Description

Joey rants about the federal government’s use of lies whether it be deceiving to pass laws in the case of Grubergate, undercover agents throughout the country to suppress civil disobedience, the myth of the rule of law, or the slow drip, drip, drip, of war propaganda for a major troop deployment into Syria and Iraq to destroy ISIS.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • In Iraq, twenty-five years of carnage, suffering, horror, privation, devastation, and we see the results today. After all, it was 1990 when the U.S. government decided it could improve Iraq by bombing the country, followed by a decades of crushing sanctions. But it wasn’t enough so the U.S. overthrew the government and installed a puppet regime. Here we are a quarter century later from the beginnings of war, and every bit of anything the U.S. ever claimed to achieve is gone, as the country is ripped in every direction by civil war and the U.S. installed regime looks to be a goner. And what now? The only thing that everyone seems to really really hate is the U.S. and anyone who was rewarded for their cooperation. I don’t see any real way for Obama to do anything here at all. But it is hard to imagine that the U.S. would just sit by and let whatever happens just happen. What’s next?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • How important is the concept of natural rights to the tenet of libertarianism? Personally, I don’t believe that  “natural rights” exist insofar as rights that are inherent to humanity. Rather I believe all rights are essentially legal or man-made, including the right to life. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Most people feel that natural rights come from God, although I know some atheists who also believe in natural rights. Surely the legal system has not always gotten it right when it comes to things that can/should be/are considered rights, and libertarians recognize that the law is not the basis of right and wrong. Yet I believe all rights describe rules and conditions that we feel are practical, fair and favorable, and do not necessarily describe some divine premise. To me this is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, though I’ve been told that it’s an inconsistent philosophy. Does one have to believe in God and/or natural rights to justify libertarianism?

    Jump to Discussion Post 74 replies
  • No, seriously? When was the last time we did that? Because that is exactly what happened during the pre-Civil War, Fugitive Slave Act era. People simply overpowered the cops and other captors with their sheer numbers, took physical custody of people who were to be returned to or sent into slavery, and helped them escape. Circumstances are somewhat different now, what with the progress of technology, but I think it is good for the soul to remember that is what, at one time, our culture was willing to do in preservation of liberty and basic human rights. Here is one such story, told in both prose and poem form: An Historic Gem: A Poem about the Rescue of Jerry What do you think it would take for something like this ever to happen again in the United States?

    Jump to Discussion Post 28 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • I have been reading about and watching the goings on in Iraq this last couple of weeks, with the “terrorist” group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) turning on Iraq and seizing several Iraqi cities, and I have come up with my own theory of what may really be happening there. For over a year different war mongers and NEO-CONS in Washington (McCain, Graham for instance) have been wanting to arm the rebel factions fighting the Assad regime in Syria with better more sophisticated weapons to help topple the Assad government. This has turned out to be very difficult as it has been found out that several of these groups happen to be known terrorist groups and supposed enemies of America, such as ISIS. It’s not so politically correct these days to want to arm Al-Qaeda, especially if you are an American politician. I suspect that ISIS turned their attention to Iraq under the direction of the U.S. State, with the complicity of the Iraqi government. Why would the General of the Iraqi army leave Mosul just as it was about to be attacked? Why has the Iraqi army, trained by Americans and armed with much more sophisticated arms than ISIS, dropped their weapons and run, in a battle where they had 10-1 superiority in manpower alone, not to mention AH-64’s and Blackhawk helicopters? ISIS has now seized these arms and have in their possession the firepower that they need and which politicians in Washington wanted them to have to assist them in the overthrow of Syria. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars they stole from the Iraq banks where they invaded. I have no proof that the U.S. State is behind this, but it seems odd to me that the U.S. has not even launched one airstrike, whoever heard of the U.S. not bombing every chance they get? The goal of ISIS seems to be in line with the goal of the U.S. State, to rid the world of the Syrian and Iraqi State, to split them into three separate provinces consisting of Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish, each with their own province. The NEO-CONS get their wish, to arm the ISIS militants with sophisticated American made arms, to defeat the Assad regime, all the while acting like they are so surprised with the situation. The American people, dolts that they are for the most part, have already fallen for this scheme, watching all the talking heads of the MSM who propagate the Empires lies. I am not saying there is no human suffering involved in this wicked scandal, obviously many hundreds if not thousands more innocent Iraqi people are being killed. Again. But I find it almost impossible to believe the U.S. is not behind the whole thing.    

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies