media so dishonest it would make the Soviets and the Maoists blush, we will not have any change.

None of us can do anything about election fraud. But millions of us do have the power TO IGNORE THE WILL OF THIS GOVERNMENT. Just ignore them. Bring the whole rotten system down by refusing to participate in it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Capitalism and The Swedish Welfare State

Posted on by
Reply

As Ayn Rand observed, a compromise between two opposite principles – such as between freedom and government controls in a welfare state – is never sustainable,

Prompted by my recent visit to Finland, I listened to a lecture about the country’s challenges in the new world economy. It was delivered by the controversial banker and economist Björn Wahlroos at Aalto University Business School, my alma mater. (The lecture is available on YouTube, with English subtitles promised soon. Wahlroos’ talk starts at minute 37. Most comments about Sweden start about minute 65).

Dr. Wahlroos is a controversial figure in Finland, a country committed to the egalitarian welfare state, because he has been a provocative proponent of free markets and a critic of the welfare state. In this lecture, however, he argued that it is possible to have both the welfare state and market freedom if a country approaches them “sensibly.”

Wahlroos criticized the Finnish government for the zero GDP growth rate in the last 13 years and attributed it to the government’s “insensible” approach to growing the welfare state while failing to facilitate economic growth through market mechanisms. He cited Sweden as a model, where the modest annual GDP growth of 2% in the same period has financed welfare spending and avoided accumulating government debt.

In a 10-year period from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, Sweden’s social democratic government recognized the unsustainability of the ever-ballooning welfare state and set to restructure it (without giving it up). According to Dr. Wahlroos, Sweden did this primarily by lowering taxes and by reforming labor laws. It abolished the wealth tax for its wealthiest citizens in 1995 and the inheritance and gift taxes for everybody about ten years later. It also increased the tax deduction for employment income and changed labor laws, which encouraged those on welfare to go to work. Finally, in 2020 the government introduced a flat state income tax of 20%.

For such improvements of people’s economic freedom, Wahlroos deservedly praised Sweden. However, his endorsement of the Swedish welfare state model which permits modest economic growth by slightly expanding economic freedom, is indefensible. He argued that Sweden (where he now lives) represents a middle ground (a compromise) between the Asian tigers (such as Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and Venezuela. Therefore, it is “a sensible home for industry and also a tolerable home for capitalists.”

Dr. Wahlroos’ argument is indefensible because a compromise between two opposite principles – such as between freedom and government controls in a welfare state – is never sustainable, as Ayn Rand has observed.

Why? Because a system based on opposite principles is unstable and always moving toward either direction. There is no “sensible” middle to which the proponents of the principles can agree in the long term.

A welfare state based on a mixed economy, is founded on the idea that society – all its members collectively – must take care of everyone’s needs. In a welfare state, those who have more needs must be taken care of by those who are more productive and therefore can afford to help.

This principle of “to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability” is in a fundamental conflict with the opposite principle that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. The latter includes trading with others and not being forced (through taxation and regulation) to give away the wealth they have produced so that the government can satisfy others’ needs.

The welfare state with lower taxes that incentivize production of goods and services and thereby wealth creation may be tolerable to some capitalists, as Wahlroos argued. In a world that consists mainly of welfare states of varying degrees and dictatorships of various stripes, this may be understandable.

However, why should capitalists – those who accumulate wealth by producing and invest it in further production and wealth creation – want to compromise and merely have “tolerable” conditions for production?

They do so because they have embraced the welfare state as an ideal. They have accepted that it is their duty to fulfill the needs of others by enabling the welfare state. But if the capitalists and the producers really wanted to increase everyone’s prosperity and wellbeing, they should reject this wrong ideal. Instead, they should embrace true capitalism: the principles of individual freedom and free trade. It is only such a system that can maximize and sustain economic growth and wealth creation, and therefore, human wellbeing.

The evidence, both historic and current, shows clearly that freedom leads to the greatest prosperity and wellbeing for all, and that government controls hinder them. If human flourishing is the goal, the compromise between the principles of individual freedom and the government control that is the welfare state should not be tolerated or embraced.

Jaana Woiceshyn

Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at profitableandmoral.com.

The 21st Century Version of “Let Them Eat Cake”

Posted on by
Reply

Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said that gas prices “didn’t matter” to her because she drives an electric vehicle while millions of Americans feel the financial burden of record-high gas prices.

“On the issue of gas prices, after waiting for a long time to have enough chips in this country to finally get my electric vehicle, I got it and drove it from Michigan to here this last weekend and went by every single gas station and it didn’t matter how high it was,” Stabenow said.
It’s the modern equivalent of “Let them eat cake.”

So when do we get to dethrone them?

This was supposed to be the United States of America. Just look at us.

As Voltaire once said, “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Today’s Tyrants Don’t Want Success; They Want YOU to FAIL

Posted on by
Reply

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

What is President Biden’s Goal in Ukraine ?

Posted on by
Reply

As Ayn Rand has said, “Morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers.” To Putin, his “moral” crusade is far more important than Russia’s GDP.  

At the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden seemed to have taken the right track. He opposed it as immoral and took immediate steps to impose harsh economic sanctions on Russia. Gradually these were increased, and some NATO countries followed suit to varying degrees. The U.S. then began to supply Ukraine with a limited number of defensive weapons such as guns, ammunition, drones, and anti-tank and anti-airplane missiles. He also gave them money, medicines, and food. Other NATO countries helped out. The heroic Ukrainians made the most of what little they were given. They outfought the Russian military on numerous occasions causing devastating causalities and destroying tons of equipment.

Recently, the U.S. and some allies moved to have Russia removed from the U.N. Human Rights Council. Shockingly, given the abysmal record of the U.N. in welcoming dictatorships as members, it worked. The voting margin was quite large. How could this happen? I believe the reason is epistemological. Moral principles are abstractions, and they can easily be lost in space. But the daily videos sent around the world of the appalling mass slaughter of civilians and the destruction of non-military buildings (schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, shops, not to mention people trying to leave the country) reduced evil to the directly perceivable level. Bodies and ruins littered the streets. Civilians were tied up, tortured, shot, and/or kidnapped. Recordings were intercepted of Russian generals saying that killing civilians was their deliberate strategy, this evidently functioning as a substitute for their military ineptitude.

Despite all this, the U.S. has severely limited its military actions. President Biden has been adamant about not providing Ukraine with “offensive” weapons such as airplanes, tanks, long-range missiles, and artillery. It was feared that these would upset the Russians who love to rattle their sabers by threatening to use nuclear weapons. The result of this is that the destruction of Ukraine has proceeded unabated and has even intensified. The economic sanctions, the U.N. vote, and the limited weapons given to the Ukrainian military have not deterred the Russians from their imperialistic, “holy war, which is fully supported by the Russian orthodox church. As Ayn Rand has said, “Morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers.” To Putin, his “moral” crusade is far more important than Russia’s GDP.  Economic sanctions, though important, are not enough to win the war.

President Zelensky has asked time and time again for more help. Ukraine seems to run out of its existing store of weapons every few days because Ukraine has not been reliably re-supplied. It is as if the U.S. does not fully grasp that the war is not slowing, so every Ukrainian request is like a new emergency. Given that Biden also refuses to supply more advanced weapons, what are we to make of the total picture? Biden’s goal is not to win the war but simply not to lose it. It cannot be won without a reliable supply of weapons, including many of the more powerful ones. Russia has many of these, especially artillery, long-range missiles, and planes supported by many thousands of soldiers, so it still has an advantage in firepower. Russia could wear Ukraine down by simply laying waste to the entire country and slaughtering its citizens—a deliberate strategy that is already in process.

If the war ends in a compromise (e.g., Russia gets some part of Ukraine), it will be a disastrous defeat for the U.S. and NATO. It will undermine Ukraine’s heroic resistance. It will show that imperialism and mass murder pay off. It will encourage Russia to attack other NATO countries like the Baltic states. Finally, it will ruin Biden’s credibility as a leader of the free world.

The only morally acceptable end to the war would have Russia withdrawing all its troops, paying reparations, and cooperating in turning over the guilty parties for war crimes trials.

A word is in order about Russia’s nuclear weapons. Russia has several thousand nuclear bombs as does the U.S. A full-scale nuclear war could destroy the planet. But it should be remembered that the principle of “mutually assured destruction” has been with us since the late 1940’s and no nuclear war has occurred. If Russia gets away with such a threat, they could take over the entire Western world, the world of the Enlightenment. If they use tactical nuclear weapons, NATO could respond with the full-scale engagement of their conventional forces.

Freedom has been under attack since the beginnings of human civilization. Those who want freedom have to fight for it or lose it.

Edwin Locke

The Flaw in the Joe Biden – Jimmy Carter Comparison

Posted on by
Reply

The comparison breaks down when you consider that Carter didn’t have 2,000 mules, a slavishly dishonest and compliant media, a thoroughly brainwashed youth population and a party of thoroughly corrupted RINOs for competition.

Biden may not be as stupid as you think when he laughs off a crushing defeat. If elections still mattered, he wouldn’t be in office in the first place.

Michael J. Hurd

End the Fed !

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden has unveiled a three-part plan to fight inflation — or at least make people think he is fighting inflation. One part of the plan involves having government agencies “fix” the supply chain problems that have led to shortages of numerous products. Of course, any attempt by the government to solve the supply chain problems (which were caused by prior government interventions such as shutting down the economy for over a year) will not just fail to solve the supply shortages but will create new problems.

Deficit reduction is another part of Biden’s anti-inflation plan. However, Biden is not proposing cutting welfare or warfare spending. Instead, his deficit reduction plan consists of “tax reforms to increase revenue,” which is DC-speak for tax increases. History shows that tax increases unaccompanied by spending cuts end up increasing the deficit.

The last and most important part of Biden’s inflation plan is recognizing that the Federal Reserve “has the primary responsibility to control inflation.” President Biden has pledged to “respect the Fed’s independence,” unlike former President Trump, who Biden accused of “demeaning the Fed” by subjecting the central bank to mean Tweets.

It is hard to believe that someone who has been in DC as long as Joe Biden really thinks Donald Trump was the first President to try to influence the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Since the Fed’s creation, Presidents have used public and private pressure to “convince” the Fed to tailor monetary policy to advance their policy and political goals. When it comes to “demeaning” the Fed, Trump has nothing on Lyndon Johnson, who, frustrated over the Fed’s refusal to tailor monetary policy to finance the Great Society and Vietnam war, threw the Fed chairman against a wall.

By “passing the buck” on inflation, Biden no doubt hopes to deflect blame from himself and his party before the midterm elections. Unlike Biden’s previous inflation scapegoats — greedy corporations and Vladimir Putin — the Fed actually is responsible for creating and controlling inflation.

Price increases in specific sectors of the economy may be caused by a variety of factors, but economy-wide price increases are always the result of the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies. Inflation is actually the act of money-creation by the central bank. Widespread price increases are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell remains committed to more rate increases this year. However, even if the Fed follows through on all its projected rate increases, rates will still be at historic lows. While there are those on the Fed board who want more and bigger rate increases, others worry that going too far too fast in increasing rates will cause a recession. Already many economic experts are saying America should be prepared for increase in unemployment caused by the Fed’s efforts to vanquish inflation. This “tradeoff” between high prices and high unemployment illustrates the insanity for our monetary policy.

Treasury Secretary and former Fed Chair Janet Yellen and Chairman Powell have both admitted they were wrong to publicly dismiss inflation as “transitory.” The fact that the two most recent Fed chairs made such a huge blunder (or purposely refused to admit what was clear to many people for over a year), shows the folly of relying on a secretive central bank to manage monetary policy. Instead of “respecting the Fed’s independence,” President Biden should work with Congress to audit, then end the Fed.

Ron Paul