Category Archives: Britain

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.'”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):

Lead me to the vomitorium.

Google Goes Galt

Britain, Business, Economy, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Hurray. Google Goes Galt, as a sickly Starbucks (what do you expect from people who burn their coffee beans) prepares to “‘voluntarily’ hand more money over to the UK Government.”

With their unbounded enthusiasm for state power, British protesters prefer that their omnivorous state own what belongs to Amazon, Starbucks and Google. But Google Big Guy has other ideas. Libertarian ones.

“Google boss: ‘I’m very proud of our tax avoidance scheme'”:

The head of the internet giant Google has defiantly defended his company’s tax avoidance strategy claiming he was “proud” of the steps it had taken to cut its tax bill which were just “capitalism”.
In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer. … “It’s called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”
He also ruled out following Starbucks in voluntarily handing more money over to the UK Government.
“There are lots of benefits to [being in Britain],” he said.
“It’s very good for us, but to go back to shareholders and say, ‘We looked at 200 countries but felt sorry for those British people so we want to [pay them more]’, there is probably some law against doing that.”

For a background on the British assault on tax havens, please read “Could Her Subjects Be Making Kate Middleton Sick?”

Could Her Subjects Be Making Kate Middleton Sick?

Britain, Business, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Great American enterprises like Amazon, Starbucks and Google have braved Britain’s (UK, England, whatever is the politically correct term for that nation of shopkeepers) punitive labor laws and onerous regulations; invested capital in that place—only to have British ingrates complain bitterly.

What is the “tax shaming” public protesting, NOW?

These businesses have found creative ways of keeping more of what is rightfully theirs: their private property, their profits. It is just and good that property remain privately owned. Efficiency is secondary to the issue of natural justice. Still, more private property in the hands of its owners means greater prosperity for all.

When Brit Mike Buckhurst wails that he feels “very passionate about this because at one point in my life I was a top rate tax payer and I paid my tax in full,” he is expressing envy, nothing else—envy that The Other Guy is keeping more of what belongs to him, when he is not.

A good person would be glad about any private property that remains with those who rightfully own it.

(Btw, in loserville—where the US is headed—you are in the “higher” tax bracket when you earn £34,371!)

Yes, British protesters, with their unbounded enthusiasm for state power, prefer that their omnivorous state own what belongs to Amazon, Starbucks and Google.

Tax havens are just that: havens. Laws regulating how people use their rightful capital are unjust laws. The official line always omits, moreover, that wealth in the hands of its rightful owners enriches all sectors of the population more than funds in the sticky paws of officials. Keeping more of one’s income is not “harmful” to the rightful owners of capital, or to the beneficiaries of its investment, which include any and all bar the taxman.

The junta of high-tax governments is always leaning on jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and the Isle of Man. If the junta has its way, not only will there be no place left to run to, but by eliminating what tax havens offer, these governments will have eliminated tax competition, and with it the imperative to downsize their fiefdoms.

MORE @ “The War on Tax Havens.”

Could her British subjects be making the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) sick? They sure make me sick.

Bottoms Up,* Kate Middleton

Aesthetics, Britain, Celebrity, Ethics, Etiquette, Free Speech, Private Property

She’s a gorgeous girl. She’s also stabler than her late mother-in-law (which, I guess, is not saying much, considering that the dodo Diana was a manipulative neurotic, given to histrionics).

In any event, Kate Middleton, aka The Duchess of Cambridge, will get over the fact that images of her bare breasts and bum are already in circulation, snapped in order to feed the voyeuristic fetish of the average consumer.

Certainly demand-driven, unethical, ugly and maybe even immoral: Hounding this girl wherever she goes is all of the above. But surely only trespassing on private property renders the action of the offending photographer illicit in natural law?!

The topless images of Kate were snapped from “the side of the road between trees, around half a mile away from a chateau,” in the south of France.

Was the photographer trespassing on private property? No report seems to specify. “Invasion of privacy” laws seem to belong to a broadly defined area of law, one that has little to do with the always unmentionable rights of private property.

(Bottoms up* means “here’s to you.”)