Monthly Archives: January 2020

Unnecessary Panic Over the “Corona” Virus?

I wanted to address the media’s fear mongering and panic with the new “corona virus,” and China’s overdoing it with the closing down of whole cities out of hysteria and panic. But I spent more time on my previous post than I had planned. So I will make this more brief.

Over the past several years I have come to see just how the mainstream news media have become mostly repeaters of official government press releases. It’s mainly propaganda, as we have seen and continue to see with the coverage of the 2016 election-Russia investigation and this impeachment farce. The media are the same with medical issues, in their being spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies.

So, I really want to link to Jon Rappoport’s two recent posts that address these issues, on the latest virus, the “corona” virus. Those two posts are: China virus epidemic – the Gong Show on roller skates, and on the man who mushed the SARS dud now pushing new Chinese virus. Very good information and insight, in my opinion.

He makes reference to how in the past such as with SARS the media would not disclose that many cases of “SARS” were really patients with flu-like symptoms but who did not test positive for the “SARS” virus.

Rappoport brings up how medical and government officials don’t seem to want to look at an area’s sanitation and water systems, which are very important in these issues. There are also areas of malnutrition, in which a common problem is the compromised immune systems of many in the population, in which toxic vaccines and other pharmaceutical drugs are killing them.

But, “THE VIRUS” is what needs to be obsessed with. In these “epidemics,” many of those suffering don’t actually test positive for the virus in question. They have flu-like symptoms. And one reason some of the people with the sicknesses actually die — and I did hear a newscaster mention this, I couldn’t believe a little truth was told — is because those people already had other serious medical conditions.

So, people with medical conditions should be as well-nourished as possible, for prevention.

But in China, a country with an ultra-authoritarian government that already keeps the masses in fear of the regime with the “social credit score,” etc., the government is closing down whole cities? Those rulers are even worse control freaks than the power-addicted people in Washington.

Can We Return to the American Founders’ Vision of Freedom?

Jacob Hornberger, a Libertarian Party candidate for president, has written a blog post at his organization the Future of Freedom Foundation, on the American founders’ distrust of centralized government officials. And that is why they insisted on including a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also includes specific enumerated powers of the federal government, so if a function or office was not enumerated, then the feds may not do it, according to Hornberger.

He expands on why the people forming a new government insisted on a Bill of Rights in the Constitution:

Why did Americans see the need to expressly prohibit the federal government from destroying such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own and bear arms? Because they firmly believed that that is precisely what federal officials would do if they were not expressly prohibited from doing it!

Why did Americans demand the enactment of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? Because they firmly believed that without those express restrictions on power, federal officials would use their power to do such things as kill or jail people or seize their money and property without due process of law, use kangaroo Star Chamber-like courts to convict them, barge into people’s homes or businesses without warrants to search for incriminating evidence, jail people indefinitely without trial, and subject people to cruel and unusual punishments like torture.

Hmmm, sound familiar? Yep. That’s today’s America. Bush-Obama-Trump’s America, that is. And there are millions and millions of Americans who agree with policies that do away with those protections in the Bill of Rights.

And what about a crisis or emergency? Hornberger writes:

The fact is that there is no emergency or crisis exception in either the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That is, there is no provision that says, “In the event of an emergency or crisis, the federal government will be permitted to exercise powers that are not enumerated and to ignore restrictions on its power.”

There is a good reason why the Framers and our ancestors chose not to include an emergency or crisis exception that would enable federal officials to exercise omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers over the people. The reason is that they understood that throughout history, emergencies and crises have furnished the excuse for federal officials to wield and exercise tyrannical powers.

In fact, that’s one of the reasons that rulers oftentimes do their best to generate emergencies or crises. They know that it is during emergencies and crises that people become so afraid that they are willing, even eager, to surrender their liberties and their rights, “temporarily” of course, in exchange for being kept “safe.” Of course, “temporarily” almost always means “permanently” because rulers are loath to give up powers once wielded and exercised.

And in his very next blog post, Hornberger points out how different America was during the first century or so of its freedom and independence. Back then, there was no “military-industrial complex, empire of domestic and foreign military bases, CIA, NSA, or FBI,” there were no drug laws, no immigration controls, and there were very little to no economic controls. The founders wouldn’t have approved of centralized economic planning from the feds, because the federal government has no moral authority to get involved in the people’s economic and financial lives, and it especially had no constitutional or moral authority to demand any of the fruits of their labor.

As I have mentioned here recently, the Democrats and Republicans are all the same, except for their social programs that each wants to shove down our throats. They all believe in government central planning, central economic planning, and coveting your earnings but letting you have some of your earnings by their acts of legislation. They all believe in tax-funded empire abroad in search of monsters or opportunities to create new monsters to destroy. They do not believe in civil liberties and due process.

More recently the Libertarian Party candidates for president have been largely in agreement with the Demopublicans and Republicrats, such as Gary Johnson and Bob Barr. Those were terrible presidential nominations, and the Libertarian Party really should be ashamed of that political compromise of principle. But in the old days of the Libertarian Party, there were Ron Paul, Harry Browne, and David Bergland. Let’s hope the Libertarian Party nominates Jacob Hornberger for president to present a real choice between the usual statists, authoritarians and communists.

The Swamp Impeachment Farce and Kooky 2020 Candidates

Every once in a while I want to write my thoughts on various matters here, but for some reason I “self-censor,” because I’m afraid of “offending” someone. Oh, well.

Anyway, there are a lot of issues and kooky characters in the news these days, including an impeachment “trial,” remarks by presidential candidates, and so on. A lot needs to be discussed. So, I will discuss.

Regarding the impeachment “trial,” I first want to reiterate that I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. He’s bad on immigration, trade, foreign policy, the “war on drugs,” and many other issues. But I do like his “Drain the Swamp” message, even though he has been feeding the swamp with all the military generals, neocon hacks and bureaucrats he has had in his administration.

And unfortunately, the establishment in Washington has two political parties known as the “major” parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. They are two sides of the same coin, the statist swamp coin, that is.

First the Democrats and the news media (redundant?) had acted in cahoots with the “dirty cops” of the FBI and DOJ to falsely accuse Trump of “collusions” with Russians to “hack” or steal the 2016 election. The Mueller report exonerated Trump after a 2+ year investigation.

See that ultra-conservative Trump-supporter Glenn Greenwald on that exoneration.

Now, obviously I’m being facetious, as Greenwald is a progressive-left commentator and policy analyst. But because he believes in exposing the actual truth of something, and because he rakes the “news” media propagandists over the coals regarding their cover-ups and hypocrisy and their revolving door with bureaucracies, they have been calling him a “Putin puppet,” “Russian asset,” etc.

Much of the “news” media have been acting like programmed robots in their propaganda crusade against all things Trump.

And the “news” (sic) media get a bad grade (from me) for their coverage of the whole congressional, FBI and Mueller investigations of the collusion allegations, because the media basically acted as stenographers for everything the D.C. swamp creatures tell them, without any investigative research whatsoever.

We might as well close down the Columbia School of Journalism, Emerson College, et al. They are now useless (except for training up-and-coming propagandists for the establishment, the swamp), so it seems.

After the Mueller Report didn’t work for the Democrat-Swamp-FBI-DOJ complex, when the Report was released in March and April of 2019, members of Congress immediately demanded Trump’s tax returns to see if a new fishing expedition would help them. They had no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, no specific tax-related allegation of any kind, but no matter. That was April 3rd of 2019, according to the New York Times and the Washington Times. I don’t want to link to them.

And then a CIA-experienced White House employee calling himself a “whistleblower” leaked second-hand info regarding a Trump phone call, to begin a new impeachment inquiry. The dishonest Rep. Adam Schiff had been in cahoots with “whistleblower” starting the day after the Trump-Ukraine phone call. Actually, the “whistleblower” began in his crusade to get Trump removed from office just days after Trump was inaugurated!

On the first day of the House Impeachment Inquiry, the dishonest Schiff read a fake transcript of the phone call, that read like a mafia boss, to fool listeners (and many in the media) into believing what he was reading was the actual phone call transcript. Just a day or two before that, the White House had released the actual phone call transcript. (Joe Biden, former vice president, corrupt?)

Now, the so-called “whistleblower” was NOT a whistleblower. If you want to know who is a whistleblower, see info on Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, William Binney and Thomas Drake, who were all imprisoned by the feds to punish them for releasing info on corruption and criminal behavior by government bureaucrats and military. Exposing wrongdoing is a no-no in Washington!

No, the White House CIA “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower in the true sense of the word, he is just a leaker, not only a leaker but really a propagandist, who leaked hearsay information to the media and Congress.

ANY phone call between ANY president and ANY foreign leader can be manipulated and used to falsely accuse someone of anything! Which is exactly what this situation is.

So what we will have from now on is Republicrat or Demopublican politicians going on fishing expeditions against a president of the opposing party, starting impeachment inquiries and “trials” in the Senate. This is just the beginning, folks.

This is yet another reason why I haven’t voted for a Demopublican or Republicrat since the ’90s! I have been supporting Libertarian Party candidates or “None of the Above,” quite frankly.

And what else has been in the news lately? Well, the 2020 presidential campaign, of course. Besides the senile-sounding 77-year-old Joe Biden, there is the grouchy, cranky 78-year-old Bernie Sanders, who is so much “against the rich” that he has become rich himself. They are both Republicrats, I say.

And Tulsi Gabbard, who is supposedly anti-war, as I am. But as Jacob Hornberger has pointed out, Gabbard is anti-war only in opposition to “regime-change wars,” but not other foreign wars in which American troops are sent off to get killed or crippled for no reason except to enrich the so-called “defense” (sic) contractors. So, she’s kind of hypocritical when it comes to “anti-war,” or she’s just ignorant and confused.

Now Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for “defamation,” because Hillary referred to a Democrat running for president as a “Russian asset,” even though Clinton didn’t even mention Gabbard’s name. The suit is completely frivolous, and would be so even if Gabbard’s name was mentioned, and Gabbard will not win the suit.

And one of my favorite libertarian blogs, Target Liberty, has a comprehensive post on the “matronly” Amy Klobuchar, who apparently is a “perfect puppet for the behind the scenes puppetmasters of the Empire.”

Actually, like Trump, any one of these phony-baloneys would be a “perfect puppet for the empire.”

So anyway, impeach away The Donald, I really don’t care. But President Mike Pence? He’s an even worse warmonger than Trump and those other Demopublicans and Republicrats.

Interventionism: The Main Contributor to America’s Conflicts Abroad

I have been a supporter of non-interventionism and anti-war for about 35 years now, and that will never change. Recent events in the news are reinforcing such views. How could they not?

First we have the supporters of Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Iraq protesting and breaking into the U.S. embassy in Iraq, and then we have Donald Trump ordering the assassination of an Iranian general in Iraq, further escalating tensions between Iran and the U.S. Then we have an attack by Iran into areas where U.S. military are stationed but no injuries or deaths reported. Supposedly the Iranians gave advance warning that they were going to do that. As the Church Lady would say, “Isn’t that special?”

And all this caused some people to fear a nuclear confrontation or World War III, but The Donald gave his little talk yesterday to ease tensions. Yay!

But why is all this going on? The real question is, why are there U.S. troops stationed anywhere in the Middle East? Especially when the Bush Presidents shouldn’t have started wars over there in the first place.

You see, these events are caused by government interventionism in the first place. These are very good reasons to oppose foreign interventionism and the U.S. government installing its military personnel and bases in other parts of the world that are not part of the U.S., and U.S. “security” agencies such as CIA engaging in assassinations, coups, and otherwise death and destruction. The only actual results of those actions of provocation have been “blowback,” or very negative consequences boomeranging against the American people.

A most relevant example today is this: In Iran during the 1950s Operation Ajax was the CIA’s coup to overthrow the prime minister of Iran. After the CIA and Brits replaced the Iranian prime minister with the “Shah,” they also imposed a totalitarian police state known as SAVAK. This police state was backed by the CIA and it tyrannized the Iranian people for 25 years. Why did the CIA do this? I don’t know. Ask them!

And that led into the Iranian “Revolution” of 1979 that we are hearing about from all the warmongers and interventionists who don’t believe in national sovereignty, and who conveniently forget the history prior to the events of 1979. Very corrupt and dishonest people.

The bottom line is that there probably would be no real conflict between U.S. and Iran had the CIA not forced a regime change in Iran in 1953. I know that’s a very simplistic conclusion. But Lindsey Graham might have been able to save his anxiety for more important things, otherwise.

Other examples of the U.S. government’s needless and counter-productive interventionism include the Vietnam War. President Lyndon Johnson’s sending U.S. troops to go to Vietnam to die or be injured and maimed for life and psychologically damaged as well, based on a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident that didn’t happen, was for the purpose of “preventing the spread of communism,” mainly.

Yet, as “All the Shah’s Men” author Stephen Kinzer observed, the Vietnam War ended with a united, communist Vietnam. North and South united. A waste of several million lives over there, and 58,000 or more U.S. troops dead and many injured and crippled for life and many cases of PTSD, for no good reason.

And look at Iraq, and Afghanistan. Or better yet, don’t look at them. Two presidents named Bush, and Clinton, Obama and Trump have destroyed and continue to destroy those countries. The foaming-at-the-mouth warmongers surrounding Trump want to expand the bombings and include Iran! Can you imagine another government’s military invading the U.S. and bombing and murdering innocent civilians and occupying America? We probably wouldn’t like that very much. (Sadly, it seems that Americans have forgotten the Golden Rule, oh well.)

A main motivation for various terrorist attacks over the past 30 years, since before September 11th, 2001, include the “Gulf War” that the older Bush started in the early 1990s and the subsequent sanctions and no-fly zones. All this led into 9/11, but to many people “history began with 9/11” and all that.

However, the American “Founding Fathers,” at least most of them, meant for a U.S. government to have a non-interventionist foreign policy, no “entangling alliances,” no CIA or other extra-Constitutional “warriors” interfering with other countries’ policies or governments.

So I’ll conclude here by stating that the Presidents we have had have merely been continuing the interventionist policies as dictated to them by the “military-industrial-complex,” as President Eisenhower would call it, including “liberals” Clinton and Obama. The Democrats are no different from the Republicans, regardless of the Democrats’ rhetoric of “peace” and “ending the wars,” which was a theme of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, by the way. (But we see that Trump is no different from the rest of the statists.)

Even the Libertarian Party, which I have mentioned here before, has sucked as far as its candidates diluting the non-interventionist principles of that party. Gary Johnson was the worst I have seen so far. But now, Jacob Hornberger at least is consistent in his principled policy proposals. Some people might think that Jacob Hornberger is a radical, but maybe that’s what the U.S. needs now. Someone who really will take all the troops back home because they don’t belong in those other countries, and someone who believes in the Golden Rule. Hornberger recently explained how the lack of freedom in America is a main cause of societal dysfunction, and that freedom works much better and should be restored.

Faux Healthcare vs. Nutrition; And, How Clean Is Too Clean?

Some interesting articles from Mercola. First, there will be a referendum in Maine on March 3rd for the people of Maine to overturn a new law that mandates vaccines to be forced on people involuntarily, by revoking religious and philosophical or personal belief exemptions. Too bad the people have to go to the ballot box to protect their natural right to not be assaulted and to protect their right of freedom of thought and conscience and to protect their right to decide for themselves what medical procedures, drugs or other acts of alleged prevention to voluntarily have.

Good ol’ fascism, and based on ignorance and hysteria, no less. In Seattle, by the way, the “officials” have mandated that school kids must get vaccinated or else don’t come back to school. Really? Hmm. Remind me not to relocate to Seattle any time soon. (Have you heard of “unschooling“? They could use that up there.)

Frankly, there’s too much of a dangerous government-pharmaceutical-media complex, and a lot of misinformation is out there based on myths and hysteria. I’ve posted enough on this blog regarding the vaccine issue (just click on the “vaccine” tag or category at the bottom of this post to read my previous posts on vaccines), and I’m starting to get sick of this.

Incidentally, Jon Rappoport has a new post on vaccines, with some important insight and brilliant analysis as usual. And in another recent post, he discusses the brainwashing of the “medical cartel,” as well as of the media who don’t want to report on disclosures that had been leaked from insiders.

I especially liked Rappoport stating, “And remember this: no amount of vaccines is going to solve tremendously sub-standard childhood nutrition.” And, “There is no substitute for natural immunity derived from good nutrition.” You betcha.

The other article on Mercola is regarding people being too clean, with personal care products and household cleaning products that are disinfecting away our normal “good” bacteria. Perhaps one reason why so many children are getting sick isn’t because they aren’t getting vaccines, or are over-vaccinated, but because they are too clean. (And perhaps that’s a reason why ultra-clean-freak Felix Unger seemed to be so sick!)

The timing of this article is interesting, because I have recently been going through a process of changing some of my own cleaning habits, mainly in the soaps category. I had been using Dial soap that has the controversial anti-bacterial ingredient(s) and I have switched to Ivory for now. I had also been using Aveeno moisturizing bar but they recently changed their ingredients for the worse, so I have bought a Trader Joe”s oatmeal-based soap but haven’t used it yet. It gets good reviews online.

Bottom line from the Mercola article: washing is a good idea obviously, but don’t overwash so you can prevent possibly causing a bacterial “resistance.” The article notes that “germ vigilance is required. Cuts, for example, need to be properly cleaned, and disinfecting food preparation areas is a good idea. Medical facilities also need to be vigilant about cleanliness and disinfection. In our day-to-day lives, however, we should not go overboard.”

How Do We Know What Decade This Is?

Happy New Year!

I am hearing these arguments over when the new decade actually begins. So, there are really two decades, but is one of them the legitimate one to think of when the “new” decade begins?

The first decade is when the new tenth number comes around, such as “1 to 10.” And now we are going from the 1 in 19 to the 2 in 20. So after the 2010s now it’s the 2020s. There were the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, 2020s, etc.

But is that when the “new” decade actually begins? Usually, we begin counting not on 0 (“zero”) but on 1, as in 1 to 10, 11 to 20, 21-30, etc. So, a “decade” should be 1-10, etc. That means the new “decade” really begins next year, on January 1st, 2021.

However, I think it seems more fitting to think of the “new” decade as the “20s” like the “2010s,” the “2000s,” the “1990s,” etc. So, I guess it can be both. And that is what I have to say about that.