Category Archives: Libertarian candidates

Libertarian Party “Woke”

The Libertarian Party had a virtual convention, and the “delegates” voted to nominate Jo (Joanne) Jorgensen, a Clemson University psychology professor.

But this has been yet another example of an utter lack of respect for the democratic process and the will of the voters.

You see, some states had Libertarian Party primaries along with Republicrat and Demopublican primaries. Jorgensen was the #2 vote-getter with some 5,000 votes, versus Jacob Hornberger (the candidate I have been promoting here) the #1 vote-getter who received some 9,000 votes! This tells us that the Libertarian Party apparatchiks are just that, apparatchiks.

And there are indications that the main reason the LP chose Jorgensen was because of her gender, and her being a “social justice warrior” as well. The latest tweet by her that stirred some people up, for instance, was, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.” This was after she attended a Black Lives Matter rally. (Excuse me, Toots, I don’t want to attend any rallies, and I don’t care really if someone thinks ignorant, bad thoughts about others. I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Thoughts and words can’t hurt anyone. It’s actions that matter to me, such as police being criminal thugs against others, okay?)

The formal organization “Black Lives Matter” is openly Marxist and wants to abolish capitalism and the nuclear family. Hmm. Obviously, they are not for libertarianism, i.e. the non-aggression principle, self-ownership (which is associated with private property) and individualism. So I think Jorgensen is really just “virtue-signalling” here. (Okay, Jo, you’re NOT racist, I know, I know!)

However, unlike the formal organization, the general movement “black lives matter” seems to be rallying in support of “black lives” and in opposition to police brutality, as we had seen in Minneapolis recently. Although rioting and violence have no place in a movement that rallies for peace, in my opinion.

I hope readers don’t misconstrue anything I’ve written here, including my sarcastic remarks. I agree with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Anyway, after neocon warmonger Bob Barr and moron Gary Johnson, I am not surprised that in 2020 the LP apparatchiks would choose the one who didn’t get nearly as many votes in the primaries as the one who did get the most votes, Jacob Hornberger. The actual citizen voters had spoken but the higher-ups apparently know better.

The Libertarian Party has been around for nearly 50 years, and they really haven’t made any progress in advancing the principles of freedom. So, I am not holding my breath that they ever will.

Libertarians Have the Right Solution for the Coronavirus Crisis

For many decades the two major political parties, Republicrat and Demopublican, have been stealing from the people (“taxes,” taken without any mutual contract), imposing property-violation and person-violation intrusions by making up “laws” and enforcing them at gunpoint. It’s not the “America” envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

And it’s just gotten much worse, with the coronavirus panic incited by corrupt government officials and promoted by their brain-dead media spokesmen and governors ordering businesses shut down, and the economic collapse which mainly began in February with Wall Street panic selling.

So the solution for the statists in power is to print more Monopoly money and helicopter money and give people an extra thousand or two to prevent or delay the inevitable protests in Washington and state capitols.

So all this is yet another reason why I don’t vote for Republicrats or Demopublicans, and instead have been voting for Libertarian Party candidates since the 1980s. Except for the terrible Gary Johnson and the neocon Bob Barr, two invaders of the Libertarian Party in recent presidential elections.

But a current Libertarian candidate for President, Jacob Hornberger, is someone that people who value liberty and prosperity can and should vote for. He is certainly much closer to past Libertarian presidential candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988 and Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. I have mentioned Jacob Hornberger here before. He is the founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF). Here is Jacob’s campaign website.

For instance, in a recent blog post Jacob points out that there is only one way out of the coronavirus crisis: separating healthcare and State. Like separation of church and State.  “In other words, no governmental involvement in healthcare at all. No regulations, no controls, and no central planning. No FDA. No Center for Disease Control. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No medical licensure.” (And no National Institutes for Health, no disease commissar Dr. Fauci!)

Jacob writes:

Americans don’t like to admit that they live under a socialist healthcare system. They like to think of themselves as capitalists, free-enterprisers, and ardent supporters of the Chamber of Commerce. But the fact is that while America doesn’t yet have a healthcare system that is fully owned and operated by the federal government, the core features of America’s healthcare system are based on socialist principles.

The U.S. healthcare system is also based on a core feature of socialism: central planning, control, regulation, and management. That’s what the FDA and the Center for Disease Control are all about.

Medicare and Medicaid are based on the federal government’s forcibly taking money (through the IRS) from those to whom it belongs and use it to provide healthcare to seniors and the poor. That is the essence of the socialist principle of coercive redistribution of wealth.

Prior to America’s socialist healthcare system, our nation had the finest healthcare system in the world. Prices were so low, stable, and predictable that no one needed major medical insurance. Doctors and hospitals provided free medical care to the poor, on a purely voluntary basis. Doctors loved what they did in life. Medical innovations, inventions, treatments, and cures were soaring.

That’s what a free society is all about. That’s also what a charitable society is all about.

And then came central planning, regulation, and control, along with Medicare and Medicaid, two socialist programs that launched America’s decades-long, ongoing, never-ending healthcare crisis. Owing to the enormous government-imposed demand on the healthcare system, healthcare costs began soaring. People began buying insurance for protection. Doctors began forming contorted associations to adapt to the crisis.

And no one can rationally doubt that America’s socialist healthcare system is a major cause of the high death toll from the coronavirus. Every day, one can read any number of articles in the mainstream press about the incompetence of the central planners — about the shortages of masks, supplies, ventilators, and other essential medical supplies — about the ludicrous restrictions imposed on healthcare providers from providing treatment — about the shortages of healthcare providers.

All that dysfunctionality is classic socialism. The economist Ludwig von Mises called a system of central planning “planned chaos.” Can you think of a better term for what is going on today?

In contrast, things wouldn’t be nearly as terrible with the coronavirus crisis today if the system in place right now were a freedom-based, free-market system in healthcare.

A free-market system produces the best of everything. In contrast to a socialist system based on central planning, which is limited to the “expertise” of government planners and planning agencies, the free market takes advantage of the knowledge and expertise of countless individuals, including entrepreneurs, each of whom is coordinating his efforts with others that always reaches fantastic results that no central planner, in all his wisdom, could ever conceive. In a free market, people are free to make rapid adjustments without governmental permission or interference. Essential supplies and equipment and innovations flood the market.

If we had had the free-market healthcare system that FFF has been advancing for 30 years, today we would be looking to the healthcare industry, not politicians, bureaucrats, and mini-dictators for guidance and direction. Test kits would be cheap and plentiful, even delivered overnight to people’s homes. Those testing positive would be urged to self-isolate while everyone else would be going to work, keeping the economy going. Testing kits, ventilators, masks, and other essential supplies would be in abundant supply. Entrepreneurs would be rushing into the market with new and innovative tests, treatments, and even cures. The death toll would have been minuscule compared to what we have today, especially among seniors.

Now, there are many people who think that such a change back to that freedom way of life would be too radical a change. But believe it or not, things really were better prior to the imposition of Medicare and Medicaid. He is right about medical care being much less expensive prior to the 1970s, many more doctors having more ability financially to provide for the poor for free, which many did, including Dr. Ron Paul in his ob-gyn practice.

The problem is government central planning. That is indeed the problem in our society in every single area of life in which government has seized control away from the people.

And Jacob also has addressed Donald Trump’s dictatorial response to the coronavirus crisis, including Trump’s ordering companies to make ventilators or other products they ordinarily don’t make. And this outright fascism has been exercised by governors as well, quite frankly, in their ordering private businesses to close down.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano commented, these are violations of people’s rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution. Napolitano reiterated those comments in his excoriation of governors and mayors’ police-state crackdowns. (All those “public servants,” by the way, swore an oath to obey, support and defend that Constitution, whether they agree with it or not!)

In this video, Jacob Hornberger and his FFF colleague Richard Ebeling discuss the police-state crackdowns and constitutional rights-violations imposed by dictator governors and mayors as well as Trump, and why all that is a bad thing.

So, if you believe in freedom and want to live in a free, prosperous and healthy society then you might want to consider ditching the two major political parties and supporting the Libertarian Party this time around.

Gangsters Invade New Hampshire (Primary)

I’m pretty sure I have mentioned here that I’m in the northeast U.S., but I don’t want to be specific as to where. But I will say, in New Hampshire it’s that time again, the every-4-years invasion of the political hacks, statists, crooks, thugs and degenerates. Yes, the candidates for the 2020 presidential election. Ack!

It turns out that Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not the squeaky clean, young fresh-faced good-guy he portrays himself to be. According to this article, not only did he have high-up positions with the military in counter-intelligence (sic), but he worked with the CIA as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration in Afghanistan. Some people actually view all that as “good” (because they have been overly propagandized, in my opinion), but I view that as “bad.”

Worse, Buttigieg supports “national youth service,” which I think he justifies by saying it should be “voluntary,” but in my opinion, I don’t think he is sincere there. Buttigieg would probably also be in support of the draft. Investigative reporter James Bovard has called Buttigieg’s authoritarianism and promoting a “call to service” as a “summons to submission.” So, he’s not exactly a freedom kind of guy, that Buttigieg guy.

Neither are Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren freedom promoters. They both want a totally centrally-planned economy, in which workers and employers must do everything the bureaucrats in Washington tell them to do. Sanders and Warren are control freaks. And I think that Joe Biden is already showing signs of Alzheimer’s.

And Donald Trump is also in New Hampshire having his campaign rallies, etc. He is bad, too, like the aforementioned. The new budget supposedly is a whopping $4.8 trillion! That’s in the news today. There’s no such thing as a “trillion.” Since Trump became president, the national debt has gone up $2-3 trillion. So he’s spending and borrowing “like a drunken sailor.” (Apologies to all the drunken sailors out there.) And he hasn’t “drained the swamp” or drawn down the wars overseas, just as Obama didn’t end the wars and occupations as promised. They bow to the puppet masters. So, the swamp rules.

And I haven’t voted for a Republicrat or a Demopublican since the 1990s. It’s either the Libertarian Party, or I don’t vote. “Lesser of two evils”? That’s still voting for evil. So now with the Libertarian Party there’s Jacob Hornberger as I have mentioned here. Believe it or not, Jacob has won the Libertarian Party vote in the Iowa caucuses this week. Jacob Hornberger 47% to Lincoln Chafee’s 12%, and some 17 others on the list and “None of the Above.”

But most people don’t know about the Libertarians because the mainstream media refuse to cover them. The statist “news” media in America are so bad now, they really ought to register with the SEC as political operatives!

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.

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.

Jacob Hornberger, the Libertarian Party, and the 2020 Election

The 2020 presidential election campaign seems to give us an incumbent Trump, who looks like he will survive this impeachment stuff, and a bunch of anti-freedom candidates who want to oppose him. If he is removed by the Senate, that will give us a President Pence, who is an even worse warmonger and socially repressive than Trump! But, I don’t think he will be removed.

I have been either voting for third parties or not voting since the 1990s. I refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” because the “lesser of two evils” is still evil, in my opinion. Both major parties are evil. They are anti-freedom, warmongers, anti-due process, and fascists. It used to be that the Libertarian Party, the “party of principle,” was for the principles of freedom that America was founded on.

But then the Libertarian Party had Gary Johnson whose only issue was pot legalization, not on principle but because he just loves pot. And he’s also a “social justice” guy, no understanding of freedom, property rights and freedom of association. If you ask me, the “social justice warriors” in recent years are not concerned with justice when they shout people down and attack people physically at demonstrations. So, they aren’t even concerned with acting decently, you know, in “social” interactions with others. How about treating others with respect, even those with whom you disagree?

But now we have a more principled candidate for president with the Libertarian Party, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF). I have linked to his articles here before (I think). Unlike Gary Johnson and Bob Barr, we can definitely compare Jacob Hornberger with Ron Paul who was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. However, Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 was perhaps a little less libertarian and principled especially on the immigration issue, when Paul ran for president as a Republican.

But Jacob Hornberger is more principled in his views and support for the non-aggression principle, private property rights and freedom of association, and non-interventionism in foreign policy. He also has the same kind of understanding of free-market economics that Ron Paul had, unlike Gary Johnson. Well, I’ll try not to bring up Gary Johnson again.

Imagine abolishing the IRS and the income tax and the federal reserve, closing down all the foreign U.S. military bases abroad and bringing all the troops home, ending the feds’ wars on drugs and immigration, getting rid of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all those other unconstitutional agencies in Washington. If you think that all that is extreme, you can read Jacob’s blog on the FFF website and read his explanations for those things. Abolishing the welfare/warfare state and restoring our freedom is not extreme. It’s those bureaucracies and the feds’ thefts of the people and intrusions into their lives — that’s extreme!

Also read Jacob’s blog on his campaign website. He frequently cites the works of economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I very much recommend their writings at those links.

However, Jacob may have his work cut out for him in getting the Libertarian nomination, because the party has become more “social justice” oriented i.e. abandoning the principles of freedom, such as freedom of speech. So, his dealing with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may be like walking on eggshells.

And also, Jacob is definitely not on the side of the “lone nut shooter” theory promoted by the government and the mainstream media regarding the JFK assassination. He certainly has written about that many times as well. See this by Jacob Hornberger, and this page that contains a reading list regarding the JFK assassination that includes some of Jacob’s articles. I can predict that when some people google Jacob Hornberger they will see his JFK assassination articles and say, “conspiracy theorist,” albeit naively and ignorantly, in my opinion. But we learned a lot as far as what the feds have been up to, especially since 9/11 and the “War on Terror” i.e. war on freedom, and the hysterical campaign to get rid of Trump as well. The FBI and CIA don’t like Trump because he criticized them during the 2016 campaign, and that’s a no-no.

Anyway, I hope that people have an open mind. If you don’t like Trump or Pence, and don’t like what the Democrats have to offer, maybe consider the Libertarian Party and Jacob Hornberger.

The Democrats Had More Debates – Who Cares?

The Democrats running for President of the U.S. had two more debates this past week, and, once again, there was a lot of campaign demagoguery, but none of them seem to get what’s wrong with our society. And their solutions are no different from the solutions that have already been implemented which have caused further problems.

I have been observing politics since the early 1980s, since college. The situation just gets worse and worse.

So, the Democrats are not that different from the Republicans. I’m sure that if these two establishment parties hadn’t imposed so many restrictions on third parties’ ability to get on election ballots, we would have a different situation by now.

And if the news media were not so enmeshed with both these establishment parties, we would hear more about the other parties.

For example, the Libertarian Party used to be the party of freedom, and freedom of thought and conscience, free markets and private property rights, voluntary association, and non-interventionism. Ron Paul was their nominee for president in 1988, and he was consistent with libertarian principles.

But we hardly heard about him at that time, because the news media are the Establishment media. If a candidate comes along and proposes to dismantle the national security state (abolish the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) and close down the military bases occupying foreign countries and bring all the troops home, I guess the thought of ending Washington’s acts of violence against foreigners is a frightening thought for the news media. Such a candidate is dismissed as a crackpot by many people.

And the news media acted the same way in 2008 and 2012 when Ron Paul was a Republican candidate for President. The Republicans are generally warmongers, they support all the wars overseas and the DHS and TSA, and support the failed war on drugs, but Ron Paul is the “fringe” candidate.

And then we have the Democrats, who are mainly ignorant of economics and history, but are also warmongers. They say nothing about the hundreds and hundreds of U.S. military bases overseas, but they do say a lot about “Medicare for All” and the many handouts they are promising, with no answer as to how a multi-trillion dollar program will be funded.

Like the Republicans, who want to give handouts to military contractors and Big Pharma paid for by the average worker, the Democrats are the same.

But do I have any comments specifically on this past week’s Democrat debates? Nope. Not really. (Except that they all suck. Sorry to sound like a “nattering nabob of negativism” there.)

Justin Raimondo, R.I.P.

I don’t want to be writing obituaries on this blog. But from time to time I write about the issues of the day or something in the news, and I’m sure that readers know that I am very anti-war, and with good reason, Well, one of my favorite antiwar writers, Justin Raimondo, has died, at age 67.

Justin Raimondo was an antiwar activist and also active in the libertarian movement and in the Libertarian Party. According to this very interesting obituary at, which he co-founded, Raimondo was an early fan of Ayn Rand, the objectivist philosopher. He was also a gay activist, and a Pat Buchanan supporter.

In 2017, Raimondo had been diagnosed with “late-stage adenocarcinoma cancer,” a form of lung cancer. According to the obituary, he was given 6 months to live, but had extended that by another year or more supposedly by taking the experimental drug Keytruda, which is made by Merck, combined with what he calls a “light” chemotherapy drug Alimta, which is made by Eli Lily. He made a lot of progress in the first 6 months of the therapy.

But he did express frustration with the side effects of the drugs. More recently, on May 9th he wrote on his Twitter, “I’m at St. Mary’s Hospital for my first immunological anticancer treatment in months.” But then I started to get worried when on May 13th he wrote, “Where is He?” (especially with that capital H).

But anyway, he did write in 2003 that he had had a heart attack around that time and mentioned “all those pills I have to remember to take every morning,” and that “yes, I had to give up smoking (nicotine products, that is) and, boy, do those herbal cigarettes taste bad!”

And I know I’m influenced by my own experiences with my doctors and situations involving my father’s health, regarding prescription drugs, but it wouldn’t surprise me if “all those pills” of Justin’s were some sort of terrible prescription drugs, like intended to treat people after a heart attack, and that their side effects could have contributed to his lung cancer. However, from what we know about smoking, it was probably the smoking which was the primary cause of the lung cancer.

I guess the moral of the story is, Don’t smoke. That is what Danny Thomas and John Wayne and Yul Brynner tried to warn us about, anyway.

Libertarian Murray Sabrin Running for Senate from New Jersey

If you live in New Jersey, and you don’t like the two major party candidates for U.S. Senate, the incumbent Democrat warmonger Bob Menendez or the Republican challenger Big Pharma Bob (the other Bob),you might want to consider voting for Murray Sabrin the Libertarian Party candidate. Dr. Sabrin is a professor of economics and wants to dismantle the military empire overseas and supports due process rights and civil liberties, and at the same time believes in economic liberty and doesn’t support the current structure of taxation because it is involuntary and involves coercion.