Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs nationally on Real America’s Voice Network, AmericasVoice.News weekdays at 7 a.m. CT and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM & Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on Crouere.net. For more information, email him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com
‘We have a bill that’ll go after domestic terrorism, and that’s probably a good thing.’—Thomas Massie, Republican from Kentucky
Rep. Thomas Massie has found his voice on the still-extant Covid tyranny. Like all things Republican, it’s better than nothing, but nothing much at all.
The Kentucky Congressman … called for an amendment to be included in H.R. 350, a domestic terrorism bill, that would prevent the government from using funds to “monitor, analyze, investigate or prosecute” an American citizen on the bases of their refusal or opposition to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
“The fact that moms are going to be targeted as domestic terrorists because they think their 5-year-old doesn’t need a freaking vaccine because they’ve looked at the data. They’ve seen that the flu presents more of a risk to their child than COVID does — any of the variants,” said Congressman Massie.
While the “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act” did not initially include language regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, Massie is forcing the issue to add text that provides protections to parents who oppose vaccine mandates.
Such dissembling as that of Representative Massie is deceptive. For one, he is right. Covid-19 has no place in a bill on domestic terrorism. But neither does a Bill against domestic terrorism have a place in the repertoire of a Republican legislator who considers himself hip to the infringements on liberty that such State overreach portends. Yet Massie declared,
… More bureaucracy to go after domestic terrorism is probably a good thing.
Moreover, self-ownership such as that exercised by sovereign individuals, in a free country, means that each and everyone of us has the right to reject the Pharma-State’s hemlock, no matter the reasons, scientific or not. The right to refuse the jab is not reserved for moms and their toddlers, for whom Massie exclusively advocates. What a dumb argument.
RIP, GOP.
Nowhere is a rights-based argument being made [by Republicans], or an argument based on the right to question the safety of the vaccine. Nowhere are individual sovereignty and self-ownership mentioned.
Indeed, Republicans prattle about religious exemptions (state granted!) and natural-immunity based exemptions (state granted!)—but they have not the faintest urge to defend the natural, God-given right of self-ownership.
Enough then of the cheering for the ineffectual GOP and its front men and women, who arrive in the Idiocracy’s version of Rome, only to do nothing, decade after decade. Oh, yes, they turn in appearances on TV and before congressional committees; get lucrative book deals, and consolidate political and corporate power for a lifetime.
But as the West careens toward the Covid-centered anthill society, nobody identifies and defends the individual’s dominion over his body and his right to reject the Pharma-State’s Hemlock prescription for that body. As emphasized, Republicans’ case against Covid mandates indirectly capitulates to coercion.
Tucker Carlson does splendid work from his mainstream perch, but because of his philosophical limitations and many blind-spots—the kind that had him join the neoconerie in killing Iraq, in the first place; the kind that saw him laud the murder of Iranian major general Qassim Soleimani; the kind that has him bash The South; and call on Canadian truckers to prove a negative, namely, that they aren’t racists; the kind that whined, whined, whined non-stop about Harvey Weinstein, in effect talking-up the MeToo fraud—he stumbles all the time. All the time. Without fail.
Thus did I urge ideological caution on a good friend who got carried away in giving too much street cred to Tucker, and, by extension, enthusing about a Tucker-endorsed Iranian warmonger, Sohrab Ahmari, who has reinvented himself and now peddles retread banalities (or stuff the Old Right—myself included—had espoused decades ago). At best, Ahmari, this ex-agitator for war in Iran, is an unoriginal second hander.
Today (4/12/022), Tucker played a piss-poor satirical skit—just plain bad—of Biden and Harris being lampooned in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis, explained Tucker, are angry with the awful Biden Administration over Iran and the war in Yemen. I imagine Biden is perceived by the Saudis—and ConOink—to be insufficiently belligerent about destroying Iran, a longtime mission the Saudis share with the neocons. As is Biden considered to be unhelpful to the Saudis in his impetus (albeit weak) to end Saudi Arabia’s protracted war on an impoverished Yemen.
Both these Biden positions, as limp as they are, are better than the positions adopted by ConInc and, yes, Trump. The Saudi war on Yemen is a scandal.
The NATO provocation goes back almost two decades. Democrat and Republican administrations share equal blame in provoking and encircling Russia. Putin has been stating as much for this duration, close on two decades. Dinesh D’Souza, then, shows himself to still be the same Republican hack he has always been when he exonerates the Republicans, predictably claiming, “the Biden administration and the West bear a share of the blame for the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine,” while conveniently omitting his party, the Republicans.
Watch Putin’s series of discussions with Oliver Stone circa 2015 in which he recounts the history of Russia-USA exchanges over NATO. Therein, Putin remarks that the US and NATO, NATO being an instrument of the US, have no allies, only vassals. In these interviews, Putin states perceptively that, in the US, administrations come and go—but policy remains unchanged, especially toward Russia.
Mearsheimer, moreover, doesn’t blame Biden alone. More crap. Mearsheimer is not a Republican operative like D’Souza. He saddled US foreign policy, conducted by the UniParty, for the Ukraine tragedy.
In “D’Souza’s Epic ‘America’ Error”, I show quite simply why “D’Souza’s case for ‘American exceptionalism’ is undergirded by a confusion of category:
“Is America a good country? Are we a bad country?”: The … professional gabber collapses the distinction between “America” and the U.S. government. This is a mistake. The state is not the same as America. … D’Souza’s is a box-office success. The statist meta-structure of his argument for “America,” however, is rooted in error. Serious thinkers should give it no quarter.
