CIA involvment in local politics

Read Full Post »

Masses of asses

Marc Stevens writes:

It’s truly amazing despite all the crimes committed by governments, people still religiously cling to the idea governments are necessary to protect life, liberty and property. You can even point out governments not only have no duty to protect anyone, but also do a disasterous job at whatever they bother doing. Despite overwhelming evidence government is not only unnecessary, corrupt and a cancer on the world, its victims continue to revere them. Maybe this will help convince them governments are nothing more than gangs of killers, thieves and liars.

I disagree about them doing a disastrous job. Government actually does its job exceptionally well – which is to rob, rape, murder and plunder its subjects while doing everything in its power to expand and protect its monopoly on violence.

Read Full Post »

obey, consume, conform, submit, watch tv

From John Carpenter’s They Live:

(Thanks to Michelle)

Read Full Post »

Walter E Williams – Discrimination and Liberty

When Rand Paul suggested the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far, he was widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Here, Professor Williams explains why they are wrong and Rand is right, while making a far more important point about liberty itself.

Read Full Post »

Minimum wage outlaws jobs

Murray N. Rothbard wrote:

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

Then, of course, the government can come to the rescue of the suckers it just unemployed with welfare (unemployment). Amazing how this works isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Oil spill hysteria

Via Lew Rockwell, TPM reports:

Oil seeps are fairly common around the world both underwater and aboveground. Oil seeps occur when enough cracks and fissures form above a reservoir to enable a small quantity of oil to escape naturally. The La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles (pictured below) are a large terrestrial oil seep, and oil seeps have long been used to help identify submarine oil reserves. Oil seeps are prevalent in many bodies of water, and the Gulf of Mexico is no exception.

Oil seeps are more common than you think, both on land and underwater.

A satellite survey published in January of 2000 counted at least 600 natural oil seeps within the Gulf. And they release a lot of oil.

[…]

A 2003 National Academies study estimated that about 980,000 barrels of oil, or about 41 million gallons, seep into the Gulf – every year. Recall that the Exxon Valdez is estimated to have spilled about 250,000 barrels.

So approximately four Exxon Valdezes naturally seep into the Gulf each year. The hysteria manufactured over the recent spill, or anything else for that matter, is designed to provide an excuse for more government intervention.

As Lew Rockwell points out: “Oil is natural, organic, and biodegradable”.

Read Full Post »

Reading list for Rachel Maddow

Rachel, here’s a reading list for you. Please educate yourself to avoid  making a complete fool out of yourself on national television.

• Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: Was he right?

• “Civil Rights” and Total War

• When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror

• In Defense of Bigots

• Hey, Rachel

• ‘Hornberger,’ the Video (You don’t even have to read this one)

• Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)

• Rachel Maddow vs Rand Paul

• A Question for Rachel Maddow

• Whites Can Still Legally Discriminate Against Blacks

• Rand Paul and the right to be odious

• Libertarianism = Anti-racism

• The Rand Paul Kerfuffle: It’s Not About Racism

• The Right To Discriminate

Read Full Post »

Another dilemma for Rachel Maddow

David Kramer writes:

A racist White store owner cannot legally prevent a Black customer from trading with him. Yet, a racist White customer can legally prevent a Black store owner from trading with him by just not walking into his or her store. So what’s the difference? In both cases, one of the two parties (i.e., the Black person) in the trade is being economically “hurt” by the other party (i.e., the racist White person).

Not to mention the Civil Rights Act only “protects” a limited group of minorities. What about the others?

Read Full Post »

More questions for Rachel Maddow

Thomas DiLorenzo asks:

Why do you think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the governent to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?

The Civil Rights Act is anti-freedom.

Read Full Post »

Excoriation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source

Read Full Post »