Watch “Message to the Truckers” on YouTube
Reply
The Primary Goal Should be Joy and Happiness
A visitor to my website writes that he has fallen in love with a woman who is fourteen years his senior. He tells me that he generally goes for people his own age, but that he’s never felt so good about any relationship. He asks if this is wrong.
First of all, congratulations! Second, my primary definition of a “wrong” relationship is one that leads to unhappiness for either or both parties. Tolerating or inflicting physical or mental abuse is wrong. Staying with someone only out of nostalgia or pity is also wrong. According to my ethical perspective, genuine happiness is never wrong. It sounds like you’re happy, and I trust your partner is as well. What could be wrong with that?
A relationship with an age difference (within legal boundaries, of course) ought to be approached like any other. Is there compatibility? Are there common values? Are there enough differences to make it interesting but not so many as to make sustained companionship impossible? Of course, there are unique aspects as well. For example, the younger person has less life experience, and the wider the age difference, the greater that challenge can be.
As in any relationship, there has to be intellectual compatibility. But mental abilities and life experience are not the same. An older person may respect how bright the younger person is, in spite of the lack of experience. People who are happy in such relationships don’t see the age difference as a challenge. The younger partner likes being with someone who has experience and wisdom; the older partner enjoys the younger partner’s youth and vigor. Issues related to age are not nearly as significant as a real connection and the ability to sustain it over time.
The late actor Tony Randall married a younger woman after his wife of many years died. He had children with the younger woman, something he and his first wife never did. I’m sure it was hard on his younger wife and kids to lose him. But would it have been better if he had never remarried, spending his final years lonely and sad? Would his widow be better off never having loved him? I say no, because I always vote for happiness above knee-jerk responses based on emotion and bias.
The most important factor is to be honest, not only with the other person but also with yourself. Can you honestly say that you would rather be with him or her than anyone else? At the end of the day, do you look forward to being with your partner? If so, then something is working, and you’re fortunate, no matter what the age difference.
Of course there are relationships that fail because of age issues. Needs and basic values can sometimes change between one’s early years and later in life. Yet, my experience has shown that it’s more the presence of extreme youth that creates the problem, rather than the age difference. The same thing applies when two young people marry, only to realize that one or both of them chose to marry too soon.
If you’re pursuing a relationship with an age disparity, and it bothers you, then try to figure out why. Are you happy with your partner, but dislike the idea of the age difference? Do you worry about what others think, even though you’re happy? Those are wrong reasons to hesitate.
If the age difference is bothering you because you genuinely feel frustration over a lack of compatibility, then that’s a valid reason for pause. But, above all, don’t let bias or baseless prejudice stand in the way of your happiness. Love and joy must be the primary goal.
Michael J. Hurd
Watch “How Schools Are Dumbing Down Young Students | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
Serious Unaddressed Issues
The attention given to the growing public resistance to “vaccine” mandates and to the “Russian invasion of Ukraine,” allegedly to happen at any moment, has left equally serious problems without attention.
Two unattended very serious problems are the continuing research in weaponizing viruses and making them contagious that is financed by Fauci at NIH and by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the absence of medical research about how to help those whose health is damaged by the mRNA vaccines.
Under the Biological Weapons Convention, this research is banned. Fauci gets around the law by claiming that the research is not for biowarfare purpose, but to anticipate viruses that might emerge in nature so that we will be prepared to combat them. Francis Boyle who wrote the implementing legislation for the US says that gain of function research, which gave the Covid virus its contagious feature, is a violation of the law.
As DARPA has so many scientists employed in the illegal research, usually protected under “national security” claims, no one has been brave enough to do anything about it. Indeed, it is difficult to do anything when governments refuse to obey their own laws.
As the banned research continues, we are faced with another virus escape or intentional release in service to a secret agenda, such as more control over populations or reduction in population. It is encouraging that people are resisting the counterproductive “vaccine” mandates. We need even stronger protests against the illegal biowarfare research.
The vaccine adverse reporting systems in the US, UK, and EU show that the mRNA vaccines have killed tens of thousands of people and badly injured hundreds of thousands. These numbers are only a fraction of the deaths and injuries as it is known that the deaths and injuries are vastly underreported.
The medical establishment, which is allied with pharmaceutical companies, endorsed mandated vaccination by an untested substance inappropriately given emergency use authorization. To protect its own credibility, the medical establishment refuses to acknowledge that the injuries and deaths are vaccine related. They falsely claim that adverse reactions are rare, and they classify the deaths and injuries as Covid cases. Since the medical establishment is too corrupt to acknowledge the massive mistake, the medical establishment is not interested in how to cleanse the body of the toxic elements in the vaccines or how to help those trusting and fearful souls who were stampeded into being injected with an untested concoction that has proved to be dangerous.
Considering the enormous effort required just to resist illegal and unconstitutional mandates and the enormous resistance to the protests by the nazified governments in Canada, Austria, Germany, France, Australia, and elsewhere, what chances do the people have of mounting an effort sufficient to stop the illegal biowarfare research? How large and ongoing a protest will it take to force a corrupt medical establishment to pour resources into finding ways to help the vaccine-injured?
Assuming the people can defeat the vaccine mandates, will they have the energy and the realization to take on the unaddressed business of the ongoing illegal biowarfare research and the absence of help for the vaccine-injured?
To be free is a never-ending battle. Governments are motivated to accumulate power and resources. Into these activities is where governments put their energy. Over the course of my lifetime I have watched all government–state, local, and federal, as well as Property Owners Associations, become less accountable. In the end trust between the people and government wears away, and government governs by deceit, force and terror.
Biden’s Incredible Weakness may Start WWIII
Joe Biden’s Incredible Weakness May Start World War III
Posted on February 14, 2022Bookmark this article
Joe Biden and Putin spoke Saturday, but “Putin has already indicated he’s not interested in dialogue,” said Fred Fleitz, the vice chairman of the America First Policy Institute and the former chief of staff for the National Security Council. “He has a very low regard for Joe Biden. He and his officials have mocked Biden as being incompetent, too old on many occasions.”
Amazing. Fleitz is the spokesmen for conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters. Until the last few years, Republicans were on the side of military interventions, while Democrats were generally on the opposite side. Now it’s all reversed. Biden is about to get the United States into a dangerous conflict with Russia — for what purpose? — while Republicans say we should limit our military interventions to strict self-defense. How times have changed.
Joe Biden is perceived as weak because he’s actually weak. We saw this situation most acutely during the Jimmy Carter years, more than 40 years ago. The Biden weakness is far more extreme. Jimmy Carter treaded carefully — incompetently, but carefully — and while he seemed foolish he didn’t seem like a buffoon, as Biden always has been. And Jimmy Carter did not suffer from dementia, as Biden clearly does.
Most leftists don’t grasp how dangerous this situation might be. Biden could actually start World War III, especially if China decides to get involved.
Leftists are not worried about World War III. They’re far, far more concerned that somebody — somewhere, even one person — might not be wearing a mask.
I call this insanity merged with unspeakable evil, and evasion.
China and Russia are much more of a threat when the United States is weak than when the United States is strong, and means what it says. Putin clearly knows — like the rest of us know — that Biden has thrown its most independent and freedom-loving soldiers out of the military, because of the vax mandates. Putin also knows — like the rest of us — that the U.S. military is more concerned with promoting the transgendered and appearing woke in a way that leftist activists who could never operate a gun approve of. If you don’t think this looks like weakness to Putin and China, you’re out of your mind. If you don’t think they’re going to exploit this obvious weakness at some point by doing whatever the hell they want (something they never would have done during Trump’s presidency, or even Obama’s), then you’re beyond naive.
Everything Biden did has escalated this conflict and brought it to the point where (according to the evidence available) the Russians WILL invade Ukraine — because they can.
It’s power for its own sake. Putin is doing to Biden precisely what Biden has done to America: Exercise power for its own sake, because he can get away with it. In a way, there’s a perverse form of justice in it all. But everyone else will suffer, and thousands or even millions could end up dying because of it.
Dictatorship begets dictatorship. It’s not a good time for the world, especially when the United States has an inept dictatorship competing with the far more seasoned and experienced dictatorships of Russia and China.
Thank you, Joe Biden, for creating all this disaster. Thank you, Biden voters, for your ignorance and malfeasance which placed your neurotic desire to remove President Trump’s brash style and replace it with something like the Biblical end of days. I hold each and every one of you responsible for your errors and evasions. Whatever bad happens, you will be the ones who deserve it all.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, DrMichaelHurd on GETTR.
Share:
ARTICLE SEARCH
DR. HURD’S LATEST BOOK
Foreword written by Dr. Stanton Samenow
READ AN EXCERPT NOWGet your autographed copy now, only from DrHurd.com!
CLICK HERE
SOMEBODY TO TALK TO…
Schedule Therapy or a Consultation
Reflection by The Sea
Want to address an issue head-on in a peaceful, oceanside location? Come to the beaches of Delaware for our special Reflection… by the Sea package.
MORE INFO
QUICK LINKS
LETS CONNECT
Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest.
CONTACT INFO
Living Resources, Inc.
Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D., LCSW.
P.O. Box 1554
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
United States
Copyright © 2022 Living Resources, Inc., t/a Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D., LCSW.
All Rights Reserved. For permission to copy/reprint content, please ask us first so we can give you a citation information.
Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland
Subscribe to Dr. Hurd News!
Since Washington Wants War So Badly Why Doesn’t Washington Simply Attack Russia
Washington keeps on adding fuel to what it says is a Ukrainian crisis. Washington puppet Jens Stoltenberg, the nominal secretary-general of NATO, says NATO is considering a larger and permanent Black Sea presence. The Black Sea is to Russia what the Mediterranean Sea was to the Romans–mare nostrum, “our sea.” Stoltenberg’s announcement is akin to Russia announcing that Russia is considering establishing a “Chesapeake Bay Battle Group.” Stoltenberg added that NATO is planning to establish battle groups in Romania and in other countries around the Black Sea. Why such dangerous provocative actions at a time of such high tension? Why is Washington pouring gasoline on a fire?
Even I did not suspect this level of Washington irresponsibility. As if this isn’t enough, Stoltenberg declared the Black Sea to be of strategic importance for NATO, and the White House national security advisor said the buildup of forces on Russia’s borders are necessary for future contingencies whether or not Russia invades Ukraine.
I was mistaken to think that Washington took seriously Russia’s warning that she was not going to tolerate any more military buildup on her borders. Washington did not hear, or if Washington did hear is nevertheless determined to provoke a war. This stance presents Russia with only two choices–fight or surrender. Is there any hope that the peoples of the West can realize the insanity of their leaders and stop the march to war? I think not. They cannot even stop their own governments’ war against them. In the Western world democracy is a hoax.
At this time Russia holds all the cards. Will she wait, seeking solace in talks and negotiations, until Washington/NATO are better prepared?
Addendum: Is war upon us? The British armed forces minister James Heappey said today that all British troops are being removed from Ukraine “over the course of the weekend” as a Russian invasion is expected. The British soldiers have been training Ukrainians in the use of Western weapons for an attack on the Donbass republics. Washington believes that such an attack would result in Russian intervention, which can be labeled a “Russian invasion.”
Meanwhile the Kremlin remains mired in negotiations:
MOSCOW, February 11. /TASS/. Deputy chief of the Russian presidential staff Dmitry Kozak has said that Russia’s partners in the Normandy Quartet (Germany, Russia, Ukraine and France) tend to procrastinate on negotiations on a settlement of the intra-Ukrainian conflict – in strict accordance with the instructions they have received from the United States.
“For some reason, our counterparts think that time plays into their hands and that they should drag their feet in the negotiations,” Kozak told the media on Friday following Thursday’s meeting of the Normandy Quartet’s political advisers, which ended inconclusively.
“Moreover, from our friends in a NATO country, we have received a document – an instruction from the US Department of State to all NATO countries regarding the way they should conduct negotiations with Russia concerning the settlement of the conflict and the implementation of the Minsk Accords. It is an instruction on how to stall all negotiations.” https://tass.com/politics/1401971
See: https://sputniknews.com/20220212/lavrov-tells-blinken-propaganda-about-russian-aggression-against-ukraine-has-provocative-purposes-1092963955.html
Update: US pulls its troops out of Ukraine in anticipation of Russian invasion. Having provoked war the superpower runs away.
Watch “The Truth about Multiculturalism | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
Civilization is on the Rocks
This Could Cost Him His Job”: Truckers, Mandates Absolutely Crushing Trudeau, Poll Shows [The Daily Wire headline 2-13-20]
Cost him only his job? He should pay with his freedom. Arrest him, convict him of violating all the rights of citizens and LOCK HIM UP. That goes for all politicians who have done this to us. I realize it won’t happen. And that’s why the world is in the state it’s in.
*****************
“Biden Tells Putin Ukraine Invasion Would Bring Swift, Decisive Response” NEWSMAX headline
Emperor Biden may discover that inhabitants of a nation riddled with mask mandates, forced vaccinations, insanely woke ideas and censorship do NOT fight as effectively as free men do.
Go for it, Joe.
******************
DemComs in America stand ready to SMASH any and all trucker protests. No time to go wobbly, truckers. New York’s fascist governor already has them on notice.
Stress Test for a Fading Superpower
Because America entered both world wars of the 20th century last, while all the other great powers bled one another, and because we outlasted the Soviet Empire in the Cold War, America emerged, in the term of President George H.W. Bush, as “the last superpower.”
We had it all. We were the “indispensable nation.” We saw further into the future. We could impose our “benevolent global hegemony” on all mankind. And so it was that we set out to create a “new world order,” plunging into successive wars in Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Syria, Libya, Yemen.
So doing, we bled ourselves, distracted ourselves, exhausted ourselves and sundered ourselves, until half the country was echoing George McGovern’s 1972 campaign slogan: “Come home, America.”
And as we went crusading for a new world order, Vladimir Putin’s Russia gradually recovered from its crushing Cold War defeat, and China began to move out of America’s shadow to become the most powerful rival modern America had ever faced.
Now, U.S. hegemony is being everywhere challenged — in Eastern Europe, the Near East, Southeast Asia, East Asia. And the challenges arise from autocrats united in their resolve to reduce the power and the presence of the United States in their part of the world.
All of America’s adversaries have something in common: They want us out of their neighborhood.
After President Joe Biden’s humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, Ukraine is the site of the latest challenge, triggered by Russia’s deployment of some 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.
Given that he caused this crisis, Putin is unlikely to withdraw all his forces without visible assurances that Ukraine never becomes a member of NATO. And, given that no NATO ally or neighbor of Ukraine has shown a disposition to fight Russia for Ukraine, Putin is likely ultimately to prevail.
Neither Georgia nor Ukraine will soon be invited to join NATO, no matter the “open door” policy of the alliance.
And as Putin is committed to creating a sphere of influence where no next-door neighbor is a NATO ally, we are probably only at the beginning of a series of crises over the exclusion of nations from the alliance.
A second member of the global anti-American front is Iran.
The U.S. and Iran are said to be close to renewing the nuclear deal from which former President Donald Trump walked away. Yet, the persistent threat from Iran and its radical allies like the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shia militia in Syria and Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon is likely to complicate any U.S. effort to extricate ourselves from a Middle East that has consumed so much of our attention and resources since 9/11.
In East Asia, China has begun anew sending military aircraft into the Air Defense Identification Zone of Taiwan, and it has never relinquished its claim to that island of 24 million and former U.S. ally. After the Ukraine crisis is resolved, Taiwan is likely to soon be back on the front burner.
If we would not fight Russia on behalf of Ukraine, why would we go to war with China to defend the independence of Taiwan, when, 50 years ago this month, President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger declared Taiwan to be “a part of China”?
North Korea has resumed testing its cruise and ballistic missiles. And Pyongyang is not going to hold off forever the testing of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The question here is how far off is the next confrontation. And, as there is no U.S. national disposition to fight for Ukraine, it is hard to believe that, 70 years after sending 350,000 troops to South Korea, we would send an army of that size to again fight the North.
Bottom line: The balance of power is constantly shifting. And in this new century, it has been shifting in favor of America’s adversaries, all of whom wish to see us diminished.
Where former President George W. Bush warned of an “axis of evil” that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea, its successor today includes Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, a far more formidable axis. Moreover, America’s relative power and willingness to use it is far diminished from what it was in George Bush’s day.
The new correlation of forces:
North Korea has become a full-fledged nuclear power with intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit the USA. Russia’s armed forces are more imposing than they were two decades ago. China has swept past every rival power to the United States, while America’s allies are less powerful and less united behind it.
Meanwhile, America has run up a national debt larger than the entire U.S. economy. Its trade deficits are at record levels. Its borders are being overrun by migrants from all over the world. And its disposition to intervene, engage and fight for democracy has rarely been lower.
The global stress test of the last superpower is on, and it is not likely we will pass it with a grade as high as the one we had earned by the Cold War’s end.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
Lincoln Lied, People Died
Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Familiar Lincoln idolaters will gather to celebrate the birth, on Feb. 12, 1809, of the 16th President of the United States, and finesse his role in “the butchering business”—to use Prof. J. R. Pole’s turn-of-phrase. Court historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is sure to make a media appearance to extol the virtues of the president who shed the blood of brothers in great quantities, and urged into existence the “American System” of taxpayer-sponsored grants of government privilege to politically connected corporations.
On publication, in 2002, of the book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” the “Church of Lincoln” gave battle. The enemy was the author, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who had exposed Lincoln lore for the lie it was — still is. DiLorenzo had dared to examine the “Great Centralizer’s” role in sundering the soul of the American federal system: the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry.
Steeped as they were in the Lockean tradition of natural rights and individual liberty, the constitutional framers held that the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property were best preserved within a federal system of divided sovereignty, in which the central government was weak and most powers devolved to the states, or to the people, respectively, as stated in the 10th Amendment. If a state grew tyrannical, competition from other states — and the individual’s ability to switch allegiances by exiting the political arrangement — would create something of an agora in government. This was the Framers’ genius.
The concentrated powers Lincoln sought were inimical to the Founders’ loose constitutional dispensation. To realize his expansionist ideals, Lincoln would have to crush any notion of the Union as a voluntary pact between sovereign states and individuals.
By Lincoln’s admission, he prosecuted the war between the Union States of the North and the Southern Confederate States in order to maintain the Union; he vowed to so do “by freeing all the slaves or without freeing any slave,” as Mark Bostridge conceded uncontroversially in the Times Literary Supplement (December 10, 2010). Duly, Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” guaranteed that slaves were freed only in regions of the Confederacy still inaccessible to the Union army. Union soldiers, for their part, were permitted to seize slaves in rebel territory and put them to work. In areas loyal to the North, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the freed men; parceling off the spoils to his constituent power-base: the railroad and mining companies.
The North was no more fighting to abolish slavery than the South was fighting to preserve it: A mere 15 percent, or thereabouts, of Southerners owned slaves.
The “pseudo-intellectuals who [are] devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes” have a lot to answer for. Lincoln’s violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals (including 50,000 Southern civilians, blacks included), maimed thousands, and brought about “the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation’s economy.” “The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality,” wrote the Mises Institute’s David Gordon in “Secession, State & Liberty.” Almost every other country at the time chose the path of peaceful emancipation. Yet today’s Americans look upon the terrible forces Lincoln unleashed as glorious events, the native appetite having habituated to carnage over time.
Lincoln lovers like to claim that the Constitution ratified in 1788 forbade peaceful secession, and authorized a federal government of so-called limited, delegated powers to invade and occupy any seceding state; declare martial law, subdue secessionists by force, burn and ransack entire cities, and then establish a military dictatorship over those states lasting a dozen years.
Suppose this indeed is the case, and that it was perfectly constitutional to intentionally wage war on civilians, to imprison without trial thousands of Northern citizens, jail—even execute—people who refused to take an oath of loyalty to Lord Lincoln, declare martial law, confiscate private property, censor telegraph lines, and shut down newspapers for opposing the war, incarcerating their editors and owners. Say, for the sake of argument, that it was indeed lawful to suspend the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus, and the international law.
If it endorsed, or even accommodated, what Lincoln did, including his disregard for the Ninth and 10th amendments, and his violation of the Second — then the Constitution is categorically evil and self-contradictory.
The more plausible explanation is that, in 1861, Lincoln kidnapped and killed the Constitution. The Jacobins who lionize Lincoln’s actions (by lauding his billowing prose) have been covering up his crimes and ignoring the consequences of his coup ever since.
***
Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Gab, Gettr YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new video-podcast.
