LRC Blog

RINO William Weld, The Last Rockefeller Republican?

I greatly suspect former Taxachusetts Governor William “Bill” Weld remains one the last 21st century specimen of a Northeastern Seaboard Establishment Rockefeller Republican: uber-hawkish CFR, “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” and trying to out SJW the SWJ progressives. The Rino Weld has been strongly pro-choice for the entirety of his career, and has been a consistent supporter of LGBT rights, and the right of same-sex marriage. In many ways his career path has followed this earlier dynamic Rockefeller Republican prosecutor/governor who became presidential fodder, or even this guy.  At this point one wonders if Weld will even show up as a blip on the 2020 campaign radar before the New Hampshire primary in challenging President Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination.

As this Wikipedia entry demonstrates, Weld is quintessential New England Yankee elite. His ancestor Edmund Weld was among the earliest students (Class of 1650) at Harvard College. He would be followed by eighteen more Welds at Harvard, where two buildings are named for the family. Weld’s father David (1911–1972) was an investment banker; his mother, Mary Nichols Weld (1913–1986), was a descendant of William Floyd, who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Weld was a principal at Mintz Levin, and co-chaired the Independent Task Force on North America under the Council on Foreign Relations, which studied the liberalization of markets and free trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Weld began his legal career as a counsel with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate impeachment inquiry, where one of his colleagues was Hillary Rodham. He and Ms. Clinton remain close friends and colleagues.

The big question is whether he will pass the #NeverTrump “smell test” from neocon grand pooh-bah Bill Kristol and his co-conspirators at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), Commentary and National Review? Will Weld bear the imprimatur of AIPAC?  Otherwise his narcissistic vanity candidacy will implode.

1:23 pm on August 17, 2019

Should We Trade With Dictators, Slave Owners, Nazis, etc.?

From: W
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 4:27 PM
Subject: Help w/ the N.A.P. on moral gray areas


My name is W. I’m a college student who’s interested in libertarianism, more specifically voluntaryism. I found this email address on

I have a question on the topic of consumer responsibility. Is it a N.A.P. violation, or an act of aggression, for a person to buy cotton that was picked by slaves in the early 19th century? Along the same lines, say a group of humans were involuntarily enslaved and butchered like cattle. Would it be a N.A.P. violation to buy human meat at a grocery store or restaurant? I apologize for graphic details. I don’t mean to be obscene.  If you can answer this question, I’d greatly appreciate it. I am a big fan of your work. I watch your lectures, and I also read your book Defending the Undefendable.

Best regards, W


9:17 pm on August 16, 2019

Is Voting Only For Fools? No.

From: G
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 7:08 AM
Subject: Voting

Good morning Dr. Block,

I will have to respectfully disagree with your stance on voting. Although, if there could be an exception, Ron Paul would qualify. The problem with voting is that it is in and if itself an acceptance of the political system, and as so, requires one who votes to accept the outcome, regardless of the “winner.” This fact I think negates any justification. As I recall, you made this same argument during Trump’s election, and many  have done the same, saying that voting for the lesser of evils is warranted. I have said many times that voting is a fool’s game, as regardless of the  outcome, the same rotten underlying system is still in place with its  “majority” (actually minority) rule mentality. Anytime one can vote for  another to have power over others, then corruption is imminent. That is why  a peaceful anarchical system is better. As a realist, I do fully realize the current impossibility of this kind of  system due to centuries of brainwashing common citizens to believe the  idiocy of democracy, but we are talking in the abstract. If no one voted however, no one would be elected, and that would make a much  better world.

Respectfully, G

From: Walter Block []
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 8:01 AM
To: G
Subject: RE: Voting


9:15 pm on August 16, 2019

re: A Terrible Rumor


I wonder what the bloodthirsty, warmongering, government-of-Israel-worshiping, endless-war-promoting evangelical Christians would think of this knowing that Ben Shapiro said in an interview in his whining, fingernails-on-the-chalkboard, high-on-speed voice, that Jesus Christ was not the son of God or even a prophet but just another trouble-making Jew who tried to overthrow the Roman government and got killed for it?

1:28 pm on August 16, 2019

Does Existence Precede Essence?

The notion that each of us may choose gender means that each of us can choose our sex, and more broadly it means that we can choose a vast range of sexual identities. This is individual freedom taken to a new limit, one that’s destructive of self and society.

The people who are pushing for gender fluidity want to teach children freedom of gender and freedom of sex and freedom of sexual practices and freedom of family arrangements. These ideas and others like them invade and overturn our society’s foundations. These ideas encourage improvidence and immorality. They oppose standard virtues and the building of character. They oppose sacrifice, work and love.

The philosophy behind this is Existentialism or really a bastardized form thereof.

9:51 am on August 16, 2019

Epstein May Be Just One Part of an Intricate Network of Sex and Power

I have posted here journalist Whitney Webb’s MintPress exceptional series which looks at the sordid history tying together mobsters, oligarchs, and government intelligence agencies in a web of blackmail, exploitation, and profit.

7:28 am on August 16, 2019

US Sanctions Killing Innocent Iranians…Just ‘Collateral Damage’?

12:25 pm on August 15, 2019

More on “Women’s Studies”

In an e-mail yesterday, Bionic Mosquito (BM) commented supportively on today’s article about university sources of gender nuttiness.

The article says “Weaker academics in the traditional areas may be attracted to these new areas if it means gaining publication numbers.”

BM adds

“Weaker students are also attracted. In addition to the desire from funding from government and donors, the administrators welcome the growth (via student loans) of students who could never get into a rigorous program, hence never get into university. It could also be considered a way to meet various affirmative action laws and regulations (both in the faculty and student populations).”

9:51 am on August 15, 2019

Is It Compatible With Libertarianism To Keep A Nuclear Weapon In Your Basement In A Big City? No.

From: Χ
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:02 PM
Subject: Your thoughts on an article about your views on nuclear weapon laws.

Dear Dr. Block

I was wondering what your thoughts would be about this article critiquing your views that weapons of mass destruction should be banned according to the NAP.


6:29 pm on August 14, 2019

Is Automation To Be Feared? No.

From: B
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:39 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Free-market Automation vs. Government-Caused Automation

Dear Dr. Block,

This is not a criticism; I just want your opinion about a relevant topic today.

The topic of automation (replacement of labor with machines and computers) is becoming a central topic of discussion today, at least amongst some political circles, e.g. supporters of Andrew Yang (one of the Democrats running for president in 2020). Yang talks about how automation is destroying the poor and working class (not only economically, but socially and emotionally) and that the govt needs to step in and pay everyone a Universal Basic Income to relieve them from these pains. The underlying premise is that this move towards automation is bad but inevitable, so the govt needs to accept it and pay people who become victims of this “march of progress”. I fully understand the Austrian analysis of automation and know that it is not a per se bad thing, nor is it inevitable. However, it’s troubling to see some people who would never consider themselves socialists — or even claim to be libertarians(!) — accepting the underlying premises of Yang’s argument and would not necessarily rule out getting behind him in 2020.

I think there is an automation problem today but it’s caused by the government. Supermarkets and gas stations, for example, don’t really want to replace all their human labor with emotionless robots and computers, but they have to seriously consider doing so in order to remain profitable and competitive. The government — through taxation, laws (e.g. minimum wage), and regulations (think, law suits from employees) — has made employing human labor more expensive and risky from an economic point of view relative to automation, and this is what has caused an artificial (non-free market) boost in automation.

The problem is that we Austrians just address the issue from a per se point of view. We will say: “Automation, per se, is not bad because of X, Y, and Z.” That’s fine but the people who are affected by this artificial government-caused automation aren’t necessarily interested in the per se argument. They just call us homo economicus lovers, who only care about economic efficiency. This is a strategic error I think. Of course we need to provide the per se economic case in favor of automation, but we also need to make it clear to these people that we’re not necessarily defending all present trends of automation, or that the automation we see today is purely the result of free market forces.

It’s the same problem we have when talking about the contemporary issues of international trade. Austrians will correctly point out that the worry about trade, trade deficits, and job outsourcing today is wrongheaded, and we will lay out the pure economic case for free trade (which is 100% correct). But this leaves the impression that Austrians are claiming that the current state of international trading relations is purely the outcome of free market forces, which it is not. Again, the govt has come in with its taxation, laws, and regulations and affected the economy in a way that the free market would likely have not produced. What do you think about this? Do you distinguish between free-market automation and automation that’s artificially boosted because of govt intervention? Kind regards, B


6:11 pm on August 14, 2019

‘Humanitarianism’? Hillary’s Libya Lies Still Creating Misery

12:29 pm on August 14, 2019

Selling Murder: The Killing Films of the Third Reich

Noted British historian Michael Burleigh won the British Film Institute Award for Archival Achievement for scripting this Channel 4/Domino Films documentary Selling Murder: The Killing Films of the Third Reich, the single most important film about the Nazi’s Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. It shows exactly how the Nazis marginalized people with disabilities and mental illnesses by making them less and less until it became acceptable to exterminate them.

Between 1939 and 1945 the Nazis systematically murdered as many as 200,000 mentally ill or physically disabled people whom they stigmatised as ‘life unworthy of life’.

The eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it was spread to Germany. Eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals. By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s example.

In 1927, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology (KWIA), an organization which concentrated on physical and social anthropology as well as human genetics, was founded in Berlin with significant financial support from the American philanthropic group, the Rockefeller Foundation. German professor of medicine, anthropology and eugenics Eugen Fischer was the director of this organization, a man whose work helped provide the scientific basis for the Nazis’ eugenics policies. The Rockefeller Foundation even funded some of the research conducted by Dr. Josef Mengele (the Angel of Death) before he went to Auschwitz.

Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany, c.1900 to 1945

Michael Burleigh, The Racial State 

James Q. Whitman, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism

2:27 am on August 14, 2019

The Eugenics Crusade

The Eugenics Crusade tells the story of the unlikely –– and largely unknown –– campaign to breed a “better” American race, tracing the rise of the movement that turned the fledgling science of heredity into a powerful instrument of social control.

Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race

The Eugenics movement drew their greatest enthusiastic support and funding — extensive funding from America’s upper-most philanthropic sources such as from the Carnegie Institute and the Harriman railroad fortune. The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Dr. Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Cereal magnate J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

Top tier social scientists, especially economists, gave their full sanction to the Eugenics project. Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organizations that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms. One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenics agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement. Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defects.

12:24 am on August 14, 2019

Neocons see Hong Kong as China’s ‘Soft Underbelly’ – Daniel McAdams

5:02 pm on August 13, 2019

Employee Stock Ownership Plans; Analyzed Separately From an Austrian and Libertarian Perspective

Letter 1

From: R
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Your mention of ESOPs

Dear Professor Block,

Recently saw your response to Dwight Murphey (I know, it’s an old piece).

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Controversy: Do Market Economies Allocate Resources Optimally? A Response to Murphey,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall, pp. 279-289;…-a0186433142

Block, Walter E. 1999. Controversy: Do Market Economies Allocate Resources Optimally? Another Response to Murphey,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall, pp. 297-306; ;

Had something of a quibble, regarding your mention of Employee Stock Ownership Plans.

I’ve read through von Mises’ piece “Observations on the Cooperative Movement” a few times, and really don’t really see how a polemic about cooperatives (largely focusing on agricultural purchasing/marketing coops, to boot) has any bearing on industrial firms with broad-based stock ownership plans for their employees. Most ESOPs own only a minority of company stock, and the trustee is often appointed by the company. There isn’t very much room for meaningful “workers’ control,” especially if we’re talking about a “public” corporation. This also rules out “stakeholder theory,” since we are dealing with legitimate stockholders.

Neither do I see how private ownership of equity is “socialist,” in the Austrian sense (i.e. state/public ownership of the means of production). If your argument is that ESOPs being pushed by state legislation is unconscionable, that’s a valid concern that I’ve seen from other libertarians. With regards to those others, one in particular was Timothy Terrell’s piece on the LvMI website, specifically regarding Louis Kelso’s “Binary Economics” theory; he actually professed no problem with the ESOP in particular, but criticized the idea of the state mandating broader stock ownership via inflationary lending policies (and from what I hear from others in the employee ownership “business,” Binary Economics isn’t really something they have much interest in).

Just wanted to share my thoughts, as someone who does take classical liberal points seriously, and has learned quite a bit from Austrian School writings, but also supports voluntary broad-based employee ownership.

Best, R


4:14 pm on August 13, 2019

Can Trump Get Out Of Afghanistan?

12:30 pm on August 13, 2019

University Sources of Gender and Other Sexual Madness in Our Schools

We have reached a point of utter madness where a child is ejected from a classroom for calling a boy a boy. How did this happen? Nuttiness like “gender studies” comes out of the universities.

Universities divide academics into departments and fields. Gender studies in universities is a “bullshit” field that sprang from other bullshit fields, meaning unscientific fields, with political and value-laden agendas kept in the background but always present.

The civil rights movement and affirmative action in universities created the initial thrust for the formation of these fields. Women’s lib took over from the civil rights movement. From the link above:

“After the universal suffrage revolution of the twentieth century, the women’s liberation movement of the 1960 and 1970s promoted a revision from the feminists to ‘actively interrogate’ the usual and accepted versions of history as it was known at the time. It was the goal of many feminist scholars to question original assumptions regarding women’s and men’s attributes, to actually measure them, and to report observed differences between women and men. Initially, these programs were essentially feminist, designed to recognize contributions made by women as well as by men.”

8:59 am on August 13, 2019

The Fascinating Historic Backstory of the Most Dangerous Piece of Real Estate on Planet Earth and the Roots of Christian Zionism

This excellent three part series by journalist Whitney Webb explores in-depth the fascinating historic backstory of the most dangerous piece of real estate on Planet Earth and the roots of Christian Zionism.

In Israel the Push to Destroy Jerusalem’s Iconic Al-Aqsa Mosque Goes Mainstream: This ancient site that dates back to the year 705 C.E. is being targeted for destruction by extremist groups that seek to erase Jerusalem’s Muslim heritage in pursuit of colonial ambitions and the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.

How the Third Temple Movement in Israel Rebranded Theocracy as “Civil Rights”: The Temple Activist movement is now more mainstream than ever before and its effort to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, the third holiest site in Islam, has advanced with great rapidity since the year began and has picked up precipitously in recent weeks.

The Untold Story of Christian Zionism’s Rise to Power in the United States: Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State, Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service to a religious obsession end times prophecy.

Birth of Israel Resources: Sheldon L. Richman, “Ancient History”: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention; Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used To Create IsraelRalph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism; Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?; Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement — 25th Anniversary Edition: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine; Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators; Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir; Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis; and John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.

9:30 pm on August 12, 2019

Who Guards the Guardians? Will the Warlords Take Over?

From: T
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 2:39 AM
Subject: Dodge City; by Tom Clavin

“Dodge City” by Tom Clavin

Hi Walter,

I’m reading “Dodge City” by Tom Clavin.  I’ve come to an interesting bit of the book about 1/3 of the way through it. Seems that in the winter of 1876/1877 Dodge City got a bit quiet due to blizzards and lack of cowboys and cattle.

Bat Masterson left first for the gold fields of Deadwood, South Dakota. Wyatt Earp soon followed in March of 1877. The lawmen were no longer making $2.50 for an arrest for a human and there weren’t even any rabid dogs to shoot for that smaller bounty.

My question is this;

Is it okay for a Libertarian to hire out his own self defense? And if so; how does the Libertarian control such a situation? How does a Libertarian control the “lawman” he’s hired?

The classic story is of Sicily. The landholders hired gunmen to protect their lands. Within a generation the gunmen owned all the land and became the Mafia; which we still have today.

Is there a way out of this puzzle?



5:13 pm on August 12, 2019

Why Have The Jesuits Changed Their Philosophy?

A Loyola Student of mine asks for my comments on his classroom presentation.

From: C
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 10:27 AM
To: Walter Block <>
Subject: Paper Comments


Would you mind sending me your comments on my presentation?

Thanks, C

From: Walter Block []
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 10:19 AM
To: C
Subject: RE: Paper Comments

Dear C:

The early Jesuits, along with the Dominicans, set up the political – economic School of Salamanca, a precursor to the Austrian School of economics. They were very free enterprise. For the Salamancans, including the Jesuits, the just price was the market price, the just rate of interest was the market rate of interest, they favored free trade, etc.

The modern Jesuits, with but a few exceptions, are 180 degrees different. Why?

Here’s one speculation:

Fleming, Chris, David Rigamer and Walter E. Block. 2012. “The Jesuits: from Markets to Marxism; from Property Protection to Social Progressivism” Romanian Economic and Business Review; Vol. 7, No. 2; pp. 7-22;

Also of interest:

Morse, J. B. 2018. “Walter Block Sets Loyola Diversity Officer Straight on Jesuit Values.”

Best regards, Walter

5:11 pm on August 12, 2019

Grave Danger Of China Collapse – With Guest David Stockman

12:37 pm on August 12, 2019

The Incredible Backstory Behind Jeffrey Epstein

Here are several related investigative research articles on Jeffrey Epstein that are superb. The first one, Jeffrey Epstein’s endless connections, by Jon Rappoport, actually contains the links to the two subsequent pieces. But I am going to provide them all here for easy reader access.

Here is the three part series by Whitney Webb. It is excellent power elite analysis, in-depth journalism at its finest.

The first installment is entitled, Hidden in Plain Sight: The Shocking Origins of the Jeffrey Epstein Case: Epstein is only the latest incarnation of a much older, more extensive and sophisticated operation that offers a frightening window into how deeply tied the U.S. government is to the modern-day equivalents of organized crime.

The second installment is entitled. Government by Blackmail: Jeffrey Epstein, Trump’s Mentor and the Dark Secrets of the Reagan Era: Appalling for both the villainous abuse of children itself and the chilling implications of government by blackmail, this tangled web of unsavory alliances casts a lurid light on the political history of the U.S. from the Prohibition Era right up through the Age of Trump.

The third and final installment is entitled, Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal:The picture painted by the evidence is not a direct Epstein tie to a single intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in both nations.

The last remaining article is by Wayne Madsen. It is entitled, Politics and pedophilia: a demonic mix.

These incredible pieces probe into much more regarding the sinister roots behind the Epstein story than anything you have previously encountered.

Be prepared to be blown away.

3:26 am on August 12, 2019

The 1960s

Although remembered today as a very divisive period in history, with inter generational conflicts both within families and the greater society at-large, this poignant portrait of a stoic yet grieving father and his compassionate daughter speaking about his departed son and her brother demonstrates that unconditional love and acceptance within families triumphs over much adversity and loss. The father is the late George Stephen Morrison who was a United States Navy rear admiral and the commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident of August 1964, which sparked the escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam War. His son was Jim Morrison, the greatest Rock artist of his era, and the daughter is the loyal and devoted family member to them both.

12:10 am on August 12, 2019

Removed from Suicide Watch, Cellmate Transferred . . .

. . . prison guards too exhausted from working overtime to check on Epstein every 30 minutes as required, cameras malfunction.  What an amazing collection of coincidental screw-ups.

8:02 pm on August 11, 2019

What It Means To Be A Libertarian; Who Should Be Included In This Honorific?

This series started out when several readers of this blog questioned whether or no one of our most prestigious libertarian leaders, Judge Andrew Napolitano, was even a libertarian himself.

However, this thread has now at least partially morphed into a discussion of who should be called a libertarian; what are the criteria for inclusion? Murray Rothbard and I are both big tent libertarians. We both include in this honorific many people other than those who espouse the most strict, pure version of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism. Murray once told me in this regard, “Every dog gets one bite.” I suppose I’m even more of a “big tenter” than Mr. Libertarian in that I allow several bites. Hey, I include Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in our group of freedom supporters, and they were guilty of far more than one deviation from the straight and narrow of the NAP and private property ultimately based on homesteading.

Here is a series of letters on this topic, along with my responses:


4:03 pm on August 11, 2019

Neil Schulman RIP

Neil Schulman, who passed away August 10, was best known as a science fiction writer, and his Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza are libertarian classics. He was one of several brilliant writers and thinkers associated with the great Sam Konkin’s “anarcho—village.” I met Neil only a few times, but his commanding presence and vigorous defense of his ideas made an indelible impression on me. He used his immense writing talents in defense of liberty and in opposition to war and the state. Only a few days before he died, he posted on Twitter, “When compared with the typical State assault on innocent civilian populations with deaths in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, the typical private assault doesn’t even register.” He admired Ron Paul greatly, and I last heard his booming voice at a conference in Arizona that featured Dr. Paul. His many friends will miss him.

9:48 am on August 11, 2019

A New Word in the English Language?

Some of the internet chat about the death of Jeffrey Epstein is saying that he was “Hillaried.” The originator of this new word used the hashtag of “VinceVoster#2.”

8:57 am on August 11, 2019

Advice for Newly Married Men

Congratulations. Here’s my advice to all newly married men.

You’re in charge of all the important family decisions. Environmental policy, the UN, should we ban plastics, who should be the next president? What about free trade? What should our policy toward Russia be?

Your wife is in charge of all the unimportant decisions. Where to live. How the both of you should dress. How many kids to have.  What restaurant to eat at? Who does which chores. Any and all other such unimportant decision.

I’ve been with my wife for almost 50 years. So far, this advice has worked for me.

Also, whenever you get into an argument with her, make sure you get in the last word. Well, actually, the last two words. And what are they, pray tell? They are these: “Yes, dear.”

8:31 am on August 11, 2019

What Do All These People Have In Common?

James Forrestal (1949), Frank Olson (1953), Ernest Hemingway (1961), Josefa Johnson (1961), Henry Marshall (1961), Marilyn Monroe (1962), Phillip Graham (1963), John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1963), J. D. Tippet (1963), Lee Harvey Oswald (1963), Karyn Kupcinet (1963), Grant Stockdale (1963), Gary Underhill ( 1964), Bill Hunter (1964), Jim Koethe (1964), Guy Bannister (1964),  Mary Sherman (1964), Mary Pinchot Meyer (1964), Malcolm X (1965), Dorothy Kilgallen (1965), Lisa Howard (1965), Nancy Carole Tyler (1965), Lee Bowers (1966), Desmond FitzGerald (1967), David Ferrie (1967), Eladio del Valle (1967), Jack Ruby (1967),  Martin Luther King (1968), Robert Francis Kennedy (1968), Thomas Merton (1968), Mary Jo Kopechne (1969), Winston Scott (1971), Malcolm Wallace (1971), Lucien Sarti (1972), Thomas Davis (1973), Richard Cain (1973), Dave Yarras (1974), Sam Giancana (1975), Jimmy Hoffa (1975), Roland Masferrer (1975), Johnny Roselli (1976), George De Mohrenschildt (1977), Charlie Nicoletti (1977), Carlos Prio (1977), William Sullivan (1977), Nelson Rockefeller (1979),  Frank Nugan (1980), Jimmy Hoffa (1982), Kevin Mulcahy (1982), Vicki Morgan (1983), Danny Casalaro (1991),  Vince Foster (1993), Kenneth Trentadue (1995), William Colby (1996), Ron Brown (1996), Steve Kangas (1999), John F. Kennedy Jr, (1999), Katharine Graham (2001), Gary Webb (2004), Michael Kreca (2006), Robert Vesco (2007?), Deborah Jeane Palfrey (2008), Antonin Scalia (2016), and Seth Rich (2016).

Like Jeffrey Epstein, they all died from very suspicious deaths.

8:15 pm on August 10, 2019

Warren Surges Again, Gun Proposals

Overnight, Warren drew even with Biden on Predictit. Each is 28 cents. Certainty of nomination is $1.

Warren’s politics are anti-individual freedom, anti-property rights and anti-capitalism. She is against these bedrock American principles. Does she even ever pay them lip service? She’s ever willing to ignore them as she heralds her new proposals. Warren would “save” America by destroying her further.

The brunt of Warren’s attack on America is to be on business, and this offensive will, if enacted, set us and our prosperity back enormously. Her program will hurt workers, wage-earners, employees and the salaried, all of whom depend on business for employment. The bad effects won’t be restricted to business owners. As consumers, everyone will suffer from worse products that we do not want for which we pay more.

Her proposals draw eclectically from traditions of government control and totalitarian states known as fascism, socialism and communism. Other terms to describe her are progressive and leftist. And, of course, she’s a Democrat.

Today Warren made several gun control proposals. All impose severe obstacles on the exercise of one’s inherent right to self-defense. All make a mockery of the Second Amendment.

None of them should be legislated, and, if they were, they wouldn’t bring mass killings down. They’d make peaceful Americans more vulnerable to being slaughtered.

All of her proposals would lead to even more severe steps to destroy completely the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. Upon the failure of her policies to succeed, new and more draconian steps would be called for. The War on Drugs followed this scenario, and so would a War on Guns.

Even if guns became more difficult to obtain through gun dealers or private sales, mass killers would seek out other means of mass destruction or other means of making weapons. Ordinary peace-loving people would be further discouraged than they already are from obtaining means of self-defense.

Warren’s proposals won’t reduce the population of killers because they do not address the genesis of mass killers.

2:45 pm on August 10, 2019