Willful Blindness: New Damaging Information On The Russian Investigation Is Promptly Unseen By The Media

Pandora_-_John_William_WaterhouseBelow is my column in The Hill on the recent disclosure of a document showing that the FBI used an agent to gather information for Crossfire Hurricane during campaign briefings of Trump during 2016.  The document directly contradicted the long-standing denial that the investigation to Russian collusion was ever used to gather intelligence on Trump or his campaign.  At the same time, the credibility of the Steele Dossier was further undermined this weekend with the release of new information that Steele misrepresented the sources and information used as the basis for this report, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.  The source for the most alarming allegations was revealed as Igor Danchenko, 42, as confirmed to The New York Times,  He was not the “Russian-based” source claimed by Steele and the FBI learned that Steele took third-hard rumors and presented them as hard intelligence in the report used to help justify the Russian collusion investigation. This source was used in the last two renewal applications to the FISA court as a “truthful and cooperative” and “Russian-based,” according to the Justice Department Inspector General report found. So it turns out that the primary “source” of Steele’s dossier was “not a well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Steele’s firm.”

None of this has made any difference to the coverage.  On ABC Sunday, George Stephanopoulos had Chris Christie as a guest but his involvement in the very meeting discussed in the document did not merit a single question from the host.  In the meantime, Democratic leaders, who once mocked the idea of any investigation of Trump or targeting of the campaign, now say that it really doesn’t matter. Rep. Eric Swalwell says that it was actually “the right thing to do.” 

Here is the column:

The Washington press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of then candidate Donald Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.

It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The mocking “wow” response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.

The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.

Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring “viva the resistance.” He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however, federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset. Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the CIA.

Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and famously referenced an “insurance policy” if Trump were to win the election. After FBI officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.

Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly unseen facts.

First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large  part on the dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a year.”

Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.

Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.

Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such bias.

Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others, like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride, as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of “absurd conspiracy theories” about how the FBI “supposedly spied on the Trump campaign.”

Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what you see but what you can unsee.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley

504 thoughts on “Willful Blindness: New Damaging Information On The Russian Investigation Is Promptly Unseen By The Media”

      1. “8 in New York City were shot dead over the weekend. ”

        You say that with such pride. Democrat mayors promote death and you eat it up.

      2. Someone say it would ?

        The press is playing down ALL violence – unless a white guy kills a black BLM protestor.

        The press has no interest in disrupting the orange man racist narative with reality.

    1. Tragic, no doubt. Especially given the sense the man was in the extreme minority. Black Trump supporters are rare indeed. But the Bannon talking points, Kurtz? Way 2016. They land with a thud now.

      1. “Black Trump supporters are rare indeed”

        Your definition of “rare” needs adjustment, Bugs. And you obviously know very few black people.

        The blowback from the defund the police idiocy is going to bite the DNC right in the ass.

        Biden’s handlers are quite aware of that fact. Which is why they are now trying to do an about face on his comments supporting the defund the police movement.

        1. While his remarks were an afterthought, Biden came out at the end of an interview today – while the left was slandering AG Barr, saying that rioting is unacceptable and that rioters should expect to be put down.

          I listened today as democratic congressmen accused the non-violent protestors who came out against the actually authoritarian actions of democratic governors such as Whitmer of being nazi’s racists and violent – for wanting to be able to reopen their stores, to go fishing, or to send their kids back to school. Aparently because those protestors came to the cityhall’s and statehouses with guns.

          As best as I can tell for those on the left – being angry about having your rights taken from you and petitioning government peacefully under arms – that is racist violent protesting, But burning down target and walmart and neiman marcus, murdering people, throwing bricks and using lasers on police – that is peaceful protest ?

          Truth and the meaning of words means nothing to the left.

      2. Bugs Bunny reports: “Black Trump supporters are rare indeed.”
        —–
        Rasmussen: Black Voter Approval for Trump Has Surged to Over 40 Percent
        BY MATT MARGOLIS JUN 05, 2020 2:12 PM EST

        Despite the left’s recent efforts to paint Trump as a racist and blame him for police brutality and the riots, Rasmussen Reports says that approval for President Trump amongst likely black voters is now over 40 percent.
        Trump received 8 percent of the African American vote in 2016. In August 2019, black voter approval for Trump stood at 26 percent.

        I am admittedly skeptical of Rasmussens 40 percent approval number, nevertheless, the increase of 14 points from a year ago suggests that Trump’s support from within the black community is increasing, despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the media to paint him as a racist. With the economy starting to recover, that approval is bound to increase.

        Another Rasmussen poll found that one out of four black voters agreed with Joe Biden’s statement that a black voter who votes for Trump isn’t really black.

      3. well, we will see. he did better with blacks than romney did. 8% as opposed to 6%. sounds like a small number, but a 2 point gain on a base of 6 is a 33% increase.

        and he may be doing better than you may suspect even now

        https://www.blackenterprise.com/trumps-approval-rating-with-black-voters-may-be-higher-than-you-thought/

        of course that was from march. some people might speculate he is doing worse now

        or, some people might speculate, he is doing better.

        one never knows how folks will make up their minds on that magic day in november

    1. Very concise, should be the crime of a century, , Where has all the Journalists Gone, bought and paid for the Media Cabal.

      1. Charles, why would ‘1’ murder in Milwaukee qualify as ‘the crime of the century’? Milwaukee has become a dangerous city and violent crime is trending up all over the country.

        1. “violent crime is trending up all over the country.”

          ***

          In Democrat strongholds where criminals are dumped into the streets and laws are not enforced.

          I read somewhere that criminals released early are now joining the “mostly peaceful looting and arson protests” to raid places. Democrat politicians appear to have gone insane. Is the DNC sending all of them LSD? Is this an experiment in mass insanity? The riots could be stopped in less than a week.

          By the way, no snowflake engaging in rioting should qualify for student loans or a place in any university receiving federal funds.

  1. “It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in decades. “

    I don’t know what is astonishing as the media was a willing part of the hoax.

  2. There is a fascinating, appalling phenomenon apparent in modern times. The general population does not know how to think, reason, or debate. They have confused ad hominem, and repeating propaganda, for thinking. There is no police debate of differences anymore. Far from it. Violence or harassment is viewed as justified against conservatives.

    One after another, false accusations have been levied, believed, thrown on the pile of discards when proven false, and then the masses dutifully bleat out the next false accusation. They appear to suffer instant amnesia. I am quite sure that many never understand that the reason why an accusation gets discarded by their politicians, is because it’s been proven false. It remains in their psyche as a list of misdeeds.

    A meme saying Hillary Clinton should be locked up was condemned as anti-semitic. This made sense to no one if they thought about it, but no one who jumps on these bandwagons thinks anymore. They claimed the badge icon was a Star of David, with the internal lines removed. Such a symbol seen inside a synagogue would be considered a SOD. Seen in front of a jail cell, it would be considered a sheriff’s badge. That’s the nature of symbology – internal reference and context. I recall arguing with a cousin that a six pointed star, without any internal lines, is viewed as a sheriff’s badge. In fact, that is what that clip art is labeled as, “the sheriff’s badge.” She thought I was wrong, and there was no convincing her of it. Meanwhile, actual sheriffs across the country, including CA, where she lives have badges comprised of a 6 pointed star. So do rangers, gymkhana groups. I see 6 pointed law enforcement stars everywhere, and I always think, how much in denial do people have to see to pass 6 pointed stars, on cop cars, all the time, and claim there is no other context than the SOD? Hillary Clinton is not Jewish, so referring to her financial misdeeds or wanting to lock her up cannot be anti-semitic. It is ludicrous that Trump would want his Jewish daughter, son-in-law, or children dead, yet he was labeled as a Nazi supporter. That was thrown on the pile.

    It was repeated, ad nauseam, that Trump praised Nazis and racists, even though the actual video captured him saying, “they should be condemned totally.” That was thrown on the pile.

    It was stated that he was a Russian spy. That Russia was pulling the strings on our government. That was thrown on the pile. Ohhh, the arguments I got into with relatives about that. There is notable, total radio silence on this issue as it unraveled.

    Over and over. I won’t repeat them all here. But at any point, does the Left think, hey wait a minute, we’ve been wrong almost every time. Maybe we should, and I’m just spitballing here, wait for proof?

    I wonder how many Leftists wake up one morning, and realize, they’ve been the bad guys. How many police forces have to disband before people snap out of it? When will they get tired of the unrelenting prejudice and hatred found on the Left?

    https://youtu.be/_lp7lh1x5uI

  3. So we get 50,000 words about Foster and barely a mention of the fact that he was shot because he was pointing an AK-47 at someone else.

      1. Allan– the Alice in Wonderland adventure continues. How is it that a Libertarian supports a criminal authoritarian “movement” like Black Lives Matter? Maybe up really is down.

        1. Honest, I don’t understand it myself.

          That article was written by Reason Mag that I dont think much of and think less of now.

        2. Several observations I’ve seen about libertarians and their discourse:

          1. The ideology for people who have no children
          2. Dweebs who don’t want to be yelled at by liberal women
          3. Applied autism
          4. They don’t give a rip about anything but the drug laws.

            1. Classical liberalism fundimentally answers one question – what are the constraints and purpose of government.

              It does not tell you what to do with your life or how to do it.

              It is the left that is one size fits all.

              Whatever the question – the answer is government

          1. “Several observations I’ve seen about libertarians and their discourse:

            1. The ideology for people who have no children”
            I have two. Every libertarian I know has children. Every famous libertarian has children.

            “2. Dweebs who don’t want to be yelled at by liberal women”
            Is there anyone who wants to be yelled at by liberal women ?

            “3. Applied autism”
            False – and irrelevant.
            If all libertarians had blue eyes – would that be relevant ?

            “4. They don’t give a rip about anything but the drug laws.”
            And prostitution laws, and pretty much 90% of all the laws.

            “Don’t Tread on me” – inherently libertarain.

            My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
            Grover Norquist

            “You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
            Reagan

            1. Ayn Rand was arguably the most influential libertarian even if she did not wish to be called it. She called her thing “Objectivism”
              She was childless, barren

              Her most famous associate was Alan Greenspan. Married twice, no children. Ever heard of Alan Greenspan? yes, the Fed Chair. Part of her “collective”

              I admit I retain a belief that government power will create more troubles than it solves in certain areas, which some people consider liberterian. For example I too favor legalization of sex work among consenting adults, and I also favor legalization of drugs for recreational abuse, with some limitations for health and public safety.

              But I do not concede for a second the notion that it is unethical for government to truncate private activities in the common good. That is the core premise. I reject it. if the common good requires laws, then let’s have them. I just wish that they not be counterproductive, as many vice law regimes have been.

              The key understanding is that the enemies of the common good do not stand still. Both liberalism and libertarian fail to understand that culture is the core developer of the common good, and that culture is nourished by legal institutions. If the legal institutions which nourish culture are destroyed, in the name of “pursuit of happiness” for the individual, then culture will be destroyed, and the enemies of all mankind will make their move. As we see today.

              the Democrat party is crippled by liberalism and the Republican party by liberterianism. they are both unrealistic. they are naive. both must be understood, as error.

              1. “the Republican party” crippled “by liberterianism”

                The thinking that came up with that idea must come from a collectivist mindset.

                1. Allan, I prefer to think of myself now as “communitarian” rather than “collectivist.”

                  Communities are essential to our survival. The individual who thinks they can fly it alone is in error.

                  We have to understand this now before it is too late. Because there are collectives of criminals coming for us and the only way we can win, is together, as a national community of law abiding and productive Americans, determined to secure our own existence, against any outcomes of any kind at all, which would put us in shackles.

                  1. Allan, I prefer to think of myself now as “communitarian” rather than “collectivist.”

                    LOL! That’s a distinction without a difference. What you’re actually desiring is that Americans, determined to secure their own existence, actively unite to defend their life, liberty and property.

                    1. yes I desire that. i call that communitarian. we have to come together as a community to defend ourselves from these insurrectionists.

                      my concern is that the habitual thinking of conservatives is very individualistic and that becomes an excuse for people not working and sacrificing for the common cause

                      if you have been around Republicans a long time then what i am talking about will come as no mystery. it is a fault of our kind

                    2. my concern is that the habitual thinking of conservatives is very individualistic…that becomes an excuse for people not working and sacrificing for the common cause

                      The root cause of your perceived failure is not individualistic thinking. If communitarianism was the answer, then why is the community of insurrectionists even a threat? That’s right, because the root cause is the ignorance of US civics, the apathy towards civic involvement and a lack of self-reliance.

                  2. “I prefer to think of myself now as “communitarian” rather than “collectivist.”

                    This word game doesn’t demonstrate the logistics.

                    I’ll ask it in a different fashion are you a collectivist with a small ‘c’ instead of a Collectivist with a large one?

                    Individualism doesn’t mean that people can’t work together and Collectivist, collectivist, Communitarian, communitarian doesn’t mean that people in a community will willingly work together.

                  3. “Allan, I prefer to think of myself now as “communitarian” rather than “collectivist.””
                    Is there a difference. No, forget I asked. There isn’t.

                    “Communities are essential to our survival.”
                    No they are not. They may well be of great value, but they are not foundational.
                    We exist without community. We exist better with community.

                    In fact they are fairly high up on Maslow’s heirarchy of needs.
                    Physical and security needs come first, and close relationships – such as family, all come before community.

                    “The individual who thinks they can fly it alone is in error.”
                    You display atleast a surface fdamiliarity with philosophers like heidegger, and yet you constantly fail at trivial logic.

                    You conflate fundimentals, like existance and survival with secondary values.

                    Life is far better with friends and community, but those are not essential, they are desireable.

              2. I have no more problem calling Rand libertarian than calling JS Mill libertarian.

                But Rand is not the great prophet of libertarianism, and Objectivism is at best libertarianish.

                Neo-cons are considered republican – but you would not call them representative of republicans.

                “some limitations for health and public safety.”
                You can justify every single existing bad criminal law on health and public safety grounds.

                Studies have been done regarding the legalization of prostitution.
                What has been found is that even the smallest steps improve life for prostitutes, health and safety overall, and reduce other crime.
                BUT the full benefits do not come without full legalization – and that includes ending “health and safety” laws.

                “But I do not concede for a second the notion that it is unethical for government to truncate private activities in the common good”

                This is at core – nonsense.

                There is no actual “common good”, belief in “the common good” as a concept leads directly to socialism and that fails.
                “Common good” is another of those amorphos terms that ultimately allows anything.
                Hitler, Mao, and Lenin sold the “common good”.

                I can measure individual good. You can not even define common good in a way that will be generally accepted without being so vague as to cover anything.

                The fundimental human relationship is with the individual. Every step further from that relationship we get the weaker it is.

                Nor do we share the same values.

                Does your common good include the able bodied who choose not to work ? Should they be forced to labor for the common good, or should they be given a free ride for the common good ?

                Should we allow everyone who is here legally or otherwise to remain – for the common good ? Should we provide them with benefits and welfare – for the common good ?

                However you answer these and myriads of other questions – I will answer them differently. Every person on this blog will have their own answers.

                One of the last ties I had to the left was severed by adopting my daughter from China. The conditions she experienced in her first two years were gruesome by the standards of most of the world.

                It did not take long for me to realize that my life had changed – that suddenly I cared more about starving kids in poor countries in the world, than “the poor” in the US. I do not ask that you feel the same.

                What i expect you to understand is that:
                We can not save the world – not as individuals and not as a nation.
                You are not free to force me to save the part of the world you care about, any more than I am free to force you to save the part of the world I care about.

                Our duty to “the common good” is individual – because there is no common version of the common good.

                1. legalizing sex work without requiring that they get std testing or adhere to sanitary guidelines for bed linings and such is the thinking of a liberterian. flawed, badly

                  i favor legalization of sex work subject to zoning, health and safety, and occupational licensing. that is a system that has been proven to reduce harm to society and to sex workers at the same time it encourages standards which prevent the spread of communicable diseases. even covid

                  it is conservative to want to reduce social harm. yet only a liberterian dogmatically believes that by reducing all legal impediments to private activity whatsoever, will the maximum reduction of harm magically be achieved.

                  this is a quasi religious belief that is ironic as it is a well known feature of liberterians who emulate ayn rand, the ardent atheist. yes for all her jewishness and circle of jewish friends and associates, was an ardent atheist. but she had all these dogmatic beliefs, strangely enough,. that flew in the face of all known human experience and history, and yet she adhered to them. her associate and paramour Nathaniel Branden (“ben rand”) himself a member of her nearly all jewish clique, wrote about this feature and its psychological profile in his interesting books about his experiences with her.

                  ayn rand measured her audience carefully., it was perfectly logical extension of objectivism that sex work should be legal, but she avoided the topic like the plague. she was keenly aware that she was selling to Republican youth out there, and marketed herself well.

                  Anyways, at the risk of confusion, I will say that I like the reporting of Elizabeth Nolan brown at Reason when she writes on sex work. Overall.
                  other than that I almost never read Reason anymore. i used to be a subscriber many moons ago.

                  1. Kurtz, you are defining terms in their extreme.

                    Libertarians and classical liberals have a wide spectrum. I have heard Milton Friedman refer to himself as being closest to libertarian and at other times classical liberal. People can be on the left or right and still call themselves libertarian. Dave Rubin who states he used to be on the left and uses the term classical liberal for himself has shifted on the spectrum to the right probably without that much change in most of his core beliefs.

                    I think the various names cause a lot of problems when people start using labels.

                    It is much easier to define a position with the major features. For example does one believe in property rights? After that hurdle is passed one has to determine what makes that property yours? That is the real sticking point for those that have moved towards the more extreme side of libertarianism. Is property owned forever or is it leased until one dies? Is property owned if it is not used? Is property owned if it can hinder the useful development of other person’s property?

                    1. I am greatly encouraged by the increasing use of the term “classical liberal” the modern left and democrats are unarguably illiberal.

                      Referring to the modern left as liberal is lying.

                      I want the term liberal back for those who prize liberty.

                      The left is increasingly favoring the older besmirched term progressive – so let them have that.

                      Classical liberal is a step to restoring the term liberal to its actual meaning.

                      The use of liberal by the left is another example of the left’s adulteration of words.

                    2. “Referring to the modern left as liberal is lying.”

                      What the left is best at is stealing words and converting them to their own use. They have no shame and can change the meaning of the same word over and over again.

                      Bill Buckley when he was alive made a point of referencing liberals that were on the left, Liberals, with a capital L to distinguish them from the real liberal.

                    3. Even marx had to accept property rights.

                      I would suggest Hernando de Soto’s “the mystery of capital” it is a very good explanation of why many of the things that brought prosperity to the west have failed in the rest of the world. The key is property rights.

                    4. “The key is property rights.”

                      That is why I use basic principles rather than one’s stated ideology. Of course one then has to define property rights.

                  2. “legalizing sex work without requiring that they get std testing or adhere to sanitary guidelines for bed linings and such is the thinking of a liberterian. flawed, badly”

                    Sounds great, but therte is a problem – all the real world srudies show that while every step away from criminality results in greater safety for everyone – prositutes, johns and even just the people who knowingly or unknowingly are connected.

                    Still so long as there is the least regulation – the very standards you are asking for, there will ALWAYS be “illegal prostitution/sex work” there will ALWAYS be people who for a wide variety of reasons can not conform to your demands – and usually it is NOT the “safe sex” part that they can not comply with – it is the regulatory burdens themself. In somecases it is just dangerous for them to involve themselves with government.

                    Regardless, the point is that if you regulate it – you will STILL have a criminal version running in parallel with your clean sheets tested legal version. And that criminal version will be less safe for all than if there was no regulation at all.

                    Nor is this issue unique to prostitution. The same is true of drugs, alcohol – or even things like hair braiding and barbershops.

                    When you regulate something you make criminals out of everyone who can not or will not conform to your regulatory framework.
                    And again – the impediments are rarely the safe conduct you want. Often they are just the administrative burdens and costs that are prohibitive.

                    The fact is – your way does not work as well in the real world – and we know that.

                    Probibition did not work. Do you think that things like state stores and blue laws are so hot too ?

                    Ultimately – I will take anything I can get from you. If you want the Swedish model or whatever – yes, Please.
                    Absolutely it will be an improvement. But if you think stopping part way finds some “sweet spot” – you are deluded. It does not.

                    And the data and studies show that. Though it was easily predictable.

                    1. “Still so long as there is the least regulation – the very standards you are asking for, there will ALWAYS be “illegal prostitution/sex work” there will ALWAYS be people who for a wide variety of reasons can not conform to your demands ”

                      John, this is not an all or non phenomenon. It’s similar to Laffer’s Curve. There is a sweet spot. No sane individual wants to get HIV from a prostitute. The most basic rules that do not become progressively enhanced suffice as long as they are directly targeted and not a tax revenue enhancement.

                    2. “John, this is not an all or non phenomenon. It’s similar to Laffer’s Curve. There is a sweet spot.”
                      That is correct.

                      The evidence that we actually have is that a priori rules enforced by government are inefficient, and on the whole produce a net worse outcome for most all.

                      “No sane individual wants to get HIV from a prostitute. ”
                      So ?

                      “The most basic rules that do not become progressively enhanced suffice as long as they are directly targeted and not a tax revenue enhancement.”

                      You pretend that argument has some clear limit – but experience shows it does not.

                      You also continue to ignore that your preferences – such as a guarantee that you will not get aids, are just that preferences, and can be accomplished without a prior govenrment imposed regulation.

                      My doctor is state licensed – a criteria imposed by force. But they are also certified by a variety of private groups as having proficiency in specific areas.

                      If I require regular HIV tests to be a prostitute, that will not stop illegal prostitution. There will still be prositutes who have not been tested, who are outside of the legal system. Because they are “illegal” they will not be afforded the protections of the law with respect to other things – like physical abuse, rape, extortion, … in fact because they are “illegal” they will be MORE subject to those abuses and they will have no recourse.

                      Put simply a priori regulation does not accomplish the purpose it aims to. There will always be those who either will not or can not meet the burdens of the regulation.

                      Ultimately whether you seek a prostitute that you are sure does not have HIV – or whatever else you value, will ALWAYS be a choice.

                      If can be a choice between legal and illegal.

                      Or it can be a choice between some voluntary third party certification or not.

                    3. John you are overthinking your reply to me though I understand what you are trying to impart to Kurtz.

                      I think when libertarianism meets the edges of reasonability you put your shield up to create a barrier. In principle we have no disagreement.

                      Prostitution probably shouldn’t be illegal. Testing for transmissible diseases like HIV is something to be considered since it is a public health issue. If prostitution was legalized I think it would substantially eliminate the crime involved with johns and the like.

                      You put up so much defensive armor that communication can become very difficult.

                    4. Not only is there and issue understanding the ideology – which is not that complex.

                      With respect to “regulation” – a priori does not work and nearly always have a chilling effect on things we do not wish to supress.
                      While punishing for actual harm makes clear exactly what we do not want – HARM.

                      I am an architect, When we provide direction to contracts, we are told to dictate the outcome we want and NOT tell the contractor how to achieve that outcome.

                      Regardless the point is DO NOT tell people HOW to go about their lives. Tell them NOT to harm others.
                      It is clearer, and harm reduction is what you are actually after.

                      Next, if you do not accept principles and bright lines – then the argument between some regulation and alot is merely over preference.
                      And in the end you will get what we have now – a long march towards ever more regulation.

                      Put simply, libertarains may appear to be rigid, but the alternative ultimately ends up in the same place – massive regulation eventually.

                      “Prostitution probably shouldn’t be illegal. Testing for transmissible diseases like HIV is something to be considered since it is a public health issue.”

                      There is no such thing as public health – each of us is healthy or not individually. Alot of unhealthy people or healthy people, is just a bunch of individuals. Public health is not an actual thing. What it is, is an excuse for regulation nothing more.

                      If you do not want to get HIV practice safe sex, don’t use prostitutes or use ones that can demonstrate they have been tested.
                      This is not a “public health” issue – it is YOUR health.

                      ” If prostitution was legalized I think it would substantially eliminate the crime involved with johns and the like.”
                      Of course it would – we already know that.
                      We also know that it will reduce that even more if it is not regulated.

                      “You put up so much defensive armor that communication can become very difficult.”
                      Nope, you are just upset because I will not compromise on principles, nor cede ground when I am correct.

                      I will be happy to compromise to get prositution legalised to whatever extent I can.
                      But I am not going to pretend that some fiction like “public health” requires that it be regulated. Or that regulation that I might agree to is a good idea. It is not.

                      That is not defensive. It is just the facts.

                      If you do not have brite lines, no matter how lightly you regulate something – that regualtion will grow continuously.
                      If you a priori regulate at all – you will always run afoul of bastiats “seen and unseen”, you will thwart good that you do not know of to prevent harm that could be prevented as effectively with torts – punishment for actual harm.

                    5. “Not only is there and issue understanding the ideology – which is not that complex.”

                      John, you have a specific narrow view of libertarianism and I understand that. It is very restrictive and at the extreme is unworkable once one has to deal with present day problems. Yes we should push in that direction but perfection is the enemy of good. You are entitled to believe as you wish but most libertarians I have met differ substantially from you. I know you can answer that by saying they aren’t real libertarians and I accept that.

                      When one creates the narrowest of spectrums one can get little done to move things in the direction they want. I like your statement “Tell them NOT to harm others.” I’ll tell that to the next murderer or terrorist I see on the street.

                      I agree with you that regulation can breed regulation. Then again I know that Jo supports the use of nuclear energy. That is a good idea but can I build a nuclear facility without a license and without any regulations? …hmmm regulations breed regulation so … I guess not and anyone can build a nuclear reactor because there is no such thing as compromising on one’s principles.

                  3. One aspect of the Obama administration Fair Housing Act crap that republicans are complaining about now is federal preemption of local zoning. If the Feds want to build low income housing somewhere – then local governments can not thwart them through zoning.

                    While Federal subsidized housing is an absolute disaster, and it is idiocy to have the federal government walk over local law willy nilly for the hell of it. The fact is that the harms done by Zoning laws are enormous. While there are innumerable problems with Zoning laws – the entire concept that some “experts” can plan communities through the use of force optimally is nonsense.
                    The left rants about Walmart – they are the creation of zoning laws. Once you have to get into a car to drive to get milk and bread, you might as well drive to a big box store.

                    But more insidious is that Zoning laws are a form of the new Jim crow.

                    If you do not want to sell your home to a black couple – I think you are a poor human being, but a free exchange is a free exchange – either party can say no for any reason or none at all.

                    But what individuals ARE free to do on their own – government can not do through regulation.
                    And this is actually important. After the civil war there were plenty of racists in the south, but there were more than enough ordinary white people who were happy to do business with blacks. They were even more happy if most whites refused – that just reduced competition.

                    Jim Crow came into being because it required FORCE to get everyone to discriminate.

                    Zoning is the same thing – trying to impose the preferences – both racial ones, as well as myriads of others on our neighbors by force.

                    If my neighbor wants to run a brothel from her home – that is her business.

                    If my neighbor wishes to sell to a poorer black family – or NOT – that is their business.

                    Government getting involved makes things worse not better.

                    To be clear I am all for Walmart. What I am NOT for is government creating special advantages – either FOR or AGAINST Walmart of any other business or person.

                    If I actually do something that causes real harm to my neighbors – that is a tort – and we have courts for that.

                  4. “it is conservative to want to reduce social harm. yet only a liberterian dogmatically believes that by reducing all legal impediments to private activity whatsoever, will the maximum reduction of harm magically be achieved.”

                    What in the He!! do you mean.

                    Social Justice is nonsense – social harm is no better. Justice and harm are individual. If you do not have harm to a person, if there is no injustice to a person, there is no social harm, there is no social injustice.

                    We have an ancient system for dealing with actual harm – it is called torts. If you beleive your neighbor has harmed you – file a tort claim.
                    If you can prove your claim in court you will get damages and possibly punatives.

                    Regardless, you can use FORCE aka government to compell people to make whole those they have ACTUALLY harmed.
                    When you start talking Social harm or when you start talking a priori regulation. You are talking about legislating based on your fears, using force based on your fears.

                    So that we are clear – no libertarain beleives you can actually harm others without consequence.
                    We are debating the means of addressing harm NOT the legitimacy of punishing it.

                    Regulation is little different than the movie “the minority report” and the bureau or precrime., It is an effort to thwart hypothetical harm before it happens. it is no different than Brits deciding that people can not have guns, or knives because these MIGHT be used to harm someone.

                    We regulate murder by saying – if you murder someone we will use force and punish you. We do not say – we will constrain non violent conduct, conduct that does on infringe on the rights of others because of what MIGHT happen. We do not jail all spouses – because most murders are commited by a spouse

                    I constantly get this idiocy that libertarianism is somehow the same as anarchy and chaos.

                    That is Bunk. As Reagan noted in “a time for choosing” – even conservatives purportedly want the maximum individual liberty possible without a collapse of public order.

                    All law/regulation that limits you because of what the outcome MIGHT be is wrong.
                    Legitimate law authorized the use for force when actual harm has occured.

                    You can not imprison someone because the MIGHT commit murder.
                    You can not premptively demand government injtervene because someone MIGHT breach their contract.
                    You can not have government step in because someone MIGHT cause you harm.

                    Force is used to punish actual harm – not hypothetical harm.

                  5. You seem to have a giant bug up your ass about Ayn Rand.

                    I think some of Rand’s work is great and some crap.
                    I think objectivism is a cult – though a relatively benign one.

                    Regardless, if Rand bothers you so much – try Friedman, Nozick, Coase, Hayek, Olstrom, Sowell, Leonard Reed, or myriads of others.

                    I am increasingly sympathetic to Rand’s attack’s on charity – primarly as a consequence of looking arround the real world.

                    Mother Theresa is truly a saint – but it is slightly more free markets that have vastly reduced want, need, starvation, disease in the world – not charity.

                    But I do not share Rand’s antipathy to religion. I am a theist. But religion has no place in government.

                    I would note that many libertarains tend to be dogmatic – because experience has taught them that half measures fail too.

                    You like to hurumph arround as if you are some old wise sage and libertarianism is a mental affliction of the young.

                    I am a senior citizen who has lived a rich and varied life. Who has arrived at a very dogmatic libertarianism extremely pragmatically.

                    Regardless, you can rant about Rand and objectivism and its acolytes – no skin off my nose. Though I question your obsession.
                    Did Brandon steal your table at a restaurant or something ?

                    Is there an actual objectivist anywhere in sight ?

                    Go ahead and beat that randian straw man if you must.

              3. The people who you think are enemies of the common good, beleive just as ferverently as you that you are the enemy of the common good.

                At best – you are somewhat more rational than they are.

                You are not sufficiently rational to understand you are no more justified in imposing your common good on all of us than they are.

                1. John, you are not the Pope of what is rational and what is not. Not any more than Ayn Rand and her clique were the supreme Sandhedrin of it when they presume to judge who is rational and who is not.

                  I had somebody explain it to me when I was an objectivist a long time ago and I argued with him and he just laughed and waved me off. Now I get it.

                  I should point you to martin Heidegger’s entire philosophical work but somehow i suspect that will not help.

                  1. Kurtz, the appeal of libertarianism is the unified theory of behavior and governance which attracts those unable to handle complexity.

                    It is also at odds with who humans are through our several hundred thousand years of existence, our evolutionary roots, and what has been the key to our success. It is not individualism, a concept of zero meaning to our chimp and then tribal human ancestors. In fact, no other animal species – other than a handful of insect – are as social as we are, and since the inventions of writing and other mediums of communication, we are even more so. Individuals do not exist outside of our social groups and outside of the cultures we carry with us. Might as well wish you had wings as to wish you had existence as an individual.

                    1. attracts those unable to handle complexity.

                      Waal, you know, Gainesville, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.

                    2. I think a lot of liberterians are pretty intelligent. Able to handle technical comlexity just fine., We had this one geek in the objectivist clique who was a nuclear physicist. the kind who can barely tie his shoes. very smart and very awkward. possible aspbooger type I reckon. in retrospect.

                      I think in my case the errors were founded upon youthful inexperience and naivete about human nature, most of all, that every person is fundamentally the same or that any particular human nation would be suitable for a similar ideal form of government. I reject those notions now.

                      Human systems are complex but not mechanistic. they are so full of entropy that shoehorning every person or every society into some ideal form of government just seems like a big mistake to me now.

                      I know what the objectivists would say to that: they would say I am committing an intellectual error of pragmatism. Well I am old enough that i think pragmatism is actually a virtue and not a vice.

                    3. Is there an objectivist in the house ?

                      I am pretty sure there is not.

                      Who are you preaching to ?

                      I do not care what criticism you think some objectivity would level at you.

                      You were correct to reject the notion that everyone is the same.
                      The core to libertarianism is to constrain the domain of government to deal with only those problems that require the use of force and to leave humans in their infinite variety as free as possible outside that domain.

                      Government is inherently idealizes, generalizes, homogenizes everything – and in fact it SHOULD do that. The law SHOULD be the same for each of us. But there is very little that can be done in a one size must fit all domain.

                      I think where you are now is naive and over simplistic. You expect things to work that we know fail.
                      And if objectivists accuse you of pragmatism – they are wrong. You error is that you are NOT pragmatic enough.

                    4. “the appeal of libertarianism is the unified theory of behavior and governance which attracts those unable to handle complexity.”

                      It is always interesting to see the descriptions of the clueless of libertarianism.

                      You are close to completely wrong.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

                      “It is also at odds with who humans are through our several hundred thousand years of existence, our evolutionary roots, and what has been the key to our success.”

                      Libertarianism IS the evolutionary endpoint of all that you have noted. It is not at odds with it, it is the product of 150,000 years of human evolution.

                      “In fact, no other animal species – other than a handful of insect – are as social as we are”
                      There is almost no relationship at all between human interaction and those of insects. Do I really need to explain that ?
                      You were born with near infinite potential. Every insect was born to a predefined absolute role. You choose constantly AS AN INDIVIDUAL your relationship to all other humans. Each insect’s relationship to others is rigidly predefined and immutable. You have free will. They do not.

                      Humans CHOOSE to be social. Further each and every human choose exactly how social to be.

                      You are free to go off into the woods alone and live whatever life you can make for yourself. You are not required to be part of any society or community – you do so freely. You do so because of the benefits you perceive you will get, and you are free to remove yourself whenever you want.

                      “since the inventions of writing and other mediums of communication, we are even more so.”
                      Absolutely, Humans uniquely are not just social by choice, the extent of our social engagement is chosen individually.

                      “Individuals do not exist outside of our social groups and outside of the cultures we carry with us.”
                      False. While rare, each of use are free to remove ourselves – partly or completely from society.

                      Society must constantly prove its value to us to gain our continued participation.

                      “Might as well wish you had wings as to wish you had existence as an individual.”

                      What other flightless creature has wished to be able to fly – and then done so ?

                      Each and everyone of us immutably exists as an individual. All other aspects of our existance are by choice.
                      Free will.

                    5. John the proof of your fallacy of your premise is it’s hero is the Unabomber, and even he – a 1/100k hermit – could not exist without the support lines of the human society he rejected. Individualism as idealized by libertarians is a rigid fetish which mistakes a positive benefit of our specie’s success with it’s raison d’etre and highest aspiration. It is neither and does not fit the realities of our social, and therefore individual, survival and advancement. Might as well carry an F-150 manual in the trunk of your Prius.

                    6. “John the proof of your fallacy”
                      You are misusing the word fallacy.

                      A fallacy is an argument of a form that is by definition invalid.
                      It is not false, it is not true, it is just not a valid argument.

                      Insulting someone – ad hominem, does not say anything about the actual issue in debate.

                      You would not prove a fallacy

                      Using words randomly without any connection to their meaning destroys communications.

                      “of your premise is it’s hero is the Unabomber, and even he – a 1/100k hermit”

                      Your diatribe on the Unabomber is without meaning. He is neither a hero, nor a counter example, nor libertarian – though that does not matter.

                      Further, he could have existed outside human society should he have so chosen.

                      Humans have existed for 150K years. We have only had societies more complex than an extended family for the past 10,000

                      You confuse a voluntarily chosen though very appealing value, with a requirement.
                      Community is a value – for nearly all of us it is an important value. For some of us it is incredibly important.

                      That you think it is essential displace the same logical error as believing that healthcare is a right. It is not. Humans have lived without helthcare beyond what they could provide for themselves mostly in ignorance for almost 150,000 years.

                      You also confuse living with living well.

                      Again back to maslow’s hierarchy of needs – community is approximately a 4th tier need,
                      it is less important than the physical necescities of life. It is less important than security, it is less important that reproduction, it is less important than intimacy and family.

                      “Individualism as idealized by libertarians is a rigid fetish which mistakes a positive benefit of our specie’s success with it’s raison d’etre and highest aspiration.”

                      Confusing muddle.

                      The value you choose to place on liberty as compared to society is up to you.
                      The fact remains, you are an individual, Your life is your own. That is true whether you like it or not.
                      No one owes you any positive duty, you owe no one else any positive duty.
                      Your relations to others and their extent are an individual choice.

                      Community is a value. No matter how important a value you choose it to be for yourself, it is a lessor value than a whole array of other values such as food, water, shelter.

                      You display the typical shallow thinking of the left, conflating what has been commonplace for a year, a decade a century or a few millenia, for a universal requirement.

                      Highly desireable for most people, beneficial, is not the same as a requirement for human life.

                      Human society is something that humans have created. Insects do not create their society, it was imposed on them by evolution and genetics, not choice.

                      Human society is a choice, its structure is a choice. We are free to choose it – and infact the left desperately wants to change the structure of society.

                      Not only isn’t human society a manditory requirement, but there is no requirement for a specific structure.
                      Insect society has rigid structures that biologically imposed, and immutable. Human society is the product of trial and error.
                      We can make it however we wish. We can make it worse or better.

                      The maleability of human society is a consequence of our fundimental liberty – free will.

                      You keep trying to say that libertarians fetishise individualism. You miss the point entirely.

                      Individual liberty and individualism are distinct – though both intrinsic and more fundimental than social arrangements.

                      We are each born with free will, liberty. Whether we like it or not.
                      We are also each born unique – unlike insects.

                      our free will and individuality are not choices, they are immutable.

                    7. The proof of what I am saying is evident in some of the societal failures that are occuring arround us right now.

                      We depend on society to provide us with security – a value that is more fundimental than society itself.
                      WE presume that security is provided by the police, by law and by government.
                      That is guaranteed to us by the social contract.

                      If you live in an even moderately affluent neighborhood that remains true, even now.

                      But if you are poorer, increasingly your personal security is your own obligation.

                      Seattle police have publicly announced that they are unable to protect property in many areas.
                      That is public acknowledgement of an obvious self evident fact.

                      That ultimately each of us are individually responsible for our wants and needs – not society.

                      We may contract with society to meet those needs. But when society is unable or unwilling to deliver,
                      we as individuals are ultimately responsible for ourselves – including all the benefits we expect from society.
                      And thus we are buying guns.

                      Society, community is voluntary, it is a choice, it is not immutable.

                      Humans value community, it is NOT intrinsic, merely desireable – for you personally and maybe many others it may be highly desireable.
                      But it is still just a value.

                    8. John,

                      fal·la·cy
                      /ˈfaləsē/
                      Learn to pronounce
                      noun
                      a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

                      You could not be more wrong about human nature, our development over several hundred thousand years, how we function individually and in groups, and your resulting political beliefs. As I have noted, we are unique as a species other than a few insect species, in the level of our social organization, so from the gun you are starting on a false premise which you then have to make up for with preposterous claims. No, humans do not exist as individuals outside of social organizations, nor are they raised as blank individual slates lacking the social learning – now much more advanced than ever – which would allow us to think outside of our social upbringing. This characteristic has made us the most powerful and adaptive species on earth, and has resulted in our inhabiting the entire world, no matter the conditions, and has given us accumulated material wealth and advancements in technology (tool making). The Wright Brothers did not pop up in the Amazonand Howard Roark did not build skyscrapers with mud.

                      When push comes to shove – if it does in anyone’s lifetime – the survival of the society and the species will trump (small case) the individual every time, and no questions asked, as it should. Individualism – like privacy – is a modern luxury which I am all for and for which I favor legal protections – hey, we can afford it and we all benefit. But don’t be a damn fool about it. If the Japs attack Pearl Harbor again, except for the kind of people who want to make wearing a face mask something akin to Soviet labor camps, we will all smartly turn out the lights when asked, cue up for ration cards, and some of us march to our deaths, whether as individuals we want to or not.

                    9. “Learn to pronounce”
                      Learn the difference between verbal and oral.
                      You have no clue how I pronounce fallacy.

                      “fal•la•cy făl′ə-sē►
                      n. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
                      n. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.”

                      My response to you is specific to the use of fallacy in the context of logic or reason

                      i.e. nearly all your arguments are informal logical fallacies.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

                      The sun will rise tomorrow because Hitler says so
                      Is a fallacy – it is an appeal to authority.

                      Yet it is true that the sun will rise tomorrow.

                      The use of fallacy to mean mistaken belief or as a substitute for false is more examples of corrupt of the language.

                      When we decide to include as alternate definitions for a word, mistaken uses, we corrupt language and communications, and thinking.

                      Fallacy does not mean false – we have a perfectly good word for false – FALSE.
                      It does not mean belief – mistaken or otherwise – we have a perfectly good word for that – belief, or mistaken belief is necessary.

                      There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the corruption of language
                      George Orwell

                    10. “You could not be more wrong about human nature, our development over several hundred thousand years, how we function individually and in groups”

                      If so then you should be able to demonstrate that error with facts.

                      You keep returning to insects – and yet they are the proof of exactly how wrong you are.
                      You are absolution correct that no other species in existance is social in the way humans are.
                      INCLUDING INSECTS. Ni sane person would compare human social organization to insects.
                      The structure of insect societies is rigid hierarchical and biological and invariant. There are not merely limited roles. Within those few roles all members are essentially identical. Just about every other species in existance is closer to humans that insects.
                      All mammals and most other species of aninmal have greater individual diversity than insects.

                      Though no other animal in existance has the individual diversity than humans.

                      Are you honestly trying to argue otherwise ?

                      You place a high value on human social relationships. And you are correct that any analogue to this in the rest of the animal community is rare and primative in comparison to that of humans. That includes insects.

                      As you keep comparing humans to insects – do you really want humans to live in the same social organizations as insects ?
                      Queens, and drones, and workers, rigid roles, perfect equality in every way within those roles, and no concept of defining a new role or seeking a different role ?

                      Unless you want humans to be like insects – comparing us to them is counter productive to your claim.

                      I would further note that Insects have no ability to live outside those rigid societies. Drones and workers will die separated from those societies.

                      Do you really want to keep up the inset analogy ?

                      “No, humans do not exist as individuals outside of social organizations”
                      They do not ?

                      Strange there are numerous examples of hermits and others who have chosen to isolate themselves from society.

                      Beyond that there are orders of magnitude more people who choose to live in communities little larger than extended families.
                      In fact ALL humans lived that way for almost 50,000 years. Human social structures large than about 25 people 2 were almost non-existant until 10,000 years ago. It is self evident that humans have been creating ever larger social structures BY CHOICE over time,

                      Nothing resembling NYC or London existed a few centuries ago. Social units of even several thousand were rare until a few centuries ago. And even today a significant portion of the world lives in relatively small social units.

                      In fact even in our mega cities – people still have actual social relationships with only small numbers of people.

                      Even these large complex societies that you think are intrinsic a mostly a convenience. They are mostly driven by the free markets you eschew – humans are not capable of close relationships with very many people. They can manage ECONOMIC relationships with larger numbers – in systems with free markets. But they can not manage truly personal relationships at any scale.

                      “nor are they raised as blank individual slates lacking the social learning”
                      Have not claimed that. That is primarily a left wing claim.
                      It is the left that beleives we are all born drones and that if we are properly socialized we will remain drones.

                      “now much more advanced than ever”
                      I have no idea what the “social learning” nonsense is.
                      Human values have changed over time. Mostly for the better.
                      Though i would note that is through a trial and error process,”

                      “which would allow us to think outside of our social upbringing.”
                      Does this remark even mean anything ?

                      “This characteristic has made us the most powerful and adaptive species on earth”
                      Your contradicting your self – you say that social evolution has made us great. That admits that your thesis – that humans are inherently social is false, that Humans have MOSTLY chosen to be social, that unlike insects we are not born to it.

                      “and has resulted in our inhabiting the entire world”
                      And we did so long before you “peak social learning”, people who were clearly racist, sexist, homophobic are the ones how brought us to inhabit the world. Further they did so in small groups lead by driven individualists.

                      “no matter the conditions, and has given us accumulated material wealth and advancements in technology (tool making). The Wright Brothers did not pop up in the Amazonand Howard Roark did not build skyscrapers with mud.”
                      All true, and all at odds with your thesis.

                      “When push comes to shove – if it does in anyone’s lifetime – the survival of the society and the species will trump (small case) the individual every time,”
                      As near absolutely false as a statement can be. It is extremely rare for an individual to choose societal interests over those of individuals.

                      Even in war – it requires massive amounts of drilling and training to get soldiers to act contrary to their individual interests, and ultimately as nearly ever soldier will tell you, they end up fighting for their buddy in the foxhole beside them – not for nation or their scoiety.

                      “no questions asked, as it should. Individualism – like privacy – is a modern luxury”
                      And yet it is not, while the left spews all kinds of nonsense, even the modern left has made room for individualism in its ideology.

                      IT you want ants – if you want man to die for the greater good, you have to crush out any meaning to distinctions like black/white, male female, gay/straight. Though Identity politics fixates on converting purportedly immutable facets of humans into meaningful differences – and as such is exactly the same bigotry that is inherent in racism, it still rests on the foundation that we are NOT the same – that we are individual, and that our differences are CRITICAL – and while intersectionality fixates on the wrong aspects of individuality it still grasps we are individual.

                      ” which I am all for and for which I favor legal protections – hey, we can afford it and we all benefit. But don’t be a damn fool about it. If the Japs attack Pearl Harbor again, except for the kind of people who want to make wearing a face mask something akin to Soviet labor camps, we will all smartly turn out the lights when asked, cue up for ration cards, and some of us march to our deaths, whether as individuals we want to or not.”

                      Yes, because foriegn invaders are not merely a threat to “society”, they are also a threat to each of us a individuals.
                      And i would further note that our ability to drive individuals to selflessly sacrifice their lives from some societal greater good, is extremely difficult to pull off.

                      Look at the entirely of the modern US military – our objective is NOT to get masses of US soldiers to sacrifice their lives for some greater good. It is to get our enemies to sacrifice their lives – in vain. US soldiers understand they are fighting for their country – and we go to a great deal of trouble to persuade them they are fighting for the freedom and liberty of their freinds and family – for the right of americans to be INDIVIDUALS. But we also go to enormous amounts of effort to give them the greatest possible chance of succeeding without dying.

                      And we have become quite good at it. The F15 has never lost in combat. The only losses ever of modern US warships have been in accidents, and there are few of those. The last US carrier lost in combat was the Bismark Sea, lost in Feb 1945. Every US carrier sunk since then has been as a target ship.

                      US WWII casualties were 400K+
                      Korea 36K
                      Vietnam 58K
                      Afganistan 2K
                      Iraq 4K
                      Syria 76.

                      The US though double the population of WWI is increasing intolerant of the death of our soldiers.
                      We also become increasingly tolerant of the death of non-combatants.

                      Your thesis that we do not place an incredibly high value on individuals and individualism is obliterated – by your own arguments.

                      Some further arguments would be our increasing interest in Tattoo’s and peircings – what are these beside and strong reflection of our individualism ?

                      I just listened to a story on NPR about the protests/riots in seattle.

                      I was floored as those trying to burn down the courthouse asserted that the Fed’s playing loud music at them was torture just like was done at Guantanamo and proscribed by the Geneva convention – forgetting completely that all they had to do to avoid being tortured was to leave property that was not their own.

                      Regardless, as ludicrously stupid as the entire story was, it was still repeating over and over claims to INDIVIDUAL rights – usually ones that did not exist, regardless, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government, the right to free speach, these and every other right – real or imagined by the left is an INDIVIDUAL right.

                      Humans are not becoming LESS individualist as society grows – they are becoming MORE so.

                      Look arround you – we have infinitely more choices of cars, cloths, food, houses, furniture.

                      Go to a protest – nearly everyone is wearing a TShirt, and nearly everyone is DIFFERENT.

                      WE each seek to tell the world not just a message, but also that WE ARE UNIQUE.

                      Pretty much the opposite of your thesis.

                    11. John, you are smart enough to cover an apparently weak argument by employing pettifogging on stupid s..t like hairsplitting definitions and then making a strawmen on claims I never made (about insects) , and then if you actually have a succinct and to the point argument, burying it many paragraphs later where I doubt anyone here reads it. Given the weakness of your opening points, I have no interest in reading more.

                      How about this: This could an interesting discussion if you could exercise some self control. I made a case based on the facts of human existence and how it relates to libertarian beliefs in one small paragraph. Do you want to try countering again in a similarly sized statement that some one other than you of your mother might actually read? Cut the s..t about defining fallacy and insects – my statement on the most socially organized species is a fact any zoologist will confirm – and make some points. This could be fun and enlightening.

                    12. BTB – you have brought insects into the discussion – not I.

                      The fact is social insects have LESS to do with humans than any other animal. Human society much more strongly resembles the social structures of apex preditors – because that is what we are.

                      It has however evolved over time – especically as we CHOSE to involve ourselves with agriculture.

                      My fundimental point is that human society is a CHOICE, a reflection of what humans VALUE, it is also something that has changed over time.

                      Humans are inherently individualistic – more so than probably all other mammals.

                      Our complex social relations are a choice – and mostly a very modern one.

                      The evidence on that is not weak. It is indisputable.

                    13. This is not about being smart.

                      You do not have to be smart to be right.

                      All you have to do is check your facts.

                    14. More rhetorical shotgun;s and adjectives as a substitute for argument.

                      If some argument I have made is “pettifogging” (do you even know what that means ?) demonstrate that.

                      If I am hair splitting – that should be obvious.

                      I do not think deliberately standing up to the mangling of words is hairspillting.

                      Regardless, we are debating facts, not poetry. The creative use of language is to be encouraged in creative works.

                      It is unethical and destructive in a factual discussion.

                      Are you writing poetry ? Or trying to establish the rules for governance ?

                    15. How much you read is your choice.

                      If you wish to learn anything you will have to read beyond the opening paragraph.

                      Entire books are written to cover subjects – not advertsing slogans.

                    16. “I made a case based on the facts of human existence and how it relates to libertarian beliefs in one small paragraph. Do you want to try countering again in a similarly sized statement that some one other than you of your mother might actually read? ”

                      Why ? Pretty much every factual claim you made was complete crap.
                      You have no argument. You are quite obviously completely wrong about human social relationships.

                      “my statement on the most socially organized species is a fact any zoologist will confirm”
                      Any zoologists that confirms what you claim is an idiot.
                      And we are arguing anthropology not zoology.

                      Science is rooted in facts.

                      You brought up Insects – I did not. Are you prepared to cede that insects and insect social nature have absolutely nothing to do with humans social structures ? Then we can get beyond insects.
                      Either accept that they do not have bearing on your argument – or address the proof that they have nothing to do with human social structures.

                      – and make some points. This could be fun and enlightening.

                    17. The species Homo Sapiens has been arround for 150K years

                      Out side that last 10K years can you provide evidence of any human social structure larger than 35 people ?

                      You entire thesis that large social arrangements are intrinsic to humanity has no historical evidence.

                      Insects are the ONLY species that we have evidence of biologically driven large social units and those are radically different from humans.

                      There is not an argument – because you have nothing,

                    18. “my statement on the most socially organized species is a fact any zoologist will confirm – and make some points. This could be fun and enlightening.”

                      It is ? Outside of Insects can you find ANY examples of socially organized animals with social arrangement larger than say 35 members ?

                      A small number of herd animals like horses or fish. That is about it.

                      Of you have a Zoologist making claims about intrinsic human complex and large social units – that zoologist is oblivious to 90% of human existance.

                      Human social relationships are a CHOICE – a value, and history – the evidence establishes that with ZERO doubt.

                    19. John, I correctly stated that among all species of animals on earth, we share with about 4 species of insects the most socialized behavior. The obvious point of that statement is not how much we are like insects but how unique we are among other animal species for our high level of socialization. You correctly highlight our ability to act with some degree of individuality – one could call it creativity – but that is probably more a function of our intelligence than our independence from social structures. The fact is that no human exists independent of our social structures and those very few who try – besides typically having something wrong with them – are tethered by their training and/or support lines from society. The idea that we are a bunch of individuals who have decided after considering options to get together is just too wrong to seriously propose, and yet you have. You cannot give examples of an alternative existence or a history confirming this novel idea. Regardless of how it affects your political beliefs, humans do not exist and make no sense outside of society and surely would not have prospered as we have if we led solitary existences.

                    20. “John, I correctly stated that among all species of animals on earth, we share with about 4 species of insects the most socialized behavior.”

                      False, human social behavior bears no consequential resemblance to that of insects.
                      Nir would any sane person want it to.

                      “The obvious point of that statement is not how much we are like insects but how unique we are among other animal species for our high level of socialization.”
                      The obvious point is how clueless you are.

                      Do bee’s go out to a bar for drinks ? In what way are social insects at all like human socialization ?

                      Human socialization even today most strongly resembles that of higher mamals – not insects.

                      In insects roles and hierachy are rigid and biological. Humans are not even close to that.

                      Further, humans did NOT have the socialized attributes you are fixated on for 95% of human existance.
                      Human social relations are CLEARLY a choice – one that has taken 150,000 years to effectuate.

                      “You correctly highlight our ability to act with some degree of individuality – one could call it creativity”
                      I do not care what you call it. It is not “some degree” There is nothing close to the individuality of humans outside of mammals, and arguably not even in other mammals.

                      “– but that is probably more a function of our intelligence than our independence from social structures.”
                      You can guess about whatever you want – honestly it does not matter.
                      What is self evident – to most everyone but you is that Humans are not innately social in the way you claim – though they are innately individual. That out very modern highly social arrangements are a CHOICE.

                      “The fact is that no human exists independent of our social structures”
                      You keep repeating this obvious falsehood. For most of human existance those social structures did not exist.
                      Even today a significant portion of US and world population lives in social units not much different from tribes or similar social units in other mammals.

                      Put simply all humans do not live in New York. I spent yesterday driving though parts of my state with very small towns and villages.
                      Guess what – they actually exist.

                      You seem to think that there are only two choices – hermit or mega city.

                      Humans individually not merely chose to socialise but they chose individually the extent to which they wish to socialize.
                      Some of us thrive in NYC, Some of us prefer Cresona.

                      “and those very few who try – besides typically having something wrong with them”
                      So everyone who does not share your values is unhealthy ?

                      “– are tethered by their training and/or support lines from society.”
                      How so ?

                      Even myself – I live in a county with just under .5M people in a town of 5000, near a city of 60000.
                      For the past 4 months I see very few people outside my family.
                      Even before that the circle of people I actually interact with – as opposed to merely encounter is quite small.
                      Nor am i unusual.

                      You confuse being present with millions of people with actually consequentially interacting with them.

                      The vast majority of my human interactions are inconsequential and usually economy,
                      I interact with people to buy groceries. But I could do just as well getting them shipped by amazon.

                      “The idea that we are a bunch of individuals who have decided after considering options to get together is just too wrong to seriously propose,”
                      Except that it is reality. You also make the common mistake of presuming all human choices are consciously considered.
                      How much do you think about the shirt you put on in the morning ? Yet it is a choice and one that over a long period reflects significantly on who you are.

                      Free choice does NOT mean that you contemplate every decision with the same thought as you do the choice of college.

                      Choice is often as simple as which ice cream you buy at the grocery.

                      Ants do not make such choices. Even wolves do not make such choices.

                      “and yet you have.”
                      Yes, i live in the real world.

                      “You cannot give examples of an alternative existence or a history confirming this novel idea.”
                      And yet, I have. As noted before for 95% of human existance there were no human social units larger than wolf packs.
                      That is fact, history, reality. It is not alternative, it is actually the human norm.
                      Even today – though some of us live in large groups – we only actually meaningfully relate to very small groups.
                      The rest of our human interactions could just as well be with machines – and increasingly are.
                      I can go to the self check at a grocery and never interact with a human.
                      I can gas up my car and never interact with a human.

                      “Regardless of how it affects your political beliefs, humans do not exist and make no sense outside of society and surely would not have prospered as we have if we led solitary existences.”

                      Back to this faux binary. Regardless of how large a city a person might live in – there are not many more meaningful connections than there were when humans lived in tribes. We are socially closer to wolves than insects – we are also biologically closer.

                      There are myriads of things about humans today that did not exist 500, or 10000 years ago.

                      We buy food in resturaunts today. for most of the past 10,000 years we ate what we grew ourselves – even today most of humantiy still grows the food it eats. For nearly all of 150,000 years food came from hunting or gathering.

                      As near indispensible as grocery stores and resturaunts are – they are a reflection of human choice, they are NOT anything more.

                    21. another lengthy disputation of liberterian dogma, is what liberterians are usually good at. and not a lot more

                      human are definitely social and biologically determined to act socially, this is obvious, and liberterians make fools of themselves arguing the point

                      john asked for examples of other creatures besides insects and fish that organize socially. how about birds. in large numbers well over 35.

                      but they are not mammals. for them we have cetaceans ie whales whose pods get as large as 50,

                      obviously chimps share some of our similarities in social organization, such as, of great interest to myself at least, “chimp wars” and also complex sexual behavior among bonobos.

                      but anyhow, the upper limits on large creature social organization, are more related to food resource gathering than anything

                      foraging bands of primitive humans were probably limited to 50 or less as well. of course we have to speculate about that since it was pre-history

                      history is an invention of complex human social organization, made possible by cities, which are in turn made possible by agriculture, which allows the social organization to stay in place and grow with adequate increasing sustainable food resources. this allowed the social instincts, yes, predetermined, inherent, biological social instincts of humans, to grow in ever expanding complexity.

                      this is all so very obvious that only a liberterian could misunderstand it.

                      Republicans i warn you, stay away from the liberterian ideological poison. there was never a time when we need to work as a team more than now.

                    22. Please tell me you are not buying this crap from BTB.

                      Humans are Social – BY CHOICE. If you are incapable of grasping that Human socialization and that of insects has ZERO relation to each other, then you should absolutely never claim to know squat about science.

                      There are no human social units larger than packs of wolves prior to the advent of agriculture about 10K years ago, that is nearly 95% of human existance. If there was a biological imperative to large scale human societies they would have existed from the begining.

                      You can not convert a choice – no matter how common it is – into a principle or foundational value.

                      That is like claiming that human use of money is biological.

                      I expect nonsense like this from BTB. Not you.

                      While your will to power arguments are garbage, they atleast do not conflate human choices with biological imperatives.

                      In fact there is a stronger case for that your power based scheme is biological than for BTB’s Humans are social insects nonsense.

                      Power hierarchies in animals exist for atleast the past 500M years. Even crustaceans establish power hierarchies.

                      Conversely to the extent there is any biological social facet of humans it is that of other apex predictors.
                      There is no scientific basis for an inherent human social drive larger than a pride of lions or a pack of wolves.
                      Early human groups served the same function, had the same structure, and scale. There is no such congruence with any creature that is innately mass social such as insects where there is no meaningful individuality.

                    23. “john asked for examples of other creatures besides insects and fish that organize socially”

                      I do not recall asking that.

                      Regardless, the fundimental question is not do other massively social creatures exist.

                      While I think there are significant differences between fish, birds and insects. They all share attributes that distunguish them radically from those of humans.

                      Noting that Whales form pods of up to 50 makes rather than challenges my point.

                      The behavior of Chimps bolsters rather than undermines my argument. It should be very little of a surprise that chimps have behaviors that are little different from humans through 95% of our history.

                      Are there chimp cities with populations of 10000 ? 1000000 ?

                      “but anyhow, the upper limits on large creature social organization, are more related to food resource gathering than anything”

                      I agree with some observations. Seeking greater efficiency is still a CHOICE. More efficient resource gathering and the higher standards of living that congregating in larger numbers provides is not inherently scaling up social relations. The vast majority of human interactions today not only can but are being replaced by machines. More efficient resource gathering and larger numbers of humans are not biologically linked. And appear linked only by the resource usage constraints of the moment. The number of actually consequential human social relations that have any biological basis are quite small. Humans do not exist in groups larger than 35 to meet genetic or builogical needs for association with others, they do so BY CHOICE because it is efficient, and they will change that – potentially radically should a more efficient arrangement arise.

                      Birds will not do that, fish will not do that, insects will not do that. The size of social units of other social creatures MIGHT have had some logical basis in efficiency millions of years ago – but today they are biological. Birds, fish, ants will form large sized groups – even if circumstances should change and that prove inefficient. Humans will guickly adapt, Birds and insects will take hundreds of thousands of years to change.

                      This whole argument that large scale human socialization is anything more than a choice – is obvious error.

                      It is not wrong because of ideology. It is wrong because it is at odds with oberved reality.

                    24. “history is an invention of complex human social organization, made possible by cities, which are in turn made possible by agriculture, which allows the social organization to stay in place and grow with adequate increasing sustainable food resources. this allowed the social instincts, yes, predetermined, inherent, biological social instincts of humans, to grow in ever expanding complexity.”

                      Absolutely, but it is no more innate than the human choice to build factories, or roads, or airplanes. The fact that humans have adapted in myriads of ways to raise their standard of living does not make the specific adaptation an intrinsic biological imperative. It remains a choice, to be supplanted when a better choice arrises.

                      To the extent there is an arguable biological imperative – something fundimental, something more than a choice, it is the drive to improve the human condition.

                      You conflate the current outcome with the cause.

                      Humans did not create cities with millions of people because of a biological need to be arround millions of people. but because that optomizes standard of living.

                      And quite clearly we find that as standard of living rises the more wealthy mostly seek to AVOID mass human interaction – they by homes – mostly out of the cities with large amounts of land and less people they are required to relate to.

                      “this is all so very obvious that only a leftist could misunderstand it.”

                    25. I wrote: “The obvious point of that statement is not how much we are like insects but how unique we are among other animal species for our high level of socialization.”

                      John responded:
                      “The obvious point is how clueless you are.

                      Do bee’s go out to a bar for drinks ? In what way are social insects at all like human socialization ?”

                      Waiter, check please?

                      John, I’m sorry but you’re not worth my time.

                    26. “John, I’m sorry but you’re not worth my time.”

                      Your argument FAILED – catastrophically. Human socialization has little relationship to that of insects. Arguably the word socialization can not meaningfully apply to both – unless it has no more meaning than some ambiguous observation about numbers.

                      You can not have human socialization be both a fundimental attribute of humans and nothing more than a meaningless observation about numbers.

                      If I were you i would be running from the debate to.
                      Because you have no argument.

                      And debating further is not worth your time – because no amount of your time will overcome the fundimental errors in your argument.

                  2. “John, you are not the Pope of what is rational and what is not. ”

                    No we have the rules of logic for that.

                    regardless you are channeling the left again. If there are no standards. If words like rational have no clear meaning,
                    then we have chaos.

                    If I say I am going to murder you – does that means I am going out for banasplits with you ?

                    If meaning is arbitrary we can not communicate.

                    As most of us think in words – it also means we can not think.

                    1. you defy me that you are not an objectivist but the fact is Rand made a lot more sense than the rest of the motley liberterian crew.

                      let’s take logic since you think you are the Pope of that.

                      Rand said famously, A = A. the law of identity, she quoted it often. it is a logical premise. a premise is an axiom, it is taken as a given value, not a derived one

                      She claimed it is based on observation of nature. and so it is. Fine. just like the rudiments of math are too.

                      but in more complex math, the givens are not readily apparent from nature, and indeed, complex maths may employ given premises that have no obvious natural correspondent. and yet the maths still “work” that is to say, are logically coherent as a whole.

                      beyond math, we also have the perplexing fundamental nature of particles.

                      are electrons waves or particles? the answer is both, and yet, this violates Rand’s cherished law of identity

                      they are also bilocational

                      they also appear to be possible to influence merely by observing them (heisenberg uncertainty principle)

                      in these 3 ways the most basic “axioms” of logical thinking about physical things, have been proven, not precisely 100% the case universally

                      and so the simplistic mindset of Rand, if physicists had adhered to it, we would have never emerged from the Newtonian model into the quantum.

                      this is liberterianism. thinking in a simplistic manner about complex systems. that’s the problem in a nutshell.

                    2. “you defy me that you are not an objectivist”

                      What ? I do not get to choose my own beleifs – you get to dictate these for me ?

                      How am I “defying” you in any way that I am not entitled to ?

                      “but the fact is Rand made a lot more sense”
                      There is alot of consequence in Rand.
                      There is some use to reading Marx too.

                    3. Your maths example makes my case.

                      AS you note A = A is an axiom – BTW premises and axioms are NOT the same.
                      All axioms CAN be premises. All premises need not be axioms – if they can be proven.

                      Which brings us to the point at which your argument collapses.

                      Complex math – rests on a small number of axioms.

                      The mathematics of the strength of a steel beam are complex.
                      But that math derives from a small number of mathmatical axioms and physical properties.

                      And any good structures course will not merely teach the formula for the moment of a beam, but how to derive that complex formula from a small number of axioms.

                    4. I would further note that the drive of modern physics is to resolve the wave partical duality.

                      The expectation is that the duality is a consequence of some more fundimental concept that we have not yet uncovered.

                      Just as newtownian physics works to 90% of the speed of light, but we know it is wrong.

                  3. Look if you want to waste your time making anti-objectivst arguments – fire away.

                    I am not an objectivist. I am not a rand roid. I like some of her work, and not others. She is one of meany influences.

                    Objectivism is a cult. I am not interested in Cults. But atleast it is not ISIS.

                    1. above John says:

                      ” The number of actually consequential human social relations that have any biological basis are quite small. Humans do not exist in groups larger than 35 to meet genetic or biological needs for association with others, they do so BY CHOICE ”

                      CHOICE is a human biological capacity in itself, in its essence and in action. it is possible due to the biological inheritance of brains which makes possible such conscious choices. and our social capacity to cooperate that is very much an evolved biological trait as well.

                      but this is merely basic evolutionary psychology. aka “sociobiology”

                      perhaps john you think man was created by the Lord in from the clay. you also say:

                      “This whole argument that large scale human socialization is anything more than a choice – is obvious error.”

                      we are social animals, and this is indeed why the libertarian stuff is a fail, to put it succinctly.

                      however, feel free to adhere to whatever suits your fancy. we are apparently seeing the same thing and draw entirely different conclusions from it. there is no more conversation to be had about it. thanks for taking the time to explain your position nonetheless

                    2. “CHOICE is a human biological capacity in itself”
                      Then the argument is over. You have just asserted that libertarianism is a biological attribute of humans.

                      “we are social animals”
                      Outside of a very small set of relations/social needs, that can be met by small numbers or in some cases even be unmet, our social nature is a CHOICE.

                      If as you say “CHOICE is a human biological capacity in itself”, then we can – and WILL chose not to be social – when that best meets are needs and wants.

                      Regardless, YOU have thoroughly undermined any claim that anything beyond small scale social relations are innate.

                      They are a higher order value – derived, not fundimental.

                      “this is indeed why the libertarian stuff is a fail”
                      And yet, you have just proven the core of libertarianism.

                      Acording to YOU “Choice” is innate, Social relations are not, they are derived, they are dependent.

                      “however, feel free to adhere to whatever suits your fancy. we are apparently seeing the same thing and draw entirely different conclusions from it. there is no more conversation to be had about it. thanks for taking the time to explain your position nonetheless”

                      YOU have PROVEN my case on your own without prompting – and somehow still remain blind to the obvious.

                    3. I apologize for failing to recognize your spelling error.

                      BTW “f” and “n” are on different hands on the keyboard.

      2. I do not have a problem mourning foster.

        But he died because he pointed an AK at someone.

        I do not own a gun – and a know better than that.

        In some places and some times it is a crime merely to point a gun at someone.

        It is almost always self defense to kill someone who has a gun pointed at you.

        Possibly the first instructions for gun use are – do not point at anything you do not intend to shoot.

        Even libertarians sometimes win darwin awards.

        1. John, I have no problems with anyone mourning the death of anyone. It’s this statement: “The Libertarian Party Mourns…” while Foster was part of BLM protests where the leaders of BLM are Marxists and others they are playing with are anarchists.

          I don’t know much about the Libertarian Party but I would think they would want to separate themselves from that headline.

          1. First – like democrats and republicans the libertarian party is far from homogenous. Remember the GOP has Dick Cheney and Rand Paul, and Democrats include AOC and Bill Orton. There is such a think as a Bleeding Heart Libertarian, Cass Sustein has called himself libertarain on occasion – he is pretty much in another world from Walter Block.

            I have not read the reason article. Reason is probably slightly left libertarian over all. Though the authors are all over.

            I would note that BLM the formal organization and BLM protests are not congruent.

            I would further note as a good friend pointed out the protests – even the violence are NOT mostly political – not that there are not hyper political people involved. But a great deal of the violence is coming from young adults that just want to break things. That is a very seductive thing.

            So we have a mess right now that is a mix of good and bad.

            I would note that Reason is likely to be very sympathetic to reigning in the police.

            I am very sympathetic to that. But I am not an idiot. I want better policing – but not at the risk of having my house burned down.

            1. One can make all sorts of excuses but this headline from Reason gives a lot of credence to those that already find the Libertarian Pary quite strange.

              1. The libertarian party is quite strange. “Vermin Supreme” has been a perenial presidential candidate.

                Regardless I would recommend Reason, you wont like some articles – so what ?

                As Reagan said – libertarianism is the soul of the republican party.

                1. For anyone that doesn’t have a reasonably solid background Reason is not the best magazine. It is very spotty and that can confuse those that do not already have a good understanding of the underlying philosophies. A person reading reason would be better off reading Milton Friedman and our history behind the Constitution. Of course they should most definitely read the Constitution and the Declaration of Indpendence. Extra credit, the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. They should also read the history behind the Civil war. Extra credit, Thucydidies.

                  “As Reagan said – libertarianism is the soul of the republican party.”

                  That is not the type of libertarianism that one always sees from Reason magazine. Take note of my 8:26 comment yesterday.

                  1. I find some redeeming value in Hayek when he talks about the market as an efficient resource allocating and pricing mechanism.
                    there is a lot of sense in that. obviously the Chicoms figured it out, which is why they adopted market based allocation of resources. To a degree.,
                    When not pursuing their own strategic objectives, for which, they obviously do whatever they deem expedient and pragmatic. They are not dogmatists.

                    I find the rationalistic applications of the “Austrian school of economics” to our political situation to be naive. and foolhardy.,

                    Liberterianism is a dead end in politics. It divides what must be united. In its very essence it is a toxin.

                    1. “I find some redeeming value in Hayek ”

                      For those getting started Hayek is more difficult to read than Friedman.

                      As far as the schools of thought. Who said anyone school would be perfect?

                    2. Try reading almost anything by Coase he is very easy to read and manages to convey complex concepts efficiently and understandably.

                      Anything by Bastiat is reasonably short and easy to read.
                      and free.

                      Economics in one lesson is easy to read and free.

                      If you want something that is very close to anarcho-capitalism try Walter Bloch’s “defending the undefendable” also free.

                      The first half of Thomas Paines “the rights of man” is excellent. The 2nd part is too fawning over the french revolution.

                      Nozik’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia is for people who found the road to serfdom to be an easy read.

                      Mill’s “On Liberty” is incredibly appropriate for the moment and should be mandatory reading in HS.
                      A modern language version is available free from heterodox academy https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/

                    3. Allan,
                      “For those getting started Hayek is more difficult to read than Friedman.”

                      I agree. I have not yet finished Road to Serfdom. His writing is very dense. Lots to absorb and integrate in order to understand.

                    4. TRTS is short, but each page takes a day to read and digest.

                      Almost everyone else is easier to read.

                      Coase, Freidman, Hazzlet, Leonard Read, Bastiat, Rand,

                      The only exception is Nozick
                      Anarchy, State, Utopia is excellent, but makes reading Hayek seem like nursery rhymes

                    5. If you want an understanding of how China changed from Mao to about 2013 try

                      The chinese government did not “figure it out” – it happened spontaneously from the margins.

                      To the extent post Mao the Chinese “figured it out” all they did was resist the natural socialist instinct to kill a bottom up emerging capitalism.

                      Regardless, post Mao the chinese government was mostly not dogmatists. But China’s success did NOT come from government – except to the extent they deliberately choose to turn a blind eye to free markets that emerged on their own and were working.

                      Economics does not answer political questions.

                      If you want the application the same kind of methodology used in economics to government look into “Public Choice theory”
                      Not Austrian Economics.

                      https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137351438/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=77790499075405&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_1j78365xcd_e

                      Libertarian’s as a political party are impotent.
                      As an ideology – Reagan got it right – Libertarianism is the soul of conservatism.

                      All of the good that is in the republican party comes from classical liberalism.

                    6. Bastiat is good reading on politics Thomas Paine was writing propaganda. I never read Coase and Nozick I picked up and put down soon thereafter.
                      John Locke is the source of much liberal and liberterian politics alike.

                      I read all of Ayn Rand’s fiction and nonfiction and Peikoff and the rest of them. The only ones I recommend today would be Judith Reisman. a psychologist.
                      Who I am not sure if she was objectivist or not, but she did a fantastic expose of Kinsey’s disgusting sex research experiments.
                      her husband is an economist and has written a lot of worthy and digestible material on economics.

                      however, i think he offended Peikoff somehow, who pronounced a din rodeff on him. I can’t quite recall. There have been a lot of schisms in the Rand synagogue over the decades.

                      But I do not recommend these works at all. Events how time for reading is short. If people want a different look than the same tired old bromides that are falling flat before our eyes, why not try Hobbes, Leviathan, timely for his keen understanding of the danger of anarchy, or Plato’s Republic, or better yet, Carl Schmitt. “Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy” and “theory of the political” and “theory of the partisan”

                    7. “Bastiat is good reading on politics Thomas Paine was writing propaganda.”

                      Kurtz, both persons are expressing their own beliefs. How is one propaganda and not the other?

                    8. Did you used to be an Objectivist or something ?

                      You are fixated on insider knowledge and have the hatred that is usually only in those who left a faith.

                    9. John Locke was openly plagerized by Jefferson and our founders in the defining documents of our nation.

                      What ever label you choose to give it, Locke’s ideas are the quintisential american ideas.

                      Paine was absolutely the propagandist of the revolution – and quite a good one.
                      He unfortunately could not see the fundimental differences between the american revolution and the french.

                      You can have liberte or egalitare – but not both. And the latter always leads to blood. Even today, right now.

                      You can not have freedom if you aim for equality.

                  2. I am not going to defend every article in Reason – nor would I defend everything on Fox, or National review.

                    Every writers I like greatly, have written articles I greatly disagree with.

                    Beyond that I would specifically recomend Volohk on Reason. They are more federalist than libertarian – But that is close and Reason provided them a Forum when they became to controversial for WaPo.

                    Turley is an excellent legal blog – but Volohk is better.

                    Regardless, we are all fortunate enough to have both.

                    1. Thanks John. Intermittently I read Volohk and agree with you. There is a tremendous volume of written material every day so one has to be choose content. Like you I have seen good things produced at Reason but that magazine has too much litter. To get a more complete picture I even subscribe to the NYT headline news digitally. I can follow up with the article on the net if worthwhile. I like the Epoch News, WSJ and justthenews.com for a broader picture but focus on specific individuals and things of interest. If a rightwing writer posts erroneous news my viewership declines or disappears. (others that focus on specific issues include Frontpage.mag and Gatestone.) Then there are the more technical news type stories from other sources not commonly read. I also have some consolidated news from specific entities not openly available.

                      People assume Fox is all news. It isn’t but the commentators don’t pretend to be newscasters and openly state that what they write are opinions. For the few I occasionally see they seem to be very careful about the facts and seem to appologize and correct errant facts. Their opinions are their own and their opinions are very valid. Frequently some of them have been far ahead of the news so that one can go back in time and review their speculation finding it to be correct while if one did the same with the NYT front page news one would find it wrong.

                      Those that follow only the MSM are totally ignorant of what is going on in the world around them. The Turley blog is excellent until one gets to the comment section where misinformation thrives. I very much appreciate what you write even though we have significant disagreements. At least with you I know you are doing your best to provide the truth. We see this with other posters like DSS, Mespo, etc. all with different viewpoints. Some people point out BBC as an impartial news source. They can’t get further from the truth. I occasionally watch BBC and last night saw their clips of Barr and the hearings. They intentionally showed clips to show things other than the truth, but I have the hearings on tape and the complete snippets of what they showed and those snippets prove they aren’t honest broadcasters.

                    2. I am actually happy with the state of the media today.

                      There is a massive number of viewpoints available.

                      Each of us can get oppinions on any subject from the best and the brightest in the world – and usually multiple oppinions often from all sides.

                      20 years ago what was the chance I could read John B Taylor, or Robert Barro, or Lee Ohanian on economics – unless they wrote an op-ed in a major paper, Today I can go to their web site, and even email them directly if I want to engage further.

                      Nor is this limited to economics – it is true of everything.

                      I can find the best experts on both sides of any controversial issue.

                      Increasingly I really have no interest in the MSM, I watch or read very little Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wapo, …

                      once in a while there is a good article/story on the MSM but far more often the best (and the worst) is elsewhere.

                      I can got to Quillette or Tablet, or Medium, or I can go to Justthenews, or Turley, or Volohk, or Cato, or NRO, or Vox, or ….

                      Why would I want to know what some 20 something NYT maoist does to a news story when I can find out what someone with a brain says.

                      Or I can find out what is happening in Austin – from the austin news, or get the real facts from any local news source where the actual story is happening.

                      I know things are more volatile than 40 years ago. I know Walter Cronkite was more soothing than the choices today.
                      But then I got 3 versions of nearly the same spin. Today I can get all sides of the story.

                    3. “I am actually happy with the state of the media today.”

                      John, for you it seems to work. That is fine, but it is not functioning to provide adequate access to the population as a whole and has the abiity to control elections. It also hinders advancement of the nation because consensus is found in a small group that control the media.

                    4. yes i used to be an objectivist i said so

                      i dont worship jefferson nor locke nor their mechanistic and simplistic views of human society

                      i agree the equality and liberty are in tension

                      as to what allan said, good point. I guess i am just a jerk. i still like bastiat and I never much liked paine.
                      but i still think paine was a pamphleteer, a propagandist, to the core. something like a guy writing essays for enlistment offices for the Continental army

                      I think the Crown was not all that bad, compared to some of the tyrannies we have above us today
                      I might have been a Loyalist back in the day. probably, come to think of it.

                    5. I think the Crown was not all that bad, compared to some of the tyrannies we have above us today
                      I might have been a Loyalist back in the day. probably, come to think of it.

                      Kurtz,
                      You’re evolving at a pace exceeding that of Biden. By November 3rd, you’ll view Bernie as a right-wing extremist.

                    6. Only a few points of dissension.

                      Equality and liberty are not in tension. You can not have equality as a core value without destroying liberty.
                      You can have liberty as a principle and still have equality as a value.

                      Neither can be acheived but efforts to reach equality ultimately require destruction.

                    7. Whatever the problems of monarchy – democracy is far worse. Which is why our founders did NOT create a democracy.

                      Even JS Mill noted that no monarch could get away with meddling in the affairs of ordinary people to a tiny portion fo the extent that our neighbors can.

                  3. There is no “type” of libertarianism – just as conservativism is not monolithic.

                    A substantial portion of conservatives would be welcome as libertarians,
                    A substantial portion of libertarians also consider themselves conservative.

                    Libertarianism is the ideology that is the reflection of that Reagan quote.

                    Conservatism is not an ideology. It is the principle that whatever the flaws in what exists, we should be sure that we are making an improvement before we make changes.

                    Those are not inherently incompatible.

                    1. John, though it is impossible on this blog I sometimes talk politics to family members and friends on the left. A right wing proposal comes up that they are disparaging and I will take that subject and show them how it actually works towards their goals. I will also take what they want and show how closely aligned in thought we are until their ideology enters the picture.

                      One should put their desires ahead of their ideology because then a useful discussion can take place. Most of us want the same things but too many want only to win.

                    2. The loudest voices are not the most numerous.

                      There was a recent article by someone who does focus groups on the “Obama-Trump voter” – the people who moved to Trump and gave him the 2016 election.

                      One of the things I found interesting is that though these people have views that sound like Fox viewers – they do not watch Fox, the do not watch the MSM at all.

                    3. Fox draws on a particular cultural dispensation. The interaction between viewer and presenter refines it some. It’s not too different on the other side.

                      NB, the generators of culture have been leftist for a long time, though less uniformly so 50 years ago than today. My own contemporaries were much more resistant to agitprop than those now under 40 have proved to be, and more often than not voted Republican as youths. What’s interesting about the current cultural moment is that the disputes aren’t over anything esoteric. We used to have disputes driven by normative presuppositions or over phenomena the source of which was quite esoteric to the ordinary person. Now the disputes turn on one side asserting errant and obvious rubbish and the other side poleaxed than anyone to lie to themselves and others so blatantly. Old school liberals like Alan Dershowitz and Ann Althouse are rather bewildered right now.

                    4. John that goes back to St Augustine’s just war theory, that a war had to have both a just goal and a sufficient likelihood of success.
                      ‘implied in a sufficient likelihood of success, is the notion that the candle is worth the game

                      (other requirements: proportionality and discrimination between combatants and non combatants)

                      it would probably be more fair to call that notion Christian than conservative, but Christian is as plastic a term as anything.

                    5. When you are not off chasing conservative socialism or will to power nonsense you are remarkably smart.

                2. Reagan was wrong. It is not. But, I don’t care if it has a soul or not. Liberterians are deluded by the false glamor of individualism

                  We can see now in stark reality that organized force is the essence of government. That much Ayn Rand admitted.
                  And the lack of that force is a disaster for normal law abiding people. Because then anarchy!

                  Where she went wrong was her often repeated lie that conservatives should not organize their own force to protect themselves. That was exactly the wrong conclusion. At precisely the wrong time– for regular law abiding people.

                  Right now, liberterianism is sheer stupidity. the government power is needed and the boot of law should be applied to the backsides of the anarchists, criminals, and looters, early and often. Talking to them does not work, Self restraint is self defeating.

                  The socalled nonagression principle is not reason it is rationalism, it is sophistry, it is divorced from the facts of reality and social existence as anything ever popularized among right wingers. it is a toxic poison.

                  Waving books at a mob will do nothing. One man waving a gun does nothing either., It is a formation of disciplined men at arms which can quell a mob. That is all.

                  EIS ANER OUDEIS ANER

                  1. Mr. Kurtz,
                    A group of individuals can most certainly coalesce into a singular force by aligning under a common goal, a shared perspective.

                    Sometimes they need a voice to help unify them. Bug’s Life is a great example of all that was needed was a single truthful voice to effect change.

                    1. One voice achieves nothing. It is a bear crapping in the woods. Nobody hears it, smells it, it might as well not have happened.

                      The lone voice must be heard to make a difference. Here it is obvious even from your example that all socially successful action is necessarily concerted group effort.

                      American culture has an extreme degree of individualism which is derived from the religious thinking of Protestantism.

                      Protestantism made a break with previous forms of religion not just the catholic church

                      Religions always had clerics and scholars guiding interpretation. Even Islam has them.

                      It’s only in Protestantism that one man becomes Pope, because, he can read the bible any ways he likes whether it is outside tradition and dogma, or not.

                      This actually undermines Protestantism as a viable religion deeply., We see not just one or two schisms but two thousand.

                      because everybody who deliberately starts a new sect is afflicted by a form of individaulism that has risen to a level of heresy., That is why I chose the word heresy,.

                      Not because I am evangelizing for the corrupt and incompetent Roman Catholic Church of today, I am not.

                      But because i want to suggest that perhaps some ideas are clearly erroneous and should be eschewed by groups of people who want to remain viable groups.

                      Individualism is a toxin to all such groups. Not respect for the individual, not individual rights per se, but the idolization of individualism, that is the error.

                    2. It’s only in Protestantism that one man becomes Pope, because, he can read the bible any ways he likes whether it is outside tradition and dogma, or not.

                      Do you have a problem with an individual’s natural right of conscience?

                    3. Is there more to a good life than the individual – absolutely.

                      But the foundation is still the individual

                      Two people speaking together have a louder voice than 1. 100,00 people speaking together are usually more likely to get attention.

                      But each voice in the group remains individual.
                      Each can come and go from the group as the please.

                      Groups do not have rights – the individuals making up the group do.

                      Groups, community are a choice that humans make, and one that the change freely.

                      They are a value, one that improves life.
                      They are not a principle, they are not fundimental.

                      You are making a catagory error.

                      No one is challenging the value of community.

        2. He not only aimed it., he fired it, and he fired first.

          I watched the video clip and heard the gunshots. The difference between his weapon an ak and the other guy’s which was a handgun I believe, are obvious if you know how they sound.

          I have shot thousands of rounds out of aks and I know the sound. The dead guy was the aggressor and he shot first.

          1. When I made the original post, the information available said that Foster pointed his AK at the car, and that there may have been other shots fired, and then the person in the car shot foster.

            That appears to be inaccurate. It appears now – as you say that Foster fired, and was killed by return fire.

            By even the earliest inaccurate reporting the shooting was justified.

  4. All roads lead to Obama.
    ____________________

    “Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to

    proceed against him.”

    “Mr. Obama himself directed that ‘the right people’ investigate General Flynn.”

    – Sidney Powell, P.C.
    ________________

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
    —————————————————-

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
    _________________________________

    The American Founders had tremendous foresight.

    Barack Obama is the reason the American Founders required the President to be a “natural born citizen” in 1789.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

    1. barry is a “natural born” citizen. One of his parents was a citizen; this covers it according to the version of the law when he was born. It doesn’t matter WHERE in the world he was born.

      1. Please review the facts above.

        “Continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…” was the Law of Nations, a legal text and reference of the era, which required that the presidential candidate have “parents” who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate and a “father” who was a citizen. The Jay/Washington letter presents proof of their advocacy of the use of the phrase “natural born citizen,” the origin of which is the Law of Nations, and their advocacy of the need to avoid foreign allegiances by the Commander-In-Chief. Additionally, as precedent and past practices, the two-citizen-parent requirement, the father-as-citizen requirement and the comprehensive and definitive avoidance of foreign allegiances by the Commander-In-Chief were adhered to by all actual Presidents before the “Swamp” ensconced “King Obama, The Imposter.”

        Your rejection of the demonstrably best evidence and fanciful prevarication aside, Obama will NEVER be eligible for the presidency.

  5. From 2013: Russian Gambling Ring Busted At Trump Tower One Floor Below Trump’s Penthouse

    It’s a case teeming with colorful characters: a reputed Russian mob boss once accused in an Olympic scandal, a wealthy art world impresario who hung out with Leonardo DiCaprio and a woman named Molly Bloom who gained a celebrity following by hosting them at high-stakes poker games.

    U.S. authorities allege all had roles in a sprawling scheme by two related Russian-American organized crime enterprises. Prosecutors say in recent years the operations laundered at least $100 million in illegal gambling proceeds through hundreds of bank accounts and shell companies in Cyprus and the United States.

    The sprawling case against more than 30 defendants, announced this week by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, illustrates the insatiable appetite for sports betting around the globe — and the enormous potential for illicit profits. The steep rise in wealth among the upper class in the former Soviet Union has driven that potential to new heights, said Mark Galeotti, a Russian organized crime expert at New York University.

    “We’re seeing higher-rolling businessmen involved in these types of cases,” Galeotti said. The high rollers’ bookies are left with the problem “of trying to figure out what to do with suitcases full of cash, and that leads to the money laundering,” he added.

    The tentacles of the scheme reached into Trump Tower, the high rise on Fifth Avenue where prosecutors say a U.S. ringleader was living in an apartment one floor below Donald Trump’s own place. There, he oversaw a network of Internet sites that formed “the world’s largest sports book” that catered “almost exclusively to oligarchs living in the Ukraine and the Russian Federation,” prosecutors said.

    On one of the thousands of conversations intercepted on the defendants’ cellphones, the leader could be heard warning a customer who owed money that “he should be careful, lest he be tortured or found underground,” a prosecutor said.

    The ring paid Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov — already under indictment in a separate U.S. case accusing him of bribing Olympic figure skating judges at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City — $20 million in gambling proceeds in a two-month period alone, court papers said. In another transaction in late 2010, the same man wired $3 million from a Cyprus bank account to another account in the United States, the papers said.

    The new indictment naming Tokhtakhounov called him a “vor” — a term roughly translated to “thief-in-law” and comparable to a Mafia godfather. His role, the papers say, was to use his “substantial influence in the criminal underworld to resolve disputes among criminals.”

    Edited From: “Prosecutors Deal Russian Gambling Ring A Losing Hand”

    USA Today, 4/20/13

    1. that’s good news they broke up a “russian mafia” illegal game.
      seems like nothing to do with trump, he’s a hotelier and a developer, people do bad things and nobody blames the other landlords.,

      but this is “guilt by association

        1. What you think Trump was taking the elevator down to Visit DeCaprio ?

          2013 – this wasn’t Molly Bloom was it ?

        2. “John, the criminals were one floor down from Trump’s penthouse.”

          Further proof that Seth is in high school.

          Whether they were 1 floor down, or 10 floors down, doesn’t matter, Seth.

          In other news, Leo needs to reevaluate his associations. Even Jordan Belfort knew better than to socialize with Russian mobsters.

      1. The most common last meal eaten by bank robbers before robbing a bank is fast food, ie fast food consumption causes persons to rob banks. I thought everyone knew that.

    2. You’re kidding. Criminals used a hotel?! I’ll bet they also used Vegas casinos, car services, cleaning services, window washers, and ate at restaurants, too!

  6. Wilful blindness in the media continued for a long while on a COVID-19 treatment that could save lives. It is surprising that Newsweek, usually rubbish, published this article by a professor of epidemiology at Yale :

    https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

    The media has deaths on its hands for making a safe and effective treatment a political pariah.

    Several commenters here battled against it as well with no more reason than the propagandists on MSNBC and CNN.

    1. Young:

      I am acquainted with someone who told me his best friend has Covid-19. He’s only in his 20s, fit and healthy, but he’s just getting worse. His doctor won’t prescribe hydroxychloroquine. The politically fueled negative PR campaign has interfered with the normal investigative process of determining a treatment for a disease.

      That study citing hydroxychloroquine as deadly was retracted, and the authors did not even have a medical background. Yet their propaganda has interfered with treatment.

      https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/authors-retract-study-saying-hydroxychloroquine-could-be-harmful/

      1. Karen- That’s a shame. Somebody should get it for him. A lot of information now supports use of the drug. If I get the virus I am taking it right from the outset.

  7. 1,300 Trump Condominiums Sold To Shell Companies

    More than one-fifth of Donald Trump’s US condominiums have been purchased since the 1980s in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities, a BuzzFeed News investigation has found.

    Records show that more than 1,300 Trump condominiums were bought not by people but by shell companies, and that the purchases were made without a mortgage, avoiding inquiries from lenders.

    Those two characteristics signal that a buyer may be laundering money, the Treasury Department has said in a series of statements since 2016. Treasury’s financial-crimes unit has, in recent years, launched investigations around the country into all-cash shell-company real-estate purchases amid concerns that some such sales may involve money laundering. The agency is considering requiring real-estate professionals to adopt anti-money-laundering programs.

    All-cash purchases by shell companies do not by themselves indicate illegal or improper activity, and they have become more common in recent years in both Trump buildings and other luxury home sales across the United States. Developers such as Trump have no obligation to scrutinize their purchasers or their funding sources.

    But federal investigations “continue to reveal corrupt politicians, drug traffickers and other criminals using shell companies to purchase luxury real estate with cash,” Treasury’s former financial-crimes chief Jennifer Shasky Calvery said at a Capitol Hill hearing in 2016.

    Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) broadcast that concern in an August 2017 advisory to the real-estate industry warning that all-cash real-estate purchases by shell companies are “an attractive avenue for criminals to launder illegal proceeds while masking their identities.”

    Neither the White House nor the Trump Organization responded to repeated requests for comment. A former longtime Trump Organization official who asked not to be named said that all-cash shell-company purchases are common among rich buyers, particularly foreigners trying to put their money in safe investments.

    Edited from: “Secret Money: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers”

    Buzzfeed, 1/12/18

    1. So what? there is no yardstick to measure if that is any different than any other vendor of real estate

      no context, just more thin innuendo., man this is weak soup today, come on, you can do better

    2. It is called free exchange.

      There is no requirement that a purchase be on credit.

      The world is not entitled to know about the free exchanges of others.

      SCOTUS claims that a womans right to birth control is barred from state interference by a “right to privacy”.

      You constantly seem to beleive you are entitled to stick your nose into the affairs of others.
      Your not.

  8. Trump Gladly Sold Condos To Russians Long Before Steele Dossier

    After Trump World Tower opened in 2001, Trump began looking for buyers in Russia through Sotheby’s International Realty, which teamed up with a Russian real estate outfit. “I had contacts in Moscow looking to invest in the United States,” real estate broker Dolly Lenz told USA Today. “They all wanted to meet Donald.” In the end, she said, she sold 65 units to Russians in Trump World Tower alone.

    The condo sales were just a part of it. In 2002, after Trump had racked up $4 billion in debt from his disastrous ventures in Atlantic City, the Russians again came to his rescue, by way of the Bayrock Group. At a time when Trump found it almost impossible to get loans from Western banks, Bayrock offered him enormous fees — 18 to 25 percent of the profits — simply to use his name on its developments.

    So how did all this go unchallenged? According to Jonathan Winer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration, one answer may be lax regulations. “If you are doing a transaction with no mortgage, there is no financial institution that needs to know where the money came from, particularly if it’s a wire transfer from overseas,” Winer told me in an interview for my book. “The customer obligations that are imposed on all kinds of financial institutions are not imposed on people selling real estate. They should have been, but they weren’t.”

    And without such regulations, prosecutors’ hands are tied.

    All of which made it easier for the Russian Mafia to expand throughout the United States. As it did so, it grew closer to Trump. Even though Mogilevich had no known direct contacts with Trump, several of his associates did. Among them was Bogatin, who took part in a massive gasoline tax scam, and whose brother, Jacob (Yacov) Bogatin, was indicted with Mogilevich in 2003 on 45 felony counts of stock fraud. (Because there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, they were never brought to trial in the United States.)

    Edited From: “Trump’s Businesses Are Full of Dirty Russian Money. The Scandal Is It’s Legal

    The Washington Post, 3/29/19

    1. In 2002, after Trump had racked up $4 billion in debt from his disastrous ventures in Atlantic City,

      I gather your editorial writer has a problem with decimal points.

      1. ABSURD: Fortune Magazine also references $4 billion. The article requires a subscription, but here’s the Google heading:

        Trump Bankers Question His Portrayal of Financial Comeback …fortune.com › 2016/07/17 › trump-financial-comeback…
        Jul 17, 2016 – At the beginning of 1990 he owed a combined $4 billion to more than 70 … He also owned three casinos in Atlantic City, having made a financial … to renegotiate terms with the banks, I might have lost everything,” he wrote.

        1. So you have complained that Trump is not self made.

          If he lost everything and came back – that is self made.

    2. Trump Gladly Sold Condos To Russians Long Before Steele Dossier, Part II

      Another Mogilevich associate in Trump’s orbit was the late Vyacheslav Ivankov, a ruthless extortionist who became renowned as one of the most brutal killers in the annals of Russian crime. Mogilevich had sent him to New York in 1992 with a mandate to consolidate the Russian Mafia in the United States and to form alliances with the Cosa Nostra and other Mafias. Once he arrived, Ivankov became a regular at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, and was widely thought to be based in the Brighton Beach area of Brooklyn, where many Russian mobsters lived. But when the FBI came looking for him, it discovered that the head of the Russian Mafia in New York owned a luxury condo in the glitziest part of Manhattan — at 721 Fifth Avenue, in fact — Trump Tower. There is no evidence of personal interaction between Trump and Ivankov.

      Yet another Mogilevich associate with ties to Trump was Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, better known as Taiwanchik, whose relationship with Mogilevich dates back more than three decades. Indicted in 2002 for bribing Olympic figure skating judges, Tokhtakhounov was awarded the No. 5 position on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, two slots behind Mogilevich. In April 2013, two gambling rings that he allegedly ran were busted by the FBI on the 63rd floor of Trump Tower, resulting in the indictments of 34 members and associates of Russian organized crime. Among them was Tokhtakhounov, who fled the country to avoid prosecution, and appeared later that year at Trump’s 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.

      Edited from: “Trump’s Businesses Are Full Of Dirty Russian Money. The Scandal Is It’s Legal”

      The Washington Post, 3/29/19

      1. Another Mogilevich associate in Trump’s orbit was the late Vyacheslav Ivankov, a ruthless extortionist who became renowned as one of the most brutal killers in the annals of Russian crime…There is no evidence of personal interaction between Trump and Ivankov.

        You buried the lede.

      2. Wow, you have managed to not that Trump’s businesses sold Condo’s to lots of russian sounding scary names.

        So ?

      3. I should have pointed out yesterday, it is expllcity illegal to refuse to sell to “Russians” based on their national origin.

        That is forbidden by the “Fair Housing Act” which anybody in real estate knows is a factor.

        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-343/pdf/COMPS-343.pdf

        it doesnt just apply to blacks. national origin applies and protects RUSSIANS

        and yet the Wapo would have us ignore that utterly significant legal fact which undermines the entire premise of this false and defamatory BS story against Trump

      1. Young, the article states that Trump sold condos to ‘unnamed shell companies’ . Don’t misrepresent the main point of those articles.

        1. I sell to buyers who have the money. Those are the only two words that count: ‘buyer’ and ‘money’. So you will find if you sell real estate. I don’t know how ‘unnamed’ a buyer can be. Somebody has to be on the recorded title. Like with your issue on treating Covid, you have latched onto something that you think can hurt Trump. For nearly three years he was investigated by a team of hostile lawyers with the power of the DOJ in their hands and they came up dry. You think Buzzfeed or CNN or the like are going to do better? Didn’t that Lemon person think the Malaysian flight disappeared in a black hole? Didn’t one of them wonder if storms on Mars were caused by global warming on Earth. Didn’t Fredo say he was quarantined in his basement while he was at his property yelling [unmasked] at an elderly cyclist who was surprised to see him running about? You would get better information from the Oracle of Delphi. Take a Ouija board; she’s dead.

          1. Young, they ‘came up dry’ only because Trump was able to keep certain witnesses from testifying.

            1. Like Cohen ? Gates ?

              Yes, all these people who mostly did not know Trump before 2015 conspired with Trump to pull off the greatest act of spycraft ever and as Mueller strong armed each of them, the refused to crack despite getting their lives ruined – because Trump might pardon them ?

              Or was he threatening to send Guiliani to off them ?

            2. Miss Warner, Talk to your Gynegologist about getting a hysterectomy. You might as well pull out your ovaries; it’s not like you are married or have any children. Your estogen levels are astronically high. That or pehaps a lobotomy.

              1. SEE ABOVE:

                This is another one of those gay Trumpers who keep harassing commenters on this site. For some reason this is a proble Turley can’t control.

          2. Young, don’t be too hard on Seth. It must not have occured to him that he was advocating invidious national origin discrimination against Russians in a real estate transaction, which is of course forbidden by the Fair Housing Act. Perhaps Seth did not mean what he appeared to have been suggesting. Illegal discrimination, that is.

            https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-343/pdf/COMPS-343.pdf

            Sometimes our Democrat friends forget that the “Civil rights laws” do not just protect black folks from discrimination. National origin discrimination is right up there, too.

        2. lol there is no requirement for real estate sales other than those that title companies and law firms customarily attend to.

          companies can buy and sell real estate under the same legal regime and procedures as individuals in the US and that includes foreigners

          now this article is devoid of content related to KYC compliance procedures and why bother, neither the Wapoo, NYT, nor Seth really cares about details which could supply a meaningful context

        3. I do not care who he sold them too.

          It is legal to sell milk to drug dealers.

          Free exchange is not a crime.

          Further we should get rid of drug laws and laws on prostitution.

          1. If we legalized drugs we’d save the lives of over a thousand LEOs. Spend the money on treatment and education.

      2. …and he probably even sold condos to chinese, saudis, frogs, brits and greeks! And probably some ukrainians!!

      3. Criminally shocking. We need regulations.

        No selling real estate.

        Ir channeling AOC

        No making money.

    3. Yes, Russians – not Russia.

      Igor is a Russian.

      “So how did all this go unchallenged?”
      Because free exchange is legal.

      “Then the herd came down Columbus, for as far as I could see
      All the men were wearing Polo, and the women wore Esprit
      Each yuppie had a walk-man and as each one passed me by
      I saw their sad expressions and I heard their mournful cry

      Condos for sale, condos to buy, yuppies in the sky”

    4. Seth, if you are worried about Russia, stop worrying about rich Russians buying condos for tens of millions of dollars. They do so to put some of their money away in a safe place, the US. That way they preserve some of their money if the government takes their money away. NYC gains tremendous amounts of money from these people (and the Chinese). It has helped cause a building boom there and elsewhere. Huge buildings have been built in NYC and starting price for the garbage price high quality apartments are $2-3million plus. The Russians buy the expensive ones. A thousand of those expensive ones can amount to $1 Billion to 5 Billion or more. It’s a good way to enrich the USA and its citizens.

      If you want to worry read the following….

        1. John, you do this stuff for a living. After we take off the cost of all the finishings, plumbing, electrical etc., how much is the remaining concrete costing per pound? 🙂

          1. Last I checked the cost of Concrete was about 200/yard but that is fresh delivered you still have to build forms, pour it and finish it, nor does it include rebar.

      1. Same people regularly “worry” about real estate costs in SF. From Vancouver to San Diego, rich Chinese are buying up properties.

        1. God forbid the value of property should rise.

          Si your racist for brown people,
          but against yellow ones ?

          Ir is it that you favor increased poverty and lower housing values, rather that increased abundance and rising values ?

            1. You have made no argument.

              There is an interesting recent youtube comedy short that compares two twins – one is woke the other racist.

              Turns out – racists and the woke share the same values and principles.

              Your ideology is self contradictory.

              You are no different from those you condemn.

              1. There is a darkhorse podcast on youtube with the Weinsteins. Where Eric notes that humans connect in two ways – the first is genetic and ancient, while social connections date back only to the invention of farming.

                The left is actively trying to destroy all social connections and actively emphasizing immutable genetic characteristics like sex, race, sexual oreintation.

                Bonds not resting in immutable attributes are fragile. Destroy them and what you will have is racism, sexism, ….

                  1. Weinstein expects that the left will ultimately unleash atleast temporarily a return to overt racism and racial violence.

                    And that the destruction of social bonding by the left, will result in the right adopting racism and violence,

                    I do not know that I aggree, but I can not rule that out.

                    Though I mostly think not. What are their 5 KKK members left in the Country ?

                    We had peaceful protests by men with guns against the lockdowns at Statehalls.

                    We have had an excessive amount of violence for much more than a month. But so far it is all blue on Blue – with the occasional blue on red.

                    We were told to worry that white supremecists would infiltrate the BLM protests and foment violence.

                    Has anyone yet arrested someone in connection to these riots who was from the right ?

                    The right is remaining incredibly peaceful at the moment.

                    There has been little in the way of counter protests.

                    I think weinstein is right this is going to hell.

                    But I am not expecting a backlash of white racism.

                    The backlash will be Trump’s re-election.

        2. it is true chinese are big west coast buyers. but they shop, they don’t just vacuum up everything. i dont understand book’s comment

          1. I do not understand how you can all those who have questions about central and south american immigration racist and then rant about the Chinese or Russians.

            But the left is what it accuses others of.

          2. Kurtz, several posters here – Allan and Karen (and Trump) come to mind – like to try and define SF and California as horrible places because, you know, liberals and Pelosi. I don’t get it myself, as no one on the left I know of – and I certainly don’t – spend their time denouncing Omaha and Sarasota. One of the regular complaints about SF by them is real estate is too expensive. True enough and for a variety of reasons, and among them, Chinese and Silicone Valley buyers. Vancouver has been especially transformed by the former in the last decade. Now we have Allan defending Russians buying NYC real estate and supposedly raising property values as a good thing when NYC has it’s own problems regarding affordability. 2+2=4 except when it doesn’t for Allan.

            1. “Kurtz, several posters here – Allan and Karen (and Trump) come to mind – like to try and define SF and California as horrible places because, you know, liberals and Pelosi. ”

              Non sequitur.

              Was there an imediately preceding discussion of the horrible state of CA blamed on democrats ?

              All I recall was your claim that the Chinese were damaging SF home owners.

              “I don’t get it myself, as no one on the left I know of – and I certainly don’t – spend their time denouncing Omaha and Sarasota.”
              non sequitur.

              There is no requirement to denounce heaven, because someone else denounced hell or purgatory.
              You play this nonsense all the time.

              “One of the regular complaints about SF by them is real estate is too expensive. True enough and for a variety of reasons, and among them, Chinese and Silicone Valley buyers.”
              And back to the racism again.

              “Vancouver has been especially transformed by the former in the last decade.”
              Doubling down on the racism

              “Now we have Allan defending Russians buying NYC real estate and supposedly raising property values as a good thing when NYC has it’s own problems regarding affordability. 2+2=4 except when it doesn’t for Allan.”

              You are clueless about economics.

              My Nom de plume is “John B Say” – go look up JBSay and “Says law”. Otherwise known as the law of supply and demand.

              The primary driver of rising housing prices in most any city is government limits on the supply of housing.
              Out on the web you can find several lists of 10 things all economists agree on.
              This is one of those.

              An actually free market will meet the demands of buyers – rich and poor.
              But if you restrict supply – prices will rise and the harm will be greatest at the bottom.
              If you restrict prices – supply will self limit and the harm will be greatest at the bottom.

              1. “Out on the web you can find several lists of 10 things all economists agree on.
                This is one of those.”

                Well, that settles everything.

                1. book you may know the old joke about jewish folks. two jews, three opinions.

                  economists are much the same.

                  I hope people find that amusing and not offensive.

                  1. And yet the basic of economics – most of Adam Smith as well as Bastiat, Ricardo, Say, … are all pretty much universally accepted

                2. You are free to make heterodox claims. No one is stopping you.

                  But pretending they are normal, makes you look foolish.

                  But again those on the left do this all the time.

            2. Btb can’t even summarize what I have said accurately. I guess he needs some left winger to predigest the information and spit it out for him as a talking point.

              ” define SF and California as horrible places ”

              Actually SF is a wonderful place and used to be a favorite of mine. However the left has created distateful things about SF so I find other places far more attractive.

              “complaints about SF by them is real estate is too expensive. ”

              When have I complained SF is too expensive? It’s not too expensive for me. I listen to Pelosi’s left wing promises and ideas but they don’t seem to fit in where she lives.

              “Now we have Allan defending Russians buying NYC real estate and supposedly raising property values as a good thing when NYC has it’s own problems regarding affordability. 2+2=4 except when it doesn’t for Allan.”

              You make absolutely no sense. When a Russian pays $10 to $50 million for an apartment that has above and below other similar apartments that take up relatively little space isn’t a bad transaction for the US which has gained that much wealth. That doesn’t take away from our economy it adds. It provides a lot of tax revenue for the city which benefits all others. It was precisely because of your ideology that NYC almost went bankrupt, apartment prices skyrocketed and there was a shortage of apartments that caused the upward spiral. Your guys started fixing prices so development in NYC almost completely stopped. How does one best utilize a building where rents are controlled and therefore unevenly priced in a high rise building? Simple. Convert the building to Condo’s or Co-ops. That means less affordable housing for the middle class and spiraling prices.

            3. ok book i didn’t understand your comment, nor does it seem john understood it, but i am not sure you understood allan’s either

              i generally have no problem with foreigners buying US real estate. we got a lot of problems and that doesnt seem like one.

              the Chinese buyers of land are big in CA but a lot in NYC too. and even out here in flyover. personally, I welcome their business and friendship.
              I freely admit I am partial to Chinese people as a group, and I know a lot of them.
              I only know a few Russians and they seem swell to me too.

              All these people I associate with, are lawful visitors or residents, far as I know, and make a good contribution to communities where they live.

              Now, the rumor is that a lot of that money coming onshore from the PRC is perhaps due to CCP corrution, proceeds being siphoned out of the country.
              This may be true. There are not that many CCP members per capita, but extended families have a lot of connections and it’s possible.
              But how do we know? Somebody has money in a bank and under the current RESPA regulations, all real estate transactions now have to close with wired funds.
              So the banks are the main line of defense against socalled “dirty money” not the rest of us.

              Nobody has an obligation to act on speculation. Though, banks are allowed to, when filing certain red flag forms. The rest of us are actually prohibited from acting on mere speculation– that would be forbidden national origin discrimination under the Fair Housing act. That applies to Russian buyers, too!

              So: if a foreigner is not on the US Treasury s hit list, of prohibited individuals or groups, and there is no proven fact which triggers the other KYC areas of concern, we are free to do business with them, and we will, gladly. I would expect Trump has followed the same notion, as nearly all successful real estate people do. And as I said, Trump’s organization or his vendors could not refuse to deal with Russians based on the fact they were Russians, That is explicitly illegal under the Fair Housing act.

              Liberals should know that, since they are the ones pushing more aggressive enforcement of FHA all the time, and they claim that Trump has somehow violated it where black folks are concerned. And then in the next breath they put out this innuendo and slander anyways, suggesting Trump should have forbid sales to Russians, when that would be patently illegal

              This is why i call it “Fake News”

              1. I ventured no opinion one way or the other regarding the fact of rich Chinese and rich Russians buying property in the US (and Canada) and it’s affect on property values. Obviously others here will use the same facts to different ends depending on their needs.

                1. I noticed that you did not advance an opinion and just stated that it’s happening that they buy and elevate prices with their demand. I agree that the phenomenon exists.

                  There is a lot of grandstanding here and people do not read things carefully. One thing I like about book, is he expresses his opinions with greater clarity and succinctness than some others with whom I may often disagree.

                2. “I ventured no opinion one way or the other regarding the fact of rich Chinese and rich Russians buying property in the US (and Canada) and it’s affect on property values.”

                  Your remarks are no different that the factual observations that myriads of others make that result in being labeled a racist by you all the time.

                  By the standards that you impose on others your remarks are racist.

                  Charles Murray, is a racist for noting that there is a statistically significant difference in IQ by race.

                  Trump is racist for noting that some of the illegal border crossers are rapists, drug dealers and murderers.

                  Amy Cooper is a racist because when she called 911 to report being threatened in the part her description of the person who threatened her noted his race.

                  If those are racist – then noting the race of the person buying a property is also racist.

                  Math is not racist,

                  Grammar is not racist.

                  But you – by the standards you use for others are racist.

                  One of the problems with redefining language to accomplish political objectives – is that the new definitions apply to you too.

              2. Kurtz,

                Of course BTB’s racism was not intentional. He can’t help it. He is a member of an oppressor class.

                I understood his comment perfectly well. and took it excatly the way any leftist would if a conservative had said it.

    5. Seth appears to advocate that Trump should not have sold condos to Russians. Because why? They were Russians?

      This is explicitly illegal as national origin discrimination under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Pro tip: it doesnt just protect blacks!

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-343/pdf/COMPS-343.pdf

      Perhaps Seth will stop by later. If I misunderstood that he was advocating illegal discrimination against foreigners in real estate transactions, he can clear that up for us, and say upon what actual facts known to the Trump organization, they were supposed to not be selling condos to Russians.

      However, I suspect he will ignore this, because Russians are one of those ethnicities that Democrats love to hate. See, they don’t call it that, but that’s what it is. Hate. Irrational blind hatred of Russians which defames an entire people. A great people whose contributions to humanity are many. And who have a right to live, and moreover, to buy real estate in America if they can.

  9. All roads lead to Obama.
    ____________________

    “Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to

    proceed against him.”

    “Mr. Obama himself directed that ‘the right people’ investigate General Flynn.”

    – Sidney Powell, P.C.
    ________________

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
    —————————————————-

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
    _________________________________

    The American Founders had tremendous foresight.

    Barack Obama is the reason the American Founders required the President to be a “natural born citizen” in 1789.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

    Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of Barack Obama’s birth.

    – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

  10. BEFORE WE HEARD OF STEELE DOSSIER..

    DONALD TRUMP HAD LONG RECORD OF RUSSIA – FRIENDLY STATEMENTS

    Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow – if so, will he become my new best friend?
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2013

    Oct 17, 2013: On the Late Show with David Letterman, Trump says he has done “a lot of business with the Russians” and says he met Putin once. [YouTube]

    November 9, 2013: In an interview with MSNBC in Moscow, Trump is asked whether he has a relationship with Putin. Trump states, “I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today.” [MSNBC]

    I just got back from Russia-learned lots & lots. Moscow is a very interesting and amazing place! U.S. MUST BE VERY SMART AND VERY STRATEGIC.
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2013

    November 11, 2013: On “Fox & Friends,” Trump says of his time with the Miss Universe pageant: “I was in Moscow and I was in Russia and they treated me so fantastically . . . . I met so many incredible people.” [Fox News (video)]

    March 6, 2014: At the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, Trump describes his time in Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant and states: “Putin even sent me a present, beautiful present, with a beautiful note, I spoke to all of his people.” [C-SPAN]

    March 13, 2014: Trump says on NBC’s “Today” show that the US should “definitely do sanctions” against Russia for sending troops into Crimea. [NBC (video)]

    March 21, 2014: Trump issues a series of Putin-related tweets:

    President Obama, be cool, be smart, be sharp and FOCUS (no more March Madness), and you can beat Putin at his own game. IT CAN BE DONE!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2014​

    Putin has become a big hero in Russia with an all time high popularity. Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his lowest ever numbers. SAD
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2014

    I believe Putin will continue to re-build the Russian Empire. He has zero respect for Obama or the U.S.!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2014

    Putin has become a big hero in Russia with an all time high popularity. Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his lowest ever numbers. SAD
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2014

    I believe Putin will continue to re-build the Russian Empire. He has zero respect for Obama or the U.S.!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2014

    March 24, 2014: Trump states on “Fox & Friends” that “Russia’s our biggest problem, and Russia is, you know, really something.” [CNN, January 17, 2017; YouTube (video)]

    June 16, 2015: Trump announces his presidential candidacy. [Time (speech transcript)]

    October 17, 2015: On the “Savage Nation” radio show, Trump says he met Putin. “Yes, a long time ago. We got along great, by the way.” [CNN]

    November 10, 2015: In the Fox Business GOP debate, Trump explains why he understands Putin: “I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates,” he said. “We did well that night.” [Time, November 11, 2015]

    November 17, 2015: In an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show, Trump states: “Now all of a sudden, Putin’s going wild with bombing ISIS, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Who needs to take the credit? Let him have some credit.” [Fox News, November 18, 2015]

    December 17, 2015: After Putin describes Trump as a “talented person” and “the absolute leader” in the presidential race, Trump responds: “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.” [Reuters]

    December 18, 2015: On “Morning Joe,” in response to host Joe Scarborough’s observation that Putin “kills journalists that don’t agree with him,” Trump states: “Well I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe.” When asked to clarify whether he condemned Putin’s killings, Trump stated he “absolutely” does. [Politico (video)]

    March 27, 2016: In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Trump calls NATO “obsolete” and “extremely expensive to the United States, disproportionately so. And we should readjust NATO.” [ABC (transcript & video)]

    April 27, 2016: In a foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel, on the invitation of the Center for National Interest, Trump states that “this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon” between the United States and Russia. Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, attends and greets Trump at the reception preceding the address. [Time (transcript); [Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2016]

    June 9, 2016: Trump tweets about Hillary Clinton’s “deleted” emails:​

    How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up–and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted? https://t.co/gECLNtQizQ
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

    July 22, 2016: Three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks releases almost 20,000 emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee. [Washington Post] A WikiLeaks page invites visitors to “Search the DNC email database.”

    The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2016

    For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2016

    Two days after the start of the Democrat National Convention, Trump states at a press conference in Florida, regarding candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” [ABC (video)]​ ​ July 27, 2016

    ​Funny how the failing @nytimes is pushing Dems narrative that Russia is working for me because Putin said “Trump is a genius.” America 1st!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016

    July 31, 2016: When asked by ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos about Putin, Trump states: “I’ve never met him. I have no relationship with Putin. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. I never met him . . . . I mean if he’s in the same room or something. But I don’t think so.” Trump also states that “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” [ABC (transcript)]

    September 7, 2016: At NBC’s commander-in-chief forum, Trump states that Putin has “been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.” [CNBC]

    October 5, 2016: At a campaign rally in Henderson, Nevada, Trump states: “I will say if we get along with Russia and Russia went out with us and knocked the hell out of ISIS, that’s okay with me, folks.” [Reuters, October 6, 2016]

    Edited from: “Donald Trump’s Statements on Putin/Russia/Fake News Media

    Lawfare – Running Feature

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      Trump Defenders pretend that Christopher Steele fabricated his dossier out of thin air. But the truth is that Donald Trump had a long, long history of Russia – Friendly statements long before he was the Republican nominee.

      Notice how in 2013, Trump was saying that he “met Putin once”. But later, in 2016, Trump tells George Stephanopoulos that he “never met Putin” in a highly twisted statement.

      1. Pretend ? Igor confirmed it.

        Trumps public statements do not constitute a basis for investigation.

    2. Thanks Seth for cheering me up. Thank God for Donald Trump’s positive talk that helps defuse the tensions of nuclear war!

      hear the beautiful Russian national anthem– Russia US friendship forever!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOAtz8xWM0w

      Pripev:
      Slav’sya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
      Bratskikh narodov soyuz vekovoy,
      Predkami dannaya mudrost’ narodnaya!
      Slav’sya, strana! My gordimsya toboy!

      Be glorious, our free Fatherland,
      Age-old union of fraternal peoples,
      Popular wisdom given by our forebears!
      Be glorious, our country! We are proud of you!

      ——————————–

      Two mighty nations, pray for peace!

    3. October 5, 2016: At a campaign rally in Henderson, Nevada, Trump states:

      “I will say if we get along with Russia and Russia went out with us and knocked the hell out of ISIS, that’s okay with me, folks.” [Reuters, October 6, 2016]

      HEAR HEAR! amen!

        1. Seth. Speaking of the CIA backed color revolution enacted under Obama in Syria.

          Why did Obama allow Putin/Russia to enter the war theater unencumbered and make Obama look like a neophyte community organizer playing geopolitical checkers against a geopolitical chess master?

          Also, what happened to Barry’s “red line”?

          Look forward to YOUR answers. Not your usual plagiarism.

  11. Lesson here: carry your weapon to defend yourself.
    BLM are thugs, criminals and disregard the rule of law.
    If Democrats won’t heel them, then Americans will

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/austin-police-release-man-who-says-he-shot-black-lives-matter-protester-in-self-defense

    Police release man who shot AK-47-wielding BLM protester

    July 27, 2020 01:17 PM

    The man who shot a Black Lives Matter protester in Austin, Texas, over the weekend was released from jail after claiming he fired his weapon in self-defense, according to police.

    Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said the department released the unnamed man from jail without charges because he believes he acted in self-defense after a protester, Garrett Foster, allegedly pointed an AK-47-style rifle at the man while he was in his vehicle. Police said the incident is still under investigation.

    Foster, a 28-year-old man, was at the protest in Austin alongside his fiancee, a quadruple amputee, when he was shot multiple times. The man who shot Foster drove away from the protest but called 911 as he was leaving the area. Manley said the man told police he “shot someone who had approached the driver’s window of their vehicle and pointed a rifle at them.” Foster died from his injuries.

    Manley urged the public to share any footage of the shooting with investigators. Manley said that some of the footage that has already been turned over to authorities appeared to show Foster pointing his weapon inside the vehicle

    “During the initial investigation of this incident, it appears that Mr. Foster may have pointed his weapon at the driver of this vehicle prior to being shot,” Manley said. “Mr. Foster — who was holding an AK-47-type assault rifle — approached the driver’s side window as others in the crowd began striking the vehicle.”

    A man shot and killed a protester in Austin after driving into a crowd. The suspect was taken into custody but later released.

  12. Under the you can’t make this stuff up category, the NYT published a story condemning the outing of Danchenko as Steele’s primary sub-source.

    Former law enforcement officials said the outing will make it harder for FBI agents to gain the trust of people they need to cooperate in future and unrelated investigations.

    “These things have to remain very closely held because you put witnesses at risk,” said James W. McJunkin, a former FBI assistant director for counterterrorism. “To release sensitive information unnecessarily that could jeopardize someone’s life is egregious.”

    Oh the horror, why didn’t Mr. Higher Honor James Comey release this information to the media?
    https://www.news18.com/news/world/the-fbi-pledged-to-keep-a-source-anonymous-trump-allies-aided-his-unmasking-2733801.html

    1. Yeah, Olly, if Trump’s going to negate treaties, the FBI can surely negate deals they made with informants.

      1. They can, they always could, and they do, if it suits them

        that is why you get a lawyer to make the deal, such as it may be, in order to ask an article III judge to make it stick

      2. if Trump’s going to negate treaties, the FBI can surely negate deals they made with informants.

        Is this non sequitur day? Get back to me when the President attempts to negate a treaty. I’ll join you and the Senate to block the President’s attempted abuse of power. Is there somewhere in the USC and/or FBI policy manual that permits them to make deals with informants that would enable them to illegally spy on a presidential campaign, transition team or administration?

      3. Igor is not an informant – he has no direct knowledge of anything.
        He is a researcher.

        A warrant requires that the officer swear to the reliability of the source.
        That is not Steele, that is not Igor.

        Based on Igor’s remarks, that may be nobody.

        For much of the steel dossier there is no source.

    2. Igor is not an FBI source. He is not even an actual source and that is the point. He is a gossip monger.

      The requirements of a Warrant require direct knowledge.
      The Agent that signed the warrant does not have that. Steele does not have that. Igor does not have that.
      The warrant application is crap.

      He is not even a witness – and witnesses are not confidential – they are required to testify in public.

      Graham could have outed Igor trivially – by calling him to testify.

      The chest beating here is merely an effort to obfuscate culpability in the perpitration of a fraud on the american people

      Igor did not ask for anonymity – and the FBI can not grant it. In a criminal prosecution the “source” must testify.
      Igor asked for immunity – quite different.

    1. We just bought a dashing Springfield Armory Saint AR-15 30+1 Round 16” with 4 ammo clips and sure would like to practice with it.Not sure if I want to waste my ammo on him but I bectha Hillary Clinton would gladly supply us a barrel full of 5.56 NATO ammo to rid her of the vermin

    2. All roads lead to Obama.
      ____________________

      “Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to

      proceed against him.”

      “Mr. Obama himself directed that ‘the right people’ investigate General Flynn.”

      – Sidney Powell, P.C.
      ________________

      “We will stop him.”

      – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
      —————————————————-

      “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

      1. A lawyer of my acquaintance who does some trial practice said in 36 of practicing law he had never seen a witness as snide and supercilious as Peter Sztrok. I’ll believe he’s turned state’s evidence when the plea deal is inked.

        1. Sztrok was convinced he is untouchable. Maybe he is. Difficult to have any trust in the system in this era of gangsters running federal law enforcement.

    3. I respectfully request you post why do you think the DOJ turned Strozk. Few people in the world other than Strozk would make me as happy to read of their imprisonment or untimely death.

    4. The magic quasi-black Jesus Obama would have one of his peeps kill Strozk in a heart beat if Strozk turned against Obamy. You know, like Clinton’s old buddies: shot gun to back of head declared a suicide, nail gun, piano from the sky, etc.

  13. Why hasn’t American Intel discovered who in the democrat party colluded with China, contacted Dear Leader Xi Jinping and demanded the release of the “China Flu” to counter Pres. Trump in an election year?

    The DOJ is working on the Obama Coup D’etat in America but ignoring its epilogue – the release, at the request of the democrat party, of the “China Flu” by Xi Jinping in a pivotal presidential election year.

    It is not a coincidence that the “China Flu” was released as President Trump was well on his way to, and the democrat party was facing, an unstoppable, historic, landslide victory in November.

    The “China Flu,” released by China against China’s nemesis, President Trump, and for the benefit of the democrat party, has been so effective, the democrats are running a demented psych patient for president.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The answer: The same reason the MSM didn’t inform Americans that Steve Bing was Arkancided – the “politicos” who are functionaries/soldiers of the Deep Deep State are above the law.

    Why hasn’t American Intel/Security, such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, ONI et al., reported that Steve Bing knew far too much about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s “Orgy Island” and was thrown out of Liz Hurley’s 27th floor L.A. apartment.
    ____________________

    “Film producer and wealthy financier Steve Bing’s cause of death has been revealed.”

    “The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner-Coroner’s Office listed Bing’s cause of death to be multiple blunt trauma and the manner of death as a suicide on its website on Tuesday. The case is now listed as closed. He was 55.

    “Elizabeth Hurley — who shares an 18-year-old son, Damian, with Bing — confirmed the death of her ex on Tuesday morning in an emotional tribute to the Hollywood staple. Bing also had another child, Kira, with professional tennis player Lisa Bonder.”

    – Julius Young
    ___________

    “Steve Bing knew too much. Somebody helped him die – just like somebody ‘helped’ Epstein die,” said disgraced financier Steve Hoffenberg, who got an 18-year prison sentence for a ponzi scheme he conducted with Jeffrey Epstein.

    – National Enquirer

Leave a Reply