“Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”
Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, “Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don’t want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, “Fixing the wire, Sir”. I asked, “Isn’t that a little unhealthy right about now?” He answered, “Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed”. I asked, “Don’t those planes strafing the road bother you?” And he answered, “No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!” Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren’t combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable.”
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
paul and nero Why we don't have to respect goverment
Some Christians believe and teach that we should always honor and respect those in authority, regardless of the evil that they commit. This persuasion is often based on some text found in one of Saint Paul’s (aka the Apostle Paul) letters, Romans 13. However, as we examine one of the last acts of Saint Paul’s life, we find a very different story. Let’s consider the case of Paul and Nero.
Just about everyone has heard of Nero, the infamous Roman Caesar who supposedly played the fiddle while Rome burned. After he was widely suspected of setting fire to Rome himself, Nero cowardly deflected the blame and punishment onto Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus described the situation as follows:
"To get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind [a hate crime?]. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to torture-stakes, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car."
The preceding gives us a hint regarding two of the emperor's compulsions; he loved chariot racing, and he hated Christians. His participation in chariot racing was initially limited to silly board games which he designed, but eventually that did not prove enough to satisfy Nero. He soon began practicing chariot driving in his garden, in front of a forced audience, his slaves. Even that, however, did not prove enough – Nero wanted nothing less than to win the chariot races at the Greek Olympiad. Another Roman historian, Suetonius, describes how that he worked that plan in his favor:
"Nero’s best idea, however, was to postpone the 211th Olympiad from 65 to 67 AD to allow him more time to practice and train his teams of horses so that he himself might win at Olympia.…"
So Nero went to Greece, where he entered his ten-horse chariot in the tethrippon event in the Olympiad, which was a dream come true for Nero. There was the minor problem that the teams were supposed to consist of four horses rather than ten, but Nero overcame that issue, most likely through bribery. During the race Nero was thrown off of his chariot, was helped back on by spectators, and was subsequently thrown again. Unable to continue the race after the second fall, Nero nevertheless was proclaimed the victor! The duly bribed judges decided that Nero deserved to be declared the victor, because he certainly would have won if he would have finished the race!
Nero returned to Rome a self-proclaimed hero:
"Returning from Greece … he rode in the chariot which Augustus had used in his triumphs in days gone by, and wore a purple robe and a Greek cloak adorned with stars of gold, bearing on his head the Olympic crown and in his right hand the Pythian, while the rest were carried before him with inscriptions telling where he had won them and against what competitors…. His car was followed by his claque as by the escort of a triumphal procession, who shouted that they were the attendants of Augustus and the soldiers of his triumph. Then through the arch of the Circus Maximus, which was thrown down, he made his way across the Velabrum and the Forum to the Palatine and the temple of Apollo. All along the route victims were slain, the streets were sprinkled from time to time with perfume, while birds, ribbons, and sweetmeats were showered upon him."
Nero’s glory was not long-lived; a few months later (in AD 68) he had to resort to suicide in order to not suffer at the hands of Galba, who overthrew him. The Greeks quickly eliminated Nero’s dubious "Olympic victories."
"Soon after his death in 68 AD, Nero’s name was scratched from the lists of the Elean officials, and the counterfeit 211th Olympiad was declared as ‘Anolympiad’ [non-Olympiad] by the ten Hellanodikai judges."
Meanwhile, much the same was occurring in Rome.
"In Rome, Nero's successor, Galba … proposed to the senate that every statue erected in honour of Nero's Olympic victories be destroyed and that the huge bribe Nero was purported to have paid the Elean judges should be returned to Rome. It appears that the venerable emperor had in fact bribed the Hellanodikai with a ten thousand drachmae "package deal" (one thousand per judge), an exorbitant sum by today's standards. The anti-Neronian measures were carried out to the last detail by his Roman successors."
During that short period of time (AD 67–68) between Nero’s "victory" in an unfinished race, and his inglorious death, he was widely considered a buffoon. As the victory memorials went up around the city of Rome, and Nero’s self-composed songs about his exploits were performed, the common people were just as aware as Galba and others that his victory was false. One can imagine the parodies, graffiti, and jokes which circulated throughout Rome, ridiculing the "hero" Nero. Some examples of this are recorded by Jürgen Malitz, who states:
"… he was treated with the utmost abuse and scurrility. On top of one of his statues was placed the figure of a chariot with a Greek inscription that ‘Now indeed he has a race to run; let him be gone.’ A little bag was tied about another, with a ticket containing these words: ‘What could I do?’ – ‘Truly thou hast merited the sack.’ Some person likewise wrote on the pillars in the Forum ‘that he even woke the cocks with his singing.’ And many, in the night-time, pretending to find fault with their servants, frequently called for a Vindex."
[Note: This call for a Vindex was a double entendre, which could be understood either as a request for arbitration (with the servant) or a call for Gaius Iulius Vindex to liberate them.]
Into this scene enters the Apostle Paul, a Greek-speaking Jewish Roman citizen. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem for "disturbing the peace" (or something like that … Acts 21:27–28), and fearing for his life, he appealed for an audience before the highest Roman civil authority, Caesar (Acts 25:11–12). Unfortunately for Paul, the Caesar to whom he appealed was Nero, who as we have seen above, was not particularly fond of Christians, nor was he completely sane. Even the Romans soon realized the error (humanly speaking) of Paul’s appeal, for Acts 26:32 says, "Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.’" But the appeal stood; Paul was sent to Rome.
The timeline of Paul’s life is a little fuzzy; some scholars place his death as early as AD 60, and others as late as AD 68. In the later death scenario, Paul was put to death by Nero in spring AD 68, after Nero’s "victorious" return to Rome and shortly before Nero’s own death through suicide that summer.
During this imprisonment in Rome, whenever it was, Paul wrote his last epistle, which was his second to Timothy. Shortly thereafter, the Saint was put to death. While held in Rome by Nero, Paul wrote (2 Timothy 4:7–8):
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing."
Note the sous entendu meaning – "I, unlike Nero, have finished the race, in completing the course I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness rather than a cheater’s crown, which the Lord, the righteous and incorruptible judge, will award to me …" [all text in italics added by me]
Was this Paul’s intent? Did he really mean to poke Nero in the eye? Paul was certainly aware of all the anti-Nero talk and activity going on around him. The contents of his prison letters surely were reviewed by the emperor’s officials; could he have unintentionally penned his words that carelessly? As a Christian, I believe Paul’s choice of words was intentional and God-honoring; God’s Word is inspired, not a word of it was written by accident.
Assuming the late timeline is correct, the only conclusion I can make is that the Apostle Paul, for whatever reason, and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intentionally penned these inflammatory words, which very likely contributed to his condemnation. The fact is, a few short weeks later Saint Paul was dead, martyred by Nero.
The Apostle Paul’s example makes it clear to us that it is not a person’s rank in the state which determines whether he is worthy of respect and honor. As we hear the chorus of statists saying that "we should respect our [sic] president" (here, here, here, ad nauseam) or any other government official, we can remember the Apostle Paul who, like the Lord Himself, was "no respecter of persons."
Sometimes resistance, or just a good poke in the eye, is exactly what is needed; Christians can follow the example of Saint Paul in good conscience, and in good fun. Though there may be consequences, we need to have confidence in the rightness of our cause and in the goodness of the Lord, and let the chips fall where they may.
Just about everyone has heard of Nero, the infamous Roman Caesar who supposedly played the fiddle while Rome burned. After he was widely suspected of setting fire to Rome himself, Nero cowardly deflected the blame and punishment onto Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus described the situation as follows:
"To get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind [a hate crime?]. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to torture-stakes, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car."
The preceding gives us a hint regarding two of the emperor's compulsions; he loved chariot racing, and he hated Christians. His participation in chariot racing was initially limited to silly board games which he designed, but eventually that did not prove enough to satisfy Nero. He soon began practicing chariot driving in his garden, in front of a forced audience, his slaves. Even that, however, did not prove enough – Nero wanted nothing less than to win the chariot races at the Greek Olympiad. Another Roman historian, Suetonius, describes how that he worked that plan in his favor:
"Nero’s best idea, however, was to postpone the 211th Olympiad from 65 to 67 AD to allow him more time to practice and train his teams of horses so that he himself might win at Olympia.…"
So Nero went to Greece, where he entered his ten-horse chariot in the tethrippon event in the Olympiad, which was a dream come true for Nero. There was the minor problem that the teams were supposed to consist of four horses rather than ten, but Nero overcame that issue, most likely through bribery. During the race Nero was thrown off of his chariot, was helped back on by spectators, and was subsequently thrown again. Unable to continue the race after the second fall, Nero nevertheless was proclaimed the victor! The duly bribed judges decided that Nero deserved to be declared the victor, because he certainly would have won if he would have finished the race!
Nero returned to Rome a self-proclaimed hero:
"Returning from Greece … he rode in the chariot which Augustus had used in his triumphs in days gone by, and wore a purple robe and a Greek cloak adorned with stars of gold, bearing on his head the Olympic crown and in his right hand the Pythian, while the rest were carried before him with inscriptions telling where he had won them and against what competitors…. His car was followed by his claque as by the escort of a triumphal procession, who shouted that they were the attendants of Augustus and the soldiers of his triumph. Then through the arch of the Circus Maximus, which was thrown down, he made his way across the Velabrum and the Forum to the Palatine and the temple of Apollo. All along the route victims were slain, the streets were sprinkled from time to time with perfume, while birds, ribbons, and sweetmeats were showered upon him."
Nero’s glory was not long-lived; a few months later (in AD 68) he had to resort to suicide in order to not suffer at the hands of Galba, who overthrew him. The Greeks quickly eliminated Nero’s dubious "Olympic victories."
"Soon after his death in 68 AD, Nero’s name was scratched from the lists of the Elean officials, and the counterfeit 211th Olympiad was declared as ‘Anolympiad’ [non-Olympiad] by the ten Hellanodikai judges."
Meanwhile, much the same was occurring in Rome.
"In Rome, Nero's successor, Galba … proposed to the senate that every statue erected in honour of Nero's Olympic victories be destroyed and that the huge bribe Nero was purported to have paid the Elean judges should be returned to Rome. It appears that the venerable emperor had in fact bribed the Hellanodikai with a ten thousand drachmae "package deal" (one thousand per judge), an exorbitant sum by today's standards. The anti-Neronian measures were carried out to the last detail by his Roman successors."
During that short period of time (AD 67–68) between Nero’s "victory" in an unfinished race, and his inglorious death, he was widely considered a buffoon. As the victory memorials went up around the city of Rome, and Nero’s self-composed songs about his exploits were performed, the common people were just as aware as Galba and others that his victory was false. One can imagine the parodies, graffiti, and jokes which circulated throughout Rome, ridiculing the "hero" Nero. Some examples of this are recorded by Jürgen Malitz, who states:
"… he was treated with the utmost abuse and scurrility. On top of one of his statues was placed the figure of a chariot with a Greek inscription that ‘Now indeed he has a race to run; let him be gone.’ A little bag was tied about another, with a ticket containing these words: ‘What could I do?’ – ‘Truly thou hast merited the sack.’ Some person likewise wrote on the pillars in the Forum ‘that he even woke the cocks with his singing.’ And many, in the night-time, pretending to find fault with their servants, frequently called for a Vindex."
[Note: This call for a Vindex was a double entendre, which could be understood either as a request for arbitration (with the servant) or a call for Gaius Iulius Vindex to liberate them.]
Into this scene enters the Apostle Paul, a Greek-speaking Jewish Roman citizen. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem for "disturbing the peace" (or something like that … Acts 21:27–28), and fearing for his life, he appealed for an audience before the highest Roman civil authority, Caesar (Acts 25:11–12). Unfortunately for Paul, the Caesar to whom he appealed was Nero, who as we have seen above, was not particularly fond of Christians, nor was he completely sane. Even the Romans soon realized the error (humanly speaking) of Paul’s appeal, for Acts 26:32 says, "Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.’" But the appeal stood; Paul was sent to Rome.
The timeline of Paul’s life is a little fuzzy; some scholars place his death as early as AD 60, and others as late as AD 68. In the later death scenario, Paul was put to death by Nero in spring AD 68, after Nero’s "victorious" return to Rome and shortly before Nero’s own death through suicide that summer.
During this imprisonment in Rome, whenever it was, Paul wrote his last epistle, which was his second to Timothy. Shortly thereafter, the Saint was put to death. While held in Rome by Nero, Paul wrote (2 Timothy 4:7–8):
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing."
Note the sous entendu meaning – "I, unlike Nero, have finished the race, in completing the course I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness rather than a cheater’s crown, which the Lord, the righteous and incorruptible judge, will award to me …" [all text in italics added by me]
Was this Paul’s intent? Did he really mean to poke Nero in the eye? Paul was certainly aware of all the anti-Nero talk and activity going on around him. The contents of his prison letters surely were reviewed by the emperor’s officials; could he have unintentionally penned his words that carelessly? As a Christian, I believe Paul’s choice of words was intentional and God-honoring; God’s Word is inspired, not a word of it was written by accident.
Assuming the late timeline is correct, the only conclusion I can make is that the Apostle Paul, for whatever reason, and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intentionally penned these inflammatory words, which very likely contributed to his condemnation. The fact is, a few short weeks later Saint Paul was dead, martyred by Nero.
The Apostle Paul’s example makes it clear to us that it is not a person’s rank in the state which determines whether he is worthy of respect and honor. As we hear the chorus of statists saying that "we should respect our [sic] president" (here, here, here, ad nauseam) or any other government official, we can remember the Apostle Paul who, like the Lord Himself, was "no respecter of persons."
Sometimes resistance, or just a good poke in the eye, is exactly what is needed; Christians can follow the example of Saint Paul in good conscience, and in good fun. Though there may be consequences, we need to have confidence in the rightness of our cause and in the goodness of the Lord, and let the chips fall where they may.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
John Wayne
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.’"
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Keynote speech at the Ohio Rally for state Sovereignty, August 1, 2009 Andrew Napolitano
Keynote speech at the Ohio Rally for State Sovereignty, August 1, 2009
Let me set down a couple of fervent beliefs that animate everything I do and everything I say.
I believe that God created heaven and earth and every single individual on the planet.
I believe that the God who gave us life gave us liberty and that freedom is our birthright.
I believe that the States created the federal government and not the other way around. And that the power that the States gave to the Federal Government – they can take back.
When we were colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us, and they always seemed to need money, they devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of them was called the Stamp Act. The Parliament decreed that every piece of paper that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed, every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad? You had to go to a British Government office and buy a stamp with the King’s picture.
Question. How did the King know that his picture was on every piece of paper in your house? The Parliament enacted a hateful piece of legislation called the Writs of Assistance Act which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants, and bang down any door they chose to look for the stamps or anything else that they were looking for.
It was the last straw.
We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.
When they were debating the Constitution in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, there were two great arguments – one by the Jefferson and Madison crowd and one by the Adams and Hamilton crowd. Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and we are created in his image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd – yes they had them even in those days – argued that you can’t have freedom without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore, that government can take them away. This is not an academic argument. Jefferson and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with our natural rights.
And so, your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to travel where you want, to worship as you see fit, to keep and bear arms to defend yourself against a tyranny. And, after the right to life, the greatest and most uniquely American of rights – and I say this in front of the seat of the government – is the right to be left alone.
We wrote a Constitution to ensure that the government would never interfere with these rights. Think about it – if rights come from the government, then the government, by ordinary legislation, or presidential decree can take them away. But if the rights come from our humanity, then unless we violate someone else’s natural rights, the government cannot take our rights away.
This is not just a democrat, upper case D, or a republican, upper case R, problem. It’s a problem with government today. There’s a republican version of big government just as assaultive to our liberties as the democrat version of big government.
We fought a revolution because British soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search warrants. In the Patriot Act, the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a republican congress and a republican president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable – to write their own search warrants. And the republican administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.
Why should the government be able to spy on us? We should be able to spy on them!
When some judge is rationalizing away our liberty, or some congressman is plotting to take away your freedom or your tax dollars, we should know what they do every minute that they do it.
I was speaking to a group of congressman from a neighboring state – I won’t tell you which state it was, but they don’t play football there – and they came up to me and said “this is the first time we have heard that the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants.” Remember, in the Constitution, we put in the 4th Amendment, the right to be left alone, to make sure that if the government had a target, no matter how guilty the target, no matter how widespread is the belief in the guilt of the target, no matter how dangerous is the target, the government has to go through a neutral judge with a search warrant before it can get to that target. These members of Congress said, “we didn’t know that the Patriot Act allowed the government to bypass the courts and write any search warrant they wanted.” Then I asked them a question I knew the answer to already – did you read the Patriot Act before you voted on it? The answer – no. What were you voting on? A summary we received. Let me guess who wrote the summary – some lawyers in the justice department, right? Of course.
Would you hire anybody to run your business that committed you to a violation of the very reason you’re in business if they didn’t even read the document by which they were making that commitment? Of course not.
The camera is the new gun. There’s nothing that government dislikes more than the light of day, and cameras recording what the government is doing, whether it’s on a street corner, or in there, or in Washington D.C., we have the right to know everything that they do and why they do it, and when they do it, and how they are taking our freedoms.
I have another one of my basic core beliefs. The individual has an immortal soul. Every individual is greater than any government.
Your government is based on fear and force. You don’t have to take my word on it. The 2nd president on the United States, John Adams, said “Of course the government is based on fear.” And the first president, George Washington, said “Government is not reason, it is force.” I think they knew what they were talking about.
Now fast-forward to modern times. Whenever the government wants something, it scares us. During the civil war, Lincoln tried civilians in this state where no battles occurred, by military tribunal. After he died the Supreme Court invalidated everything the military tribunals did. During the first world war, the Wilson administration locked up 2000 people called anarchists – same thing as enemy combatants. No trial, no charge, just jail for the duration of the war. In World War II, FDR locked up 150,000 Japanese Americans, people born in the United States, who got no trial and had no charges, and when the war was over were given $25 and told to go home.
Today we have federal agents. You know I get in arguments with my friends at Fox News, and one of them, I don’t have to tell you who it is, but is truly the most irascible person there. And he said to me, you know you have a problem with Guantanamo Bay, and you have a problem with the Patriot Act, what will you do if I get sent to Guantanamo Bay, will you visit me? And I say, Bill – no, because they’ll probably keep me there as well.
Government likes to say that it’s taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the years that I was on the bench, it seemed that every time government lawyers were in my courtroom, if the government was prosecuting someone who was legitimately guilty or whether it was a mistake, or whether somebody was suing the government because government contractors or government doctors, or government workers made a mistake – the government doesn’t come in to the courtroom to enforce the constitution, it comes into the courtroom to evade and avoid it. That, ladies and gentlemen, must be stopped.
This is a great moment in our history. A crowd of this magnitude on a beautiful day, in the boiling sun, in the most middle-American of great middle-American states…comes together not because the president is a democrat, not because his predecessor was a republican, not because a war is just or unjust, not because the Fed is stealing or printing – you’re here because you believe in human freedom.
It is the essence of our existence that we should be free. But remember this: the government hates freedom. It is an obstacle to every one of their designs. Whenever they write laws, whenever they take your tax dollars, whenever they regulate your private behavior, whenever they tell you how to spend your money, whenever they tell you what medicines to take, whenever they tell you what food to eat, whenever they tell you with whom you may or must associate, they are taking away your freedom and they love to get away with it. And they cannot get away with it any longer.
In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation! Now is the time to defend our freedoms.
Jefferson was no saint but he was the greatest of our American presidents. He believed that the individual was greater than the state. He believed that the states were greater than the federal government. And when he wrote that our rights come from our creator, and that our rights are inalienable, he forever wed the notion of natural rights to the American experience and the American experiment. We must be vigilant about every right that the government wants to take away from us.
You’ve heard the president say, present president and his predecessor, “my first job is to keep you safe.” He’s wrong! His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job to keep us free.
Shortly before he died, Jefferson lamented, that in his view of the world it was the natural order of things for government to grow and freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wish that that wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty!”
Let me set down a couple of fervent beliefs that animate everything I do and everything I say.
I believe that God created heaven and earth and every single individual on the planet.
I believe that the God who gave us life gave us liberty and that freedom is our birthright.
I believe that the States created the federal government and not the other way around. And that the power that the States gave to the Federal Government – they can take back.
When we were colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us, and they always seemed to need money, they devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of them was called the Stamp Act. The Parliament decreed that every piece of paper that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed, every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad? You had to go to a British Government office and buy a stamp with the King’s picture.
Question. How did the King know that his picture was on every piece of paper in your house? The Parliament enacted a hateful piece of legislation called the Writs of Assistance Act which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants, and bang down any door they chose to look for the stamps or anything else that they were looking for.
It was the last straw.
We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.
When they were debating the Constitution in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, there were two great arguments – one by the Jefferson and Madison crowd and one by the Adams and Hamilton crowd. Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and we are created in his image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd – yes they had them even in those days – argued that you can’t have freedom without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore, that government can take them away. This is not an academic argument. Jefferson and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with our natural rights.
And so, your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to travel where you want, to worship as you see fit, to keep and bear arms to defend yourself against a tyranny. And, after the right to life, the greatest and most uniquely American of rights – and I say this in front of the seat of the government – is the right to be left alone.
We wrote a Constitution to ensure that the government would never interfere with these rights. Think about it – if rights come from the government, then the government, by ordinary legislation, or presidential decree can take them away. But if the rights come from our humanity, then unless we violate someone else’s natural rights, the government cannot take our rights away.
This is not just a democrat, upper case D, or a republican, upper case R, problem. It’s a problem with government today. There’s a republican version of big government just as assaultive to our liberties as the democrat version of big government.
We fought a revolution because British soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search warrants. In the Patriot Act, the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a republican congress and a republican president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable – to write their own search warrants. And the republican administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.
Why should the government be able to spy on us? We should be able to spy on them!
When some judge is rationalizing away our liberty, or some congressman is plotting to take away your freedom or your tax dollars, we should know what they do every minute that they do it.
I was speaking to a group of congressman from a neighboring state – I won’t tell you which state it was, but they don’t play football there – and they came up to me and said “this is the first time we have heard that the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants.” Remember, in the Constitution, we put in the 4th Amendment, the right to be left alone, to make sure that if the government had a target, no matter how guilty the target, no matter how widespread is the belief in the guilt of the target, no matter how dangerous is the target, the government has to go through a neutral judge with a search warrant before it can get to that target. These members of Congress said, “we didn’t know that the Patriot Act allowed the government to bypass the courts and write any search warrant they wanted.” Then I asked them a question I knew the answer to already – did you read the Patriot Act before you voted on it? The answer – no. What were you voting on? A summary we received. Let me guess who wrote the summary – some lawyers in the justice department, right? Of course.
Would you hire anybody to run your business that committed you to a violation of the very reason you’re in business if they didn’t even read the document by which they were making that commitment? Of course not.
The camera is the new gun. There’s nothing that government dislikes more than the light of day, and cameras recording what the government is doing, whether it’s on a street corner, or in there, or in Washington D.C., we have the right to know everything that they do and why they do it, and when they do it, and how they are taking our freedoms.
I have another one of my basic core beliefs. The individual has an immortal soul. Every individual is greater than any government.
Your government is based on fear and force. You don’t have to take my word on it. The 2nd president on the United States, John Adams, said “Of course the government is based on fear.” And the first president, George Washington, said “Government is not reason, it is force.” I think they knew what they were talking about.
Now fast-forward to modern times. Whenever the government wants something, it scares us. During the civil war, Lincoln tried civilians in this state where no battles occurred, by military tribunal. After he died the Supreme Court invalidated everything the military tribunals did. During the first world war, the Wilson administration locked up 2000 people called anarchists – same thing as enemy combatants. No trial, no charge, just jail for the duration of the war. In World War II, FDR locked up 150,000 Japanese Americans, people born in the United States, who got no trial and had no charges, and when the war was over were given $25 and told to go home.
Today we have federal agents. You know I get in arguments with my friends at Fox News, and one of them, I don’t have to tell you who it is, but is truly the most irascible person there. And he said to me, you know you have a problem with Guantanamo Bay, and you have a problem with the Patriot Act, what will you do if I get sent to Guantanamo Bay, will you visit me? And I say, Bill – no, because they’ll probably keep me there as well.
Government likes to say that it’s taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the years that I was on the bench, it seemed that every time government lawyers were in my courtroom, if the government was prosecuting someone who was legitimately guilty or whether it was a mistake, or whether somebody was suing the government because government contractors or government doctors, or government workers made a mistake – the government doesn’t come in to the courtroom to enforce the constitution, it comes into the courtroom to evade and avoid it. That, ladies and gentlemen, must be stopped.
This is a great moment in our history. A crowd of this magnitude on a beautiful day, in the boiling sun, in the most middle-American of great middle-American states…comes together not because the president is a democrat, not because his predecessor was a republican, not because a war is just or unjust, not because the Fed is stealing or printing – you’re here because you believe in human freedom.
It is the essence of our existence that we should be free. But remember this: the government hates freedom. It is an obstacle to every one of their designs. Whenever they write laws, whenever they take your tax dollars, whenever they regulate your private behavior, whenever they tell you how to spend your money, whenever they tell you what medicines to take, whenever they tell you what food to eat, whenever they tell you with whom you may or must associate, they are taking away your freedom and they love to get away with it. And they cannot get away with it any longer.
In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation! Now is the time to defend our freedoms.
Jefferson was no saint but he was the greatest of our American presidents. He believed that the individual was greater than the state. He believed that the states were greater than the federal government. And when he wrote that our rights come from our creator, and that our rights are inalienable, he forever wed the notion of natural rights to the American experience and the American experiment. We must be vigilant about every right that the government wants to take away from us.
You’ve heard the president say, present president and his predecessor, “my first job is to keep you safe.” He’s wrong! His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job to keep us free.
Shortly before he died, Jefferson lamented, that in his view of the world it was the natural order of things for government to grow and freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wish that that wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty!”
Sunday, August 2, 2009
What does it mean to be free? Do you know what liberty's make you free. We all know about our warrant rights, gun rights, free press rights. Have you ever thought about the right to have children, how many and with whom. What if the government said you can only have one child or none. Maybe only with someone from a certain race or religion. Tyranny is a idea that we oppose emphatically, but we vote for repeatedly. How many times has freedom slipped through peoples fingers while the tend to their everyday needs and wants voting like sheep's for the same despots that have already taken you through the spin cycle. What about the right to be friends with whoever you want. I have friends that are liberal, conservative, anti-political, hippies, we have to stand against the oppression of the powerful, obedience to the elite. They care neither for me or you. When will people wake up to the reality that the liberty's we have taken from the clutch of a tyrannical colonial government pushing confiscatory taxation on a people who were semi-autonomous, intelligent, industrious and moral. The law that was written on their hearts told them that to be a slave to the state is the ultimate and most permanent form of slavery. The founders would have hated what we have become. We just want to suckle at the tit of the state. Weak, lazy, scared and whiners. This country was built on people willing to take a chance, to forge there own way into the river of life. We will find out soon if the people will stand for the freedom's our founders fought and died for. Will you stand with this new band of brothers, this group of freedmen. The battle will come, it is not a matter of if, our you ready, will you choose to beleive in this idea that we call freedom.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Mark twain said it best
Mark Twain is credited with warning that “no man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” This could explain the way Americans feel with the new cap and trade legislation, the bank bailout, the shovel ready stimulus bill, the omibus (federal spending bill) mortgage bailouts, the first stimulus bill, national health care and almost anything that congress has done over the last three years. WTF that was just off the top of my head. Better put on the boots cause the shit is getting thick. The government continues to balloon the balance sheet of the United States Treasury. How will this end? I don't know but we will soon see. Pres Obama will soon have all of this laying at his feet. Will see if he can pass legislation when 2 to 3 million more Americans lose there jobs. His foreign policy is in shambles. Domestic agenda is little more than mild fascism (if you question this go to my 1st post and see if you disagree then). I hope to GOD that it gets better but I only see two possible outcomes. The first is the debasement of the Dollar through the printing of money. The second is the default of all debt of the federal government starting with the default of states. The answer is the probably a little of both. States are getting close to default on debt which will implode the Muni bond market, probably taking down to the corporate bond market. The FED has already started the printing presses. I think that deflation that will keep going for a little while because of the massive collapse of the of all debt and equity market and then quickly turn to massive inflation. It is coming soon so get the four g's guns, GOD, gold and grocery's.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
funny but so true
Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: “the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn’t walk.’” That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thomas Jefferson was a prophet
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” - Thomas Jefferson
Monday, June 8, 2009
Pretty funny stuff
Gun Rights IdeaPosted by Stephan Kinsella at September 10, 2004 04:06 PM
A pro-gun rights attorney friend just sent me this email:
Following up on this assault weapons craziness in the news [the hysteria over the imminent expiration of the federal assault weapons ban], whaddya think of this proposed legislation I just came up with. For the safety of our law enforcement personnel (and the public at large), we should pass a common sense federal law that: (a) reduces the use of assault weapons in crime, and (b) preserves the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
The proposed law would REQUIRE that any person, during the commission of any federal or state crime (at least a felony), use ONLY a pistol having less than 10 rounds in each magazine, or a less lethal instrumentality.
Some sarcastic legislator should propose this, just to see what the arguments against it might be. "You can't legislate against criminals, they don't obey the law anyway". BINGO! If criminals can't be legislated against, repeal ALL gun control measures. Obligatory response: "Gasp! What are you, some kind of gun nut??!!
A pro-gun rights attorney friend just sent me this email:
Following up on this assault weapons craziness in the news [the hysteria over the imminent expiration of the federal assault weapons ban], whaddya think of this proposed legislation I just came up with. For the safety of our law enforcement personnel (and the public at large), we should pass a common sense federal law that: (a) reduces the use of assault weapons in crime, and (b) preserves the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
The proposed law would REQUIRE that any person, during the commission of any federal or state crime (at least a felony), use ONLY a pistol having less than 10 rounds in each magazine, or a less lethal instrumentality.
Some sarcastic legislator should propose this, just to see what the arguments against it might be. "You can't legislate against criminals, they don't obey the law anyway". BINGO! If criminals can't be legislated against, repeal ALL gun control measures. Obligatory response: "Gasp! What are you, some kind of gun nut??!!
Secession and Liberty
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The presidential election of 2000 showed that America is now divided into two great political classes: the productive, taxpaying class and the parasitic, live-at-others’-expense class. The latter group includes millions of welfare bums, federal, state and local government bureaucrats and "contractors," and their massive supporting propaganda apparatus in the universities, on television, and in print journalism. Now that the vast majority of what the central government does is unconstitutional, there is almost no restraint at all on the extent to which the latter class can use the coercive powers of the state to plunder the former class.
The federal system of government that was created by the founding fathers was designed explicitly to deter this outcome, but that system was overthrown in 1865. The founders understood that democracy would inevitably evolve into a system of legalized plunder unless the plundered were given numerous escape routes and constitutional protections such as the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, election of senators by state legislators, the electoral college, no income taxation, most governmental functions performed at the state and local levels, and myriad other constitutional limitations on the powers of the central government.
The most important protection was the right of secession, which Peter Applebome of the New York Times suggests we should revive in light of the election returns. This was quite natural, for the United States were founded as the direct result of a war of secession waged against Great Britain. The very principle of the American Revolution was the right of secession against tyrannical government. The founders understood that even the threat of secession would hold would-be governmental tyrants in check.
In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding.
The election of 1800 was a battle between Jefferson and the supporters of limited, decentralized government and the Federalist Party, which advocated a more powerful and centralized state. The Federalists were so bitter about their electoral defeat that they immediately began plotting to secede from the Union. The important point about this episode is that this secession movement, which was based in New England, was led by some of the most distinguished men of the founding generation and was never opposed on principle by Jefferson or anyone else. It was argued that secession might have been an unwise strategy, but no one denied that states enjoyed a right of secession.
The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.
The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."
At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession). "Nine out of ten people of the North," Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, "were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."
Similar statements were made by newspapers all throughout the North on the eve of the war, and are perhaps best represented by an editorial in the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat, which on January 11, 1861, wrote that secession is "the very germ of liberty" and declared that "the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."
"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."
Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."
Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, for example, and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other "border states") as long as they supported him politically. Indeed, in a July 4, 1848 speech Lincoln said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.
After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in the harshest of conditions but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession, as Charles Adams describes in his brilliant book, When in the Course of Human Events. After his release from prison Jefferson Davis wrote what would have been his legal defense of secession in the form of a two-volume book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
The centralization of governmental power not only leads to the looting and plundering of the taxpaying class by the parasitic class; it also slowly destroys freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. One of the first things every tyrannical government does is to monopolize the educational system in order to brainwash the young and bolster its political power. As soon as Lee surrendered at Appomatox the federal government began revising history to teach that secession was illegitimate. This was all a part of Lincoln’s "revolution" which overthrew the federal system of government created by the founding fathers and put into motion the forces of centralized governmental power. Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty. As Frank Choderov wrote in 1952: "If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy."
November 28, 2000
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The presidential election of 2000 showed that America is now divided into two great political classes: the productive, taxpaying class and the parasitic, live-at-others’-expense class. The latter group includes millions of welfare bums, federal, state and local government bureaucrats and "contractors," and their massive supporting propaganda apparatus in the universities, on television, and in print journalism. Now that the vast majority of what the central government does is unconstitutional, there is almost no restraint at all on the extent to which the latter class can use the coercive powers of the state to plunder the former class.
The federal system of government that was created by the founding fathers was designed explicitly to deter this outcome, but that system was overthrown in 1865. The founders understood that democracy would inevitably evolve into a system of legalized plunder unless the plundered were given numerous escape routes and constitutional protections such as the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, election of senators by state legislators, the electoral college, no income taxation, most governmental functions performed at the state and local levels, and myriad other constitutional limitations on the powers of the central government.
The most important protection was the right of secession, which Peter Applebome of the New York Times suggests we should revive in light of the election returns. This was quite natural, for the United States were founded as the direct result of a war of secession waged against Great Britain. The very principle of the American Revolution was the right of secession against tyrannical government. The founders understood that even the threat of secession would hold would-be governmental tyrants in check.
In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding.
The election of 1800 was a battle between Jefferson and the supporters of limited, decentralized government and the Federalist Party, which advocated a more powerful and centralized state. The Federalists were so bitter about their electoral defeat that they immediately began plotting to secede from the Union. The important point about this episode is that this secession movement, which was based in New England, was led by some of the most distinguished men of the founding generation and was never opposed on principle by Jefferson or anyone else. It was argued that secession might have been an unwise strategy, but no one denied that states enjoyed a right of secession.
The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.
The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."
At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession). "Nine out of ten people of the North," Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, "were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."
Similar statements were made by newspapers all throughout the North on the eve of the war, and are perhaps best represented by an editorial in the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat, which on January 11, 1861, wrote that secession is "the very germ of liberty" and declared that "the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."
"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."
Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."
Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, for example, and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other "border states") as long as they supported him politically. Indeed, in a July 4, 1848 speech Lincoln said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.
After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in the harshest of conditions but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession, as Charles Adams describes in his brilliant book, When in the Course of Human Events. After his release from prison Jefferson Davis wrote what would have been his legal defense of secession in the form of a two-volume book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
The centralization of governmental power not only leads to the looting and plundering of the taxpaying class by the parasitic class; it also slowly destroys freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. One of the first things every tyrannical government does is to monopolize the educational system in order to brainwash the young and bolster its political power. As soon as Lee surrendered at Appomatox the federal government began revising history to teach that secession was illegitimate. This was all a part of Lincoln’s "revolution" which overthrew the federal system of government created by the founding fathers and put into motion the forces of centralized governmental power. Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty. As Frank Choderov wrote in 1952: "If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy."
November 28, 2000
Is secession treason! Read and ask youself.
It seems to be a forgone conclusion that American society, within a short period of time, will face a complete breakdown of its consumer culture. Some think there is a strong likelihood it will be worse than that suffered by those whom historians call the "Depression survivors" and include a social restructuring or even social chaos.
Certainly, the likelihood of this occurring is enhanced by the indication that China either will not or cannot continue to finance America’s debt. Added to our concerns is the world financial market’s growing lack of confidence in the American economy which portends the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar.
The warnings have been numerous and the reasoning sound; so where do we go from here?
Undoubtedly the anxieties among those who are watching these events unfold are becoming manifest in their resistance to any further state usurpations and their focus on personal survival. Ah yes, we are now contemplating, individually and collectively, the very acts that every modern, massive, centralized government since William the Conqueror has sought to suppress by law.
What is often forgotten amongst the melee of "how to" articles, is the consideration of two basic questions. First: Is there a moral justification for resistance against an increasingly pernicious centralized government? Second: If the moral justification for resistance does exist can that struggle take the form of secession?
Each of these questions is answered in the negative by the power elite. Donald Livingston gives us meticulous historical reasons why the state is so adamant in its objections.
"In time, a modern state came to be seen as an association to protect the rights of individuals, and this added a stronger presumption against secession, because any right of a people to secede could only be the aggregate right of a set of individuals. But if one set could secede, any other set or subset-down to one individual – could secede. An acknowledged right of secession would mean the unraveling of the modern state."
The soft, vulnerable underbelly of the modern state being so easily exposed explains in part why the state and its supporters have had to resort to deception shrouded in religious dogma and patriotic gibberish to justify their existence. It is simply their hope of keeping the dogs of freedom at bay.
By way of illustration we need only to return to 1860 when the Southern people where hotly debating the issue of secession.
In his book, Tupelo, John Hill Aughey relates a sermon he preached, during that year, against Southern secession while at the Poplar Creek Presbyterian church of Choctaw County, Mississippi.
The nationalistic tenor of Aughey’s sermon is immediately apparent from the Scripture on which he had chosen to base his sermon, which just happened to be Romans 13:1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Mr. Aughey begins his sermon with a feeble attempt to juxtapose the Southern talk of secession, due in large part to the May 1860 Morrill Tariff, which would raise the average tariff from about 15% to 37%, with Israel’s "idolatry" and rebellion against Judah after the death of King Solomon.
The pastor then goes on to declare: "if we, as the ten tribes, resist the ordinance of God, (meaning, of course, the accepted dogma of Romans 13:1) we will perish. At this time many are advocating the course of the ten tribes. Secession is a word of frequent occurrence. It is openly advocated by many. Nullification and rebellion, secession and treason, are convertible terms, and no good citizen will mention them with approval."
Furthermore Aughey accents his nationalism with these words: "Where do we obtain the right of secession? Clearly not from the word of God, which enjoins obedience to all that are in authority, to whom we must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience's sake."
As if on cue pastor Aughey calls on his congregation to find the right of state secession in the Constitution of the United States and continues his remarks with this remarkable statement.
"Henry Clay, the great statesman, Daniel Webster, the expounder of the constitution, General Jackson, George Washington, and a mighty host, whose names would fill a volume, regarded secession as treason." (Emphasis mine)
It is unquestionably true that those named would regard secession as treason. However, the good pastor conveniently neglected to mention that each, save one, owed their fortunes to those who had committed acts of secession (treason), which during the late 18th century were justified by economic and social conditions far less odious than those being faced by the Southern States in 1860.
Aughey’s sermon goes on for several more pages. However, the point is that while the sermon is expressed in 19th century words, it contains 21st century progressive sentiments. Sentiments that now espouse blind obedience to an even more abusive Federal government.
Pastor Aughey’s problem continues when he calls upon Romans 13:1 to stand as an injunction against secession.
However, the passages in the Bible as well as secular history, which are contrary to Pastor Aughey’s moral contention, are almost legion. Starting with Genesis 10 and the tower of Babel, the Psalms declaring God’s enmity with rulers and the state, Samuel’s proclaiming those who wish to rule are no better than "weeds" (Judges 9:7–15), Jesus’ own actions concerning state authority, the acts of the Apostles in disobeying Roman authority, and the Christian community through the first three centuries all tell a different story.
The problem resides in the awareness, or lack of it, concerning the history and etymology of the word "powers."
In a work entitled "The Higher Right to Choose" Brother Gregory Williams makes an incisive observation concerning the word "powers" used in Romans 13:1.
"The word is exousia and it is from two Greek words. Ex means 'of' or 'from', while ousia is ‘what one has, i.e. property, possessions, estate…’"
Even a cursory check of a Greek dictionary reveals that "exousia" has as its primary meaning: "noun feminine; power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases."
Furthermore that is exactly how those notable thinkers of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle used the word "exousia." The Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms affirms that "exousia" means "a right."
Aristotle not only uses exousia as a right but further qualifies the word when he says: "The right (exousia) to do anything one wishes leaves [the political community] defenseless..."
However, Brother Gregory Williams has another shoe to drop when he writes:
"In Bryn Mawr's Classical Review we see, ‘Brancacci notices that the term used by Enomaos to refer to human freedom is not the typical Cynic one (eleutheria), but exousia, which expresses the new concept of freedom in opposition to the already defunct and unhelpful eleutheria’."
"It seems clear that Paul is telling us that we should be subject to the liberty and right to choose endowed by God. Paul understood the perfect law of liberty, to oppose liberty is to oppose the will of God for men."
This is an ugly breach in the state’s longstanding bastion of Biblical legitimacy and government’s opposition to individual freedoms. For the world of classical antiquity would have read Romans 13:1 as; "Let every soul be subject to the higher liberty. For there is no liberty except from God, and the liberties that exist are appointed by God."
So why did such an eminent scholar, who was fluent in Greek, as St. Jerome, when writing the Vulgate, use the Latin word "potestatibus;" (power, rule, force; strength, ability; chance, or opportunity) instead of the Latin "licentia" (freedom, liberty, license, leave, authorization) in Romans 13?
Jerome certainly knew that the Greek "exousia" meant liberty and freedom since in 1 Corinthians 8:9; he properly renders "exousia" as "licentia."
The answer resides in the times (360 to 420 AD) in which Jerome lived and translated the New Testament from Greek into Latin.
Gibbon’s reminds us that:
"Constantine and his successors could not easily persuade themselves that they had forfeited, by their conversion, any branch of the Imperial prerogatives, or that they were incapable of giving laws to a religion which they had protected and embraced. The emperors still continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the A.D. 312–438 ecclesiastical order; and the sixteenth book of the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of titles, the authority which they assumed in the government of the Catholic Church."
On Friday, February 28, 380 AD and five years before Jerome begins his work on Epistles of St. Paul the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augustuses issued an edict which commanded the people of Constantinople and the Roman Empire to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. Then added to those who didn’t, "whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
From then on what the Church would consider heresy was not only a sin against God but now a crime against the State and was severely punished.
Jerome was working under the demands of "political correctness" which prevailed at that time. Anything which he wrote or believed which countermanded the authority of the Emperors was analogous to one standing before the president of the United States, today, brandishing a weapon and slinging 19th century racial slurs.
We have a revealing sense of how dangerous writing the truth could be during this era from Procopius: "You see, it was not possible, during the life of certain persons, to write the truth of what they did, as a historian should. If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death. I could not even trust my nearest relatives. That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books."
One could now legitimately ask, why then did the King James Bible of 1611 retain the word power(s) in Romans 13?
The answer is in the rules that were set down to guide the translators, one of which was: "When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith."
This is a most curious rule since the translators rejected St. Paul’s, who by the way was the most Ancient father, use of the word "exousia" in favor of Jerome’s "potestatibus." One can only guess what part the marriage between the Church of England and the English state with its Divine Right of Kings dogma played in that decision. However, I doubt either were far from the minds of those learned 17th century translators.
It is my contention that since the state has a long history of using physical threats, not the least of which have included the threat of death in the suppression of civil liberties; there is no reason to assume the state’s innocence in the marginalization of St. Paul’s thoughts in Romans 13.
The state’s chronic dishonesty accompanied by pervasive intrusions into all aspects of our lives has rendered, as Professor Block says, "no real important distinction… between the state and any run of the mill ‘private’ criminal gang. The only difference is better public relations on the part of the former; Both are organized criminal gangs; one has public legitimacy, the other does not." (Emphases are Professor Block’s)
The question of secession then becomes a moot point, for only cohorts in the ongoing criminal actions would refuse to extricate themselves from that which seeks to destroy the calling of mankind to liberty.
Equally essential is the realization that any act from an individual or collective of individuals in favor of the right to do anything one wishes as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, is by definition an act of secession and will be labeled sedition by the hoodlums in power.
However, regardless of the consequences, the highest calling of man remains freedom, which reaches back beyond Plato and Aristotle and is embodied in the Greek word "exousia." Sadly, all of history points to it being a costly struggle and with the current political and economic climate it looks to be again.
So let’s at least start by putting away these childish semantic games that have been the hallmark of state supported abuses and begin the fight from the moral high ground. The alternative is historically disastrous and morally unacceptable.
June 8, 2009
Certainly, the likelihood of this occurring is enhanced by the indication that China either will not or cannot continue to finance America’s debt. Added to our concerns is the world financial market’s growing lack of confidence in the American economy which portends the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar.
The warnings have been numerous and the reasoning sound; so where do we go from here?
Undoubtedly the anxieties among those who are watching these events unfold are becoming manifest in their resistance to any further state usurpations and their focus on personal survival. Ah yes, we are now contemplating, individually and collectively, the very acts that every modern, massive, centralized government since William the Conqueror has sought to suppress by law.
What is often forgotten amongst the melee of "how to" articles, is the consideration of two basic questions. First: Is there a moral justification for resistance against an increasingly pernicious centralized government? Second: If the moral justification for resistance does exist can that struggle take the form of secession?
Each of these questions is answered in the negative by the power elite. Donald Livingston gives us meticulous historical reasons why the state is so adamant in its objections.
"In time, a modern state came to be seen as an association to protect the rights of individuals, and this added a stronger presumption against secession, because any right of a people to secede could only be the aggregate right of a set of individuals. But if one set could secede, any other set or subset-down to one individual – could secede. An acknowledged right of secession would mean the unraveling of the modern state."
The soft, vulnerable underbelly of the modern state being so easily exposed explains in part why the state and its supporters have had to resort to deception shrouded in religious dogma and patriotic gibberish to justify their existence. It is simply their hope of keeping the dogs of freedom at bay.
By way of illustration we need only to return to 1860 when the Southern people where hotly debating the issue of secession.
In his book, Tupelo, John Hill Aughey relates a sermon he preached, during that year, against Southern secession while at the Poplar Creek Presbyterian church of Choctaw County, Mississippi.
The nationalistic tenor of Aughey’s sermon is immediately apparent from the Scripture on which he had chosen to base his sermon, which just happened to be Romans 13:1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Mr. Aughey begins his sermon with a feeble attempt to juxtapose the Southern talk of secession, due in large part to the May 1860 Morrill Tariff, which would raise the average tariff from about 15% to 37%, with Israel’s "idolatry" and rebellion against Judah after the death of King Solomon.
The pastor then goes on to declare: "if we, as the ten tribes, resist the ordinance of God, (meaning, of course, the accepted dogma of Romans 13:1) we will perish. At this time many are advocating the course of the ten tribes. Secession is a word of frequent occurrence. It is openly advocated by many. Nullification and rebellion, secession and treason, are convertible terms, and no good citizen will mention them with approval."
Furthermore Aughey accents his nationalism with these words: "Where do we obtain the right of secession? Clearly not from the word of God, which enjoins obedience to all that are in authority, to whom we must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience's sake."
As if on cue pastor Aughey calls on his congregation to find the right of state secession in the Constitution of the United States and continues his remarks with this remarkable statement.
"Henry Clay, the great statesman, Daniel Webster, the expounder of the constitution, General Jackson, George Washington, and a mighty host, whose names would fill a volume, regarded secession as treason." (Emphasis mine)
It is unquestionably true that those named would regard secession as treason. However, the good pastor conveniently neglected to mention that each, save one, owed their fortunes to those who had committed acts of secession (treason), which during the late 18th century were justified by economic and social conditions far less odious than those being faced by the Southern States in 1860.
Aughey’s sermon goes on for several more pages. However, the point is that while the sermon is expressed in 19th century words, it contains 21st century progressive sentiments. Sentiments that now espouse blind obedience to an even more abusive Federal government.
Pastor Aughey’s problem continues when he calls upon Romans 13:1 to stand as an injunction against secession.
However, the passages in the Bible as well as secular history, which are contrary to Pastor Aughey’s moral contention, are almost legion. Starting with Genesis 10 and the tower of Babel, the Psalms declaring God’s enmity with rulers and the state, Samuel’s proclaiming those who wish to rule are no better than "weeds" (Judges 9:7–15), Jesus’ own actions concerning state authority, the acts of the Apostles in disobeying Roman authority, and the Christian community through the first three centuries all tell a different story.
The problem resides in the awareness, or lack of it, concerning the history and etymology of the word "powers."
In a work entitled "The Higher Right to Choose" Brother Gregory Williams makes an incisive observation concerning the word "powers" used in Romans 13:1.
"The word is exousia and it is from two Greek words. Ex means 'of' or 'from', while ousia is ‘what one has, i.e. property, possessions, estate…’"
Even a cursory check of a Greek dictionary reveals that "exousia" has as its primary meaning: "noun feminine; power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases."
Furthermore that is exactly how those notable thinkers of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle used the word "exousia." The Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms affirms that "exousia" means "a right."
Aristotle not only uses exousia as a right but further qualifies the word when he says: "The right (exousia) to do anything one wishes leaves [the political community] defenseless..."
However, Brother Gregory Williams has another shoe to drop when he writes:
"In Bryn Mawr's Classical Review we see, ‘Brancacci notices that the term used by Enomaos to refer to human freedom is not the typical Cynic one (eleutheria), but exousia, which expresses the new concept of freedom in opposition to the already defunct and unhelpful eleutheria’."
"It seems clear that Paul is telling us that we should be subject to the liberty and right to choose endowed by God. Paul understood the perfect law of liberty, to oppose liberty is to oppose the will of God for men."
This is an ugly breach in the state’s longstanding bastion of Biblical legitimacy and government’s opposition to individual freedoms. For the world of classical antiquity would have read Romans 13:1 as; "Let every soul be subject to the higher liberty. For there is no liberty except from God, and the liberties that exist are appointed by God."
So why did such an eminent scholar, who was fluent in Greek, as St. Jerome, when writing the Vulgate, use the Latin word "potestatibus;" (power, rule, force; strength, ability; chance, or opportunity) instead of the Latin "licentia" (freedom, liberty, license, leave, authorization) in Romans 13?
Jerome certainly knew that the Greek "exousia" meant liberty and freedom since in 1 Corinthians 8:9; he properly renders "exousia" as "licentia."
The answer resides in the times (360 to 420 AD) in which Jerome lived and translated the New Testament from Greek into Latin.
Gibbon’s reminds us that:
"Constantine and his successors could not easily persuade themselves that they had forfeited, by their conversion, any branch of the Imperial prerogatives, or that they were incapable of giving laws to a religion which they had protected and embraced. The emperors still continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the A.D. 312–438 ecclesiastical order; and the sixteenth book of the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of titles, the authority which they assumed in the government of the Catholic Church."
On Friday, February 28, 380 AD and five years before Jerome begins his work on Epistles of St. Paul the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augustuses issued an edict which commanded the people of Constantinople and the Roman Empire to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. Then added to those who didn’t, "whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
From then on what the Church would consider heresy was not only a sin against God but now a crime against the State and was severely punished.
Jerome was working under the demands of "political correctness" which prevailed at that time. Anything which he wrote or believed which countermanded the authority of the Emperors was analogous to one standing before the president of the United States, today, brandishing a weapon and slinging 19th century racial slurs.
We have a revealing sense of how dangerous writing the truth could be during this era from Procopius: "You see, it was not possible, during the life of certain persons, to write the truth of what they did, as a historian should. If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death. I could not even trust my nearest relatives. That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books."
One could now legitimately ask, why then did the King James Bible of 1611 retain the word power(s) in Romans 13?
The answer is in the rules that were set down to guide the translators, one of which was: "When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith."
This is a most curious rule since the translators rejected St. Paul’s, who by the way was the most Ancient father, use of the word "exousia" in favor of Jerome’s "potestatibus." One can only guess what part the marriage between the Church of England and the English state with its Divine Right of Kings dogma played in that decision. However, I doubt either were far from the minds of those learned 17th century translators.
It is my contention that since the state has a long history of using physical threats, not the least of which have included the threat of death in the suppression of civil liberties; there is no reason to assume the state’s innocence in the marginalization of St. Paul’s thoughts in Romans 13.
The state’s chronic dishonesty accompanied by pervasive intrusions into all aspects of our lives has rendered, as Professor Block says, "no real important distinction… between the state and any run of the mill ‘private’ criminal gang. The only difference is better public relations on the part of the former; Both are organized criminal gangs; one has public legitimacy, the other does not." (Emphases are Professor Block’s)
The question of secession then becomes a moot point, for only cohorts in the ongoing criminal actions would refuse to extricate themselves from that which seeks to destroy the calling of mankind to liberty.
Equally essential is the realization that any act from an individual or collective of individuals in favor of the right to do anything one wishes as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, is by definition an act of secession and will be labeled sedition by the hoodlums in power.
However, regardless of the consequences, the highest calling of man remains freedom, which reaches back beyond Plato and Aristotle and is embodied in the Greek word "exousia." Sadly, all of history points to it being a costly struggle and with the current political and economic climate it looks to be again.
So let’s at least start by putting away these childish semantic games that have been the hallmark of state supported abuses and begin the fight from the moral high ground. The alternative is historically disastrous and morally unacceptable.
June 8, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Good Quote
“The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of his folly is to fill the world with fools.”
Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer
Friday, May 8, 2009
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
– Proverbs 1:7
I think what we have going on in the modern world is what this verse is talking about. We have knowledge of how thinks work, but that does not imply that we have wisdom. In fact we have strayed so far from the wisdom that God gave us in the Bible and the founders provided for us in their writing and our constitution that it pains me to see were we are going as a nation. We live in a world to lazy to read the great books of history. Aristole, Plato, Adam Smith, and the bible to name a few. All of western civilazation is built on the foundations that these books layed. I going to put a list on here soon of the great books of western civilization.
– Proverbs 1:7
I think what we have going on in the modern world is what this verse is talking about. We have knowledge of how thinks work, but that does not imply that we have wisdom. In fact we have strayed so far from the wisdom that God gave us in the Bible and the founders provided for us in their writing and our constitution that it pains me to see were we are going as a nation. We live in a world to lazy to read the great books of history. Aristole, Plato, Adam Smith, and the bible to name a few. All of western civilazation is built on the foundations that these books layed. I going to put a list on here soon of the great books of western civilization.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Die, Global Warming, Die! (Good Read)
Alan Caruba
By Alan Caruba Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Ever since the “global warming” lie began, for at least two decades or more, I have been writing about what a huge hoax it was and is. For all that time I believed that if the truth got out and reached enough people, they would conclude it was a lie.
The entire credibility of major so-called environmental organizations and institutions such as the United Nations rests on whether there ever was a greater than natural warming cycle; one that would cause harm to the world. Patiently I pointed out that the most recent natural warming cycle had begun around 1850 following a lengthy little ice age of some five hundred years duration. In the United States, despite all the braying about warmest years and such, the height of the warming cycle appears to have been in the 1930s, causing havoc among farmers, particularly in the Midwest. In 1998, meteorologists and climatologists began to take note of a cooling cycle. It has been gaining momentum since then. Yes, the Earth is cooling, not warming. Despite this, the White House and the U.S. Congress—at least its Democrats—have been telling everyone that, because of global warming, the United States government must impose draconian regulations and restrictions on “greenhouse gas” emissions, by which they primarily mean carbon dioxide (CO2). The claim, utterly false, is that CO2 is “forcing” a warming that will kill us all if we don’t reduce energy and other emissions. The utterly vile politicians advancing this—I will not name them because the very act causes nausea—had better begin to pay some attention to public opinion on the subject because the Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen polling organizations all are reporting that large majorities of people no longer believe their lies. In a recent edition of U.S. News & World Report, one of the three weekly newsmagazines, all of whom have slavishly repeated lies about global warming, Paul Bedard who writes “Washington Whispers” risked employment by reporting that Al Gore’s vast, self-enriching campaign to advance the lies about global warming is losing out to the truth. “They have failed,” said Gallup Poll editor, Frank Newport. “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” Turns out that people are more concerned about the economy. And well they should be given the insanity being perpetrated by the White House and Congress. If there is a God in Heaven, there has to be a huge backlash in the 2010 midterm elections. As Newport points out, “some 41% believe global warming claims are exaggerated,” adding “that’s the highest we’ve seen.” Zogby and Rasmussen report comparable results, give or take some percentage points. Zogby asked people what they thought of the “cap-and-trade” legislation that would regulate CO2 emissions and got the following results: Support 30% Oppose 57% Not sure 13%. In late April, Rasmussen reported that, “Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.” The “Political Class” is the enemy. They are the scoundrels that stand to line their pockets by investing in companies that will benefit from “cap-and-trade” and Obama’s lies about “clean energy.” They are buying into solar and wind energy companies that are receiving billions in federal subsidies and grants. Anybody who invested in ethanol production has already lost their shirt. The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill should make of their names the equivalent of Benedict Arnold because both are advancing legislation that would destroy the nation’s economy. The bill requires the nation to reduce its CO2 emissions by 2050 by 82% below current levels. That means a vast reduction in energy use, i.e. coal, natural gas, and oil. Why would they advocate reducing emissions to avoid a global warming that is not happening? Why are so many in Congress wedded to this hoax? And will Americans permit them to get away with this? Instead of doing everything possible to encourage energy companies to find and extract the energy reserves the United States requires to function and grow, the White House and Congress is doing everything in its power to restrict energy use. Die, global warming, die! If this greatest hoax does not die, the United States will be forced to commit economic suicide.
By Alan Caruba Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Ever since the “global warming” lie began, for at least two decades or more, I have been writing about what a huge hoax it was and is. For all that time I believed that if the truth got out and reached enough people, they would conclude it was a lie.
The entire credibility of major so-called environmental organizations and institutions such as the United Nations rests on whether there ever was a greater than natural warming cycle; one that would cause harm to the world. Patiently I pointed out that the most recent natural warming cycle had begun around 1850 following a lengthy little ice age of some five hundred years duration. In the United States, despite all the braying about warmest years and such, the height of the warming cycle appears to have been in the 1930s, causing havoc among farmers, particularly in the Midwest. In 1998, meteorologists and climatologists began to take note of a cooling cycle. It has been gaining momentum since then. Yes, the Earth is cooling, not warming. Despite this, the White House and the U.S. Congress—at least its Democrats—have been telling everyone that, because of global warming, the United States government must impose draconian regulations and restrictions on “greenhouse gas” emissions, by which they primarily mean carbon dioxide (CO2). The claim, utterly false, is that CO2 is “forcing” a warming that will kill us all if we don’t reduce energy and other emissions. The utterly vile politicians advancing this—I will not name them because the very act causes nausea—had better begin to pay some attention to public opinion on the subject because the Gallup, Zogby and Rasmussen polling organizations all are reporting that large majorities of people no longer believe their lies. In a recent edition of U.S. News & World Report, one of the three weekly newsmagazines, all of whom have slavishly repeated lies about global warming, Paul Bedard who writes “Washington Whispers” risked employment by reporting that Al Gore’s vast, self-enriching campaign to advance the lies about global warming is losing out to the truth. “They have failed,” said Gallup Poll editor, Frank Newport. “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” Turns out that people are more concerned about the economy. And well they should be given the insanity being perpetrated by the White House and Congress. If there is a God in Heaven, there has to be a huge backlash in the 2010 midterm elections. As Newport points out, “some 41% believe global warming claims are exaggerated,” adding “that’s the highest we’ve seen.” Zogby and Rasmussen report comparable results, give or take some percentage points. Zogby asked people what they thought of the “cap-and-trade” legislation that would regulate CO2 emissions and got the following results: Support 30% Oppose 57% Not sure 13%. In late April, Rasmussen reported that, “Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.” The “Political Class” is the enemy. They are the scoundrels that stand to line their pockets by investing in companies that will benefit from “cap-and-trade” and Obama’s lies about “clean energy.” They are buying into solar and wind energy companies that are receiving billions in federal subsidies and grants. Anybody who invested in ethanol production has already lost their shirt. The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill should make of their names the equivalent of Benedict Arnold because both are advancing legislation that would destroy the nation’s economy. The bill requires the nation to reduce its CO2 emissions by 2050 by 82% below current levels. That means a vast reduction in energy use, i.e. coal, natural gas, and oil. Why would they advocate reducing emissions to avoid a global warming that is not happening? Why are so many in Congress wedded to this hoax? And will Americans permit them to get away with this? Instead of doing everything possible to encourage energy companies to find and extract the energy reserves the United States requires to function and grow, the White House and Congress is doing everything in its power to restrict energy use. Die, global warming, die! If this greatest hoax does not die, the United States will be forced to commit economic suicide.
Montana fucking rocks
Montana Defies Feds on Guns, Ammo, Silencers and Other Accessories
Published by Colin May 7, 2009 in Current Events. Tags: campaign for liberty, federal, gun rights, guns, montana, napolitano, second ammendment, silencer.
I was quite impressed that the words were finally articulated by Judge Andrew Napolitano at Campaign For Liberty’s rally in St. Louis in March regarding the second amendment:
If a politician tells you that he’s in favour of the Second Amendment because he’s a hunter - he is no friend of the Second Amendment. Here is the dirty little secret of the Second Amendment that you never learned in public schools. The Second Amendment was written to give you the right to shoot at the government when it becomes a tyranny.
Now the Democratic governor of Montana has signed into law an incredible attempt to erode the power of the Federal Government as it applies to gun laws. Let me just lay it out from the bill:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce...
What this functionally means is that items that the federal government loves to regulate and prohibit: handguns, silencers, ammunition, scopes and so on - would be perfectly legal in Montana and exempt from requirements to engage the Federal framework of registration.
Montana’s argument is sound - those items which are made in Montana for use in Montana are not being involved in “interstate commerce.” That small clause of the constitution which lies at the heart of many federal laws, including drug laws, alcohol laws, transportation laws and firearms laws among other things is being directly challenged by this legislation.
Attempts like this with medical marijuana have promoted Federal officials to react by performing armed raids of citizens in California, for example. Aside from the aggression on behalf of the federal agents - these confrontations generally were non-violent. However a very different scenario is now set up in Montana.
Gun loving people in the state are going to take advantage of this law. They are going to buy silencers, ammunition and guns - and a percentage of these are going to be willing to put Judge Napolitano’s words into action. A federal raid on gun-loving, moderately anti-government individuals may very well result in violence.
Unfortunately, this is the inevitable result of an aggressively growing central government that has run out of external enemies to prosecute. Those enemies of the state begin to be revealed from within. Average people, who merely want to keep the means to defend themselves or even exercise their rights of bearing arms may risk violent interaction with Federal agents in Montana.
(this has been coming for a long time, there has never been a nation as large and diverse as ours that has not broken down, see the USSR, Bosnia and countless others, we will one day split into smallers fractions, some with the intent of confiscating property and personal rights and others that protect and die for the rights the founders professed. We will eventually tell the feds to fuck off)
Published by Colin May 7, 2009 in Current Events. Tags: campaign for liberty, federal, gun rights, guns, montana, napolitano, second ammendment, silencer.
I was quite impressed that the words were finally articulated by Judge Andrew Napolitano at Campaign For Liberty’s rally in St. Louis in March regarding the second amendment:
If a politician tells you that he’s in favour of the Second Amendment because he’s a hunter - he is no friend of the Second Amendment. Here is the dirty little secret of the Second Amendment that you never learned in public schools. The Second Amendment was written to give you the right to shoot at the government when it becomes a tyranny.
Now the Democratic governor of Montana has signed into law an incredible attempt to erode the power of the Federal Government as it applies to gun laws. Let me just lay it out from the bill:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce...
What this functionally means is that items that the federal government loves to regulate and prohibit: handguns, silencers, ammunition, scopes and so on - would be perfectly legal in Montana and exempt from requirements to engage the Federal framework of registration.
Montana’s argument is sound - those items which are made in Montana for use in Montana are not being involved in “interstate commerce.” That small clause of the constitution which lies at the heart of many federal laws, including drug laws, alcohol laws, transportation laws and firearms laws among other things is being directly challenged by this legislation.
Attempts like this with medical marijuana have promoted Federal officials to react by performing armed raids of citizens in California, for example. Aside from the aggression on behalf of the federal agents - these confrontations generally were non-violent. However a very different scenario is now set up in Montana.
Gun loving people in the state are going to take advantage of this law. They are going to buy silencers, ammunition and guns - and a percentage of these are going to be willing to put Judge Napolitano’s words into action. A federal raid on gun-loving, moderately anti-government individuals may very well result in violence.
Unfortunately, this is the inevitable result of an aggressively growing central government that has run out of external enemies to prosecute. Those enemies of the state begin to be revealed from within. Average people, who merely want to keep the means to defend themselves or even exercise their rights of bearing arms may risk violent interaction with Federal agents in Montana.
(this has been coming for a long time, there has never been a nation as large and diverse as ours that has not broken down, see the USSR, Bosnia and countless others, we will one day split into smallers fractions, some with the intent of confiscating property and personal rights and others that protect and die for the rights the founders professed. We will eventually tell the feds to fuck off)
Why to vote against abortion and evil men and women who suppport it
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”-John Quincy Adams
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
- John Adams
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
- John Adams
Obama is a crazy Tyrant (Read This)
Business Insider reports that more than one Chrysler senior creditor has corroborated Thomas Lauria’s allegation that the Obama administration threatened them with public attacks if they didn’t surrender their contractual rights. One of their sources says that the Obama team comprises some of the worst “ends justify the means” people he’s ever encountered (via HA reader Geoff A):
Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.
This guy is like a child that does not get his way. He thinks that he is above the law. He is literally acting like a dictator. This makes me sick. We now have a megalomaniac as the president. If you don't do what I tell you, I will take you out. This is scary shit. He is threatening a private citizen, what a fucking peace of shit. This is no different than what lead to the Magna Carta(the great charter of freedom)1215. If you don't know what it is you need to study it. Basically the Magna Carta was a document that British nobels and Barons made the King John the Edward sign saying that the King is not above the law. Well Obama is acting like he is above the law, do we need a new Magna Carta since our supreme law the constitution is being shredded?
Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as “a farce,” saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.
Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said. …
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person said described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.
This guy is like a child that does not get his way. He thinks that he is above the law. He is literally acting like a dictator. This makes me sick. We now have a megalomaniac as the president. If you don't do what I tell you, I will take you out. This is scary shit. He is threatening a private citizen, what a fucking peace of shit. This is no different than what lead to the Magna Carta(the great charter of freedom)1215. If you don't know what it is you need to study it. Basically the Magna Carta was a document that British nobels and Barons made the King John the Edward sign saying that the King is not above the law. Well Obama is acting like he is above the law, do we need a new Magna Carta since our supreme law the constitution is being shredded?
The first 100 Days or so of the Obama Kingship
So let's make a list's of the achievements of the first 100 Days of the Obama Administration.
1. The largest budget in the history of the United States. That is twice the size of the last budget of Bill Clinton. It is 25% of the GDP of the United States.
2. He cut 17 billion dollars from the budget for 2009(.05 percent). The problem is that he doubled the size of the budget. But they are good cuts, the f22 raptor and enlistment bonuses for the armed forces.
3. He signed a executive order that ordered the government to pay for embryonic stem research. The problem here is that there have been no cures from it, not one. Adult stem cells have provided over thirty types of genetic therapy's.
4. He will not talk or take part in the national day of prayer.
5. The FDIC is seriously underfunded. 13.6 billion of assets back up 4.7 Trillion of banking loans.
6. The terror flight over New York. What a stupid stunt, ignorant and expensive (380,000.00)
7. Threatening bond holders with the white house press core. The first point is that the president is no more than a extortionists. But the second thing that should truly concern you is that he thinks that the press core will do what he says. They are suppose to report the news, investigate the powerful and give a non-biased view. They are involved in the messiah worship of Obama. This is truly scary.
8. His pushing of the fairness doctrine behind the scenes through the house and senate and the changes in the appointment to the FCC.
9. The push for cap and trade taxes on businesses to the tune of 636 Billion dollars. Did you read that 636 billion dollars. That is another 3000.00 dollars a yr in taxes on the average family. The government never creates wealth they just tax it from one source and redistribute it to another group. It is all ways a waste of money, the government does not know how to make money. See Amtrak, post office, Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and every other thing the government has gotten into.
10. The worst thing that i have seen so far is the breaking of the constitution limits on the authority of the executive branch. He is trying to influence the courts to change payout structure of the bankruptcy code. He is unduly wielding his power to influence and control an autonomous branch of the government. That is scary. Does he think that he is the King. It would appear so.
I will add to the list as I think about it more. He is literally wiping his ass with the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We do not have a king and for good reasons.
1. The largest budget in the history of the United States. That is twice the size of the last budget of Bill Clinton. It is 25% of the GDP of the United States.
2. He cut 17 billion dollars from the budget for 2009(.05 percent). The problem is that he doubled the size of the budget. But they are good cuts, the f22 raptor and enlistment bonuses for the armed forces.
3. He signed a executive order that ordered the government to pay for embryonic stem research. The problem here is that there have been no cures from it, not one. Adult stem cells have provided over thirty types of genetic therapy's.
4. He will not talk or take part in the national day of prayer.
5. The FDIC is seriously underfunded. 13.6 billion of assets back up 4.7 Trillion of banking loans.
6. The terror flight over New York. What a stupid stunt, ignorant and expensive (380,000.00)
7. Threatening bond holders with the white house press core. The first point is that the president is no more than a extortionists. But the second thing that should truly concern you is that he thinks that the press core will do what he says. They are suppose to report the news, investigate the powerful and give a non-biased view. They are involved in the messiah worship of Obama. This is truly scary.
8. His pushing of the fairness doctrine behind the scenes through the house and senate and the changes in the appointment to the FCC.
9. The push for cap and trade taxes on businesses to the tune of 636 Billion dollars. Did you read that 636 billion dollars. That is another 3000.00 dollars a yr in taxes on the average family. The government never creates wealth they just tax it from one source and redistribute it to another group. It is all ways a waste of money, the government does not know how to make money. See Amtrak, post office, Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and every other thing the government has gotten into.
10. The worst thing that i have seen so far is the breaking of the constitution limits on the authority of the executive branch. He is trying to influence the courts to change payout structure of the bankruptcy code. He is unduly wielding his power to influence and control an autonomous branch of the government. That is scary. Does he think that he is the King. It would appear so.
I will add to the list as I think about it more. He is literally wiping his ass with the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We do not have a king and for good reasons.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Told you so (Fasicst)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama is revelling in presidential power and influence unseen in Washington for decades. Barely 100 days in office, the U.S. president and his Democratic Party have firm control over the White House and Congress and the ability to push through ambitious plans. Now, with the coming retirement of a Supreme Court justice clearing the way for him to appoint a successor, Obama already is assured a legacy at the top of all three branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial.
Surprise the undercover socialist, wait never mind the admitted liberal socialist has decided he likes power so much that he will pass many more laws trying to steal money from hard working people and redistributing (giving to lazy ass clowns and teen age moms) it to poor people (future democratic voters and welfare recipients). I think that is it.
On the corporate front, the federal government's pumping of billions of dollars in bailout money into banks and auto companies has given Obama the power to force an overhaul in those industries, a remarkable intervention in capitalist industries by the state.
I think I remember writing about this last week, oh yeah, now I remember. Fascism - definition: totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life(would this include business, I think It would). The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.)
Old but proves my point.
Surprise the undercover socialist, wait never mind the admitted liberal socialist has decided he likes power so much that he will pass many more laws trying to steal money from hard working people and redistributing (giving to lazy ass clowns and teen age moms) it to poor people (future democratic voters and welfare recipients). I think that is it.
On the corporate front, the federal government's pumping of billions of dollars in bailout money into banks and auto companies has given Obama the power to force an overhaul in those industries, a remarkable intervention in capitalist industries by the state.
I think I remember writing about this last week, oh yeah, now I remember. Fascism - definition: totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life(would this include business, I think It would). The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.)
Old but proves my point.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Really funny (Muslims: 'We do that on first dates")
Anne Coulter (Funny as Hell)
Muslims: 'We do that on first dates'
Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.
Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?
The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:
"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator." The end.
There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.
And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."
People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.
As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch: Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ... low – you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.
Further up the torture ladder – from Guantanamo, not Monty Python – comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."
If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)
I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.
In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."
Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."
If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver – the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" – CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.
I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."
Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.
Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America – were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.
As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.
Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care – including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Only three terrorists – who could have been shot – were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.
Normal human beings – especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy – can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.
At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.
But the New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.
Muslims: 'We do that on first dates'
Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.
Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?
The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:
"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator." The end.
There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.
And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."
People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.
As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch: Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ... low – you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.
Further up the torture ladder – from Guantanamo, not Monty Python – comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."
If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)
I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.
In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."
Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."
If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver – the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" – CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.
I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."
Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.
Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America – were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.
As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.
Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care – including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Only three terrorists – who could have been shot – were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.
Normal human beings – especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy – can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.
At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.
But the New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.
Assult on the 1st Amendment
So I heard some very disturbing news today, the House of Representatives has passed a resolution 249-175 that provides special prosecutions to homosexuals, but leaves Christan ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a "gay".
So now we find that homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals. Can anyone answer this simple question, where in the constitution does it give the government the right to create a special class of people? How is it any more hateful to attack a homosexual. All crimes are so called hate crimes. I think rape, murder, pedophilia are forms of hate crimes. Oh wait this bill protects pedophiles, well at least rape and murder our bad. What is wrong with this country that we protect the behavior of people that hate what our country stands for. We have a federalist form of government, the states our allowed to pass laws in favor of gay marriage. The problems of the homosexual lobby is that they do not want to except that the majority of the people in this nation do not support gay marriage(Even California voters made gay marrigae unconstutionial). It is a simple moral and ethical decision, if you are against something on moral grounds, you can't just arbitrarily throw the beliefs off and change your mind.
The real problem of the law is that in other nations that have passed similar laws ministers are thrown in jail for reading parts of the bible that say homosexuality is a sin. Is this our future of America, we just ignore the bill of rights. Maybe we should look at the first amendment real quick.
1st amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assembly, to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)
Do I really have to explain what this means. You can not stop someones free speech period. This principle is the basic right that all others are built on. So no surprise that the democrats have pushed so hard, if they can just silence their critics they can get a permanent majority. I wish there was a true libertarian party to vote for, hopefully this won't take to long to form. We need small government, lower tax rates, no interference of business by government, defense of the right to bear arms. These are my principles, what are yours. The democrats are trying to make Christianity illegal, that is their goal and you would be wise to listen. If you don't agree with me at least understand that your idea of free speech is necessary for all political beliefs. Remember that we always have to stand against the governments agenda to steal our liberties. I might not always agree with you, but i will fight to my last breath to protect your right to say what you believe.
So now we find that homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals. Can anyone answer this simple question, where in the constitution does it give the government the right to create a special class of people? How is it any more hateful to attack a homosexual. All crimes are so called hate crimes. I think rape, murder, pedophilia are forms of hate crimes. Oh wait this bill protects pedophiles, well at least rape and murder our bad. What is wrong with this country that we protect the behavior of people that hate what our country stands for. We have a federalist form of government, the states our allowed to pass laws in favor of gay marriage. The problems of the homosexual lobby is that they do not want to except that the majority of the people in this nation do not support gay marriage(Even California voters made gay marrigae unconstutionial). It is a simple moral and ethical decision, if you are against something on moral grounds, you can't just arbitrarily throw the beliefs off and change your mind.
The real problem of the law is that in other nations that have passed similar laws ministers are thrown in jail for reading parts of the bible that say homosexuality is a sin. Is this our future of America, we just ignore the bill of rights. Maybe we should look at the first amendment real quick.
1st amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assembly, to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)
Do I really have to explain what this means. You can not stop someones free speech period. This principle is the basic right that all others are built on. So no surprise that the democrats have pushed so hard, if they can just silence their critics they can get a permanent majority. I wish there was a true libertarian party to vote for, hopefully this won't take to long to form. We need small government, lower tax rates, no interference of business by government, defense of the right to bear arms. These are my principles, what are yours. The democrats are trying to make Christianity illegal, that is their goal and you would be wise to listen. If you don't agree with me at least understand that your idea of free speech is necessary for all political beliefs. Remember that we always have to stand against the governments agenda to steal our liberties. I might not always agree with you, but i will fight to my last breath to protect your right to say what you believe.
Bank of America stress test result
Gena this is for you Taken from Mish
The group that performed the stress tests state that Bank of American may need 70 billion dollers. Bank of America Corp. needs $60 billion to $70 billion of capital, according to Freidman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc. analyst Paul Miller, who cited stress tests performed by his firm. Bank of America should consider converting its preferred shares to common stock, including $27 billion of privately held preferred “as soon as possible,” Miller wrote in a note to clients dated on tuesday. Miller said his firm’s versions of the stress tests were “somewhat tougher” than those by U.S. regulators. Fed Pushes Citi, BofA to Increase Capital. The Wall Street Journal is reporting Fed Pushes Citi, BofA to Increase Capital
Regulators have told Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. that the banks may need to raise more capital based on early results of the government's so-called stress tests of lenders, according to people familiar with the situation. Executives at both banks are objecting to the preliminary findings, which emerged from the government's scrutiny of 19 large financial institutions. The two banks are planning to respond with detailed rebuttals, these people said, with Bank of America's appeal expected by Tuesday. The findings suggest that government officials are using the stress tests to send a tough message to struggling banks. Industry analysts and investors predict that some regional banks, especially those with big portfolios of commercial real-estate loans, likely fared poorly on the stress tests. Analysts consider Regions Financial Corp., Fifth Third Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. to be among the leading contenders for more capital. Wells Fargo declined to comment.If [Bank of America] is forced to bolster its capital, it could do so in one of several ways, including selling assets, selling more shares to the public or converting the government's preferred shares into common stock. That would boost the company's capital on paper but could also leave the U.S. government as Bank of America's largest shareholder while diluting the value of the stock held by existing shareholders.Some bank executives have said that even after meeting with Fed examiners on Friday, they still don't understand details of the government's methodology for conducting the tests.Taxpayers To Take Yet Another HitBank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Fifth Third Bancorp all need more taxpayer handouts.Meanwhile Geithner proclaims the vast majority of banks are "well capitalized" as if the State Banks of Podunk, Nodunk, Bodunk, Modunk, and Hodunk counterbalance the shortfalls at Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Fifth Third. They don't and it is disingenuous of Geithner to suggest so. The most likely ways for the banks to raise capital are via dilution of Treasury owned preferred stock at taxpayer expense and via the Public Private Investment Plan (PPIP). The latter is a scam to heist taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Government officials stated today "that banks directed to raise more capital shouldn't be viewed as insolvent."What else can it possibly mean when taxpayers have to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars every other month just to keep the banks running?
The group that performed the stress tests state that Bank of American may need 70 billion dollers. Bank of America Corp. needs $60 billion to $70 billion of capital, according to Freidman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc. analyst Paul Miller, who cited stress tests performed by his firm. Bank of America should consider converting its preferred shares to common stock, including $27 billion of privately held preferred “as soon as possible,” Miller wrote in a note to clients dated on tuesday. Miller said his firm’s versions of the stress tests were “somewhat tougher” than those by U.S. regulators. Fed Pushes Citi, BofA to Increase Capital. The Wall Street Journal is reporting Fed Pushes Citi, BofA to Increase Capital
Regulators have told Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. that the banks may need to raise more capital based on early results of the government's so-called stress tests of lenders, according to people familiar with the situation. Executives at both banks are objecting to the preliminary findings, which emerged from the government's scrutiny of 19 large financial institutions. The two banks are planning to respond with detailed rebuttals, these people said, with Bank of America's appeal expected by Tuesday. The findings suggest that government officials are using the stress tests to send a tough message to struggling banks. Industry analysts and investors predict that some regional banks, especially those with big portfolios of commercial real-estate loans, likely fared poorly on the stress tests. Analysts consider Regions Financial Corp., Fifth Third Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. to be among the leading contenders for more capital. Wells Fargo declined to comment.If [Bank of America] is forced to bolster its capital, it could do so in one of several ways, including selling assets, selling more shares to the public or converting the government's preferred shares into common stock. That would boost the company's capital on paper but could also leave the U.S. government as Bank of America's largest shareholder while diluting the value of the stock held by existing shareholders.Some bank executives have said that even after meeting with Fed examiners on Friday, they still don't understand details of the government's methodology for conducting the tests.Taxpayers To Take Yet Another HitBank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Fifth Third Bancorp all need more taxpayer handouts.Meanwhile Geithner proclaims the vast majority of banks are "well capitalized" as if the State Banks of Podunk, Nodunk, Bodunk, Modunk, and Hodunk counterbalance the shortfalls at Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Fifth Third. They don't and it is disingenuous of Geithner to suggest so. The most likely ways for the banks to raise capital are via dilution of Treasury owned preferred stock at taxpayer expense and via the Public Private Investment Plan (PPIP). The latter is a scam to heist taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Government officials stated today "that banks directed to raise more capital shouldn't be viewed as insolvent."What else can it possibly mean when taxpayers have to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars every other month just to keep the banks running?
What does it mean to be free
What does it mean to be free. How do I apply it to my life. What are natural rights's and why did the founders count on them. What is due process and how does it affect me. If you love the government, taxes, limitation or destruction of constitutional rights you will not like this post. But if you love freedom, yearn to make your own place in the world by hard work, dedication, love, friendship and personal responsibility you should listen closely.
First we need to look back at what the founders to thought. What is natural law? Natural law can be simply described as a philosophy that says that man was made in the image of god and that there just rights cannot be dissolved unless they intrude on another natural rights. Very simple example of this is when somebody murders another person. Both have the right to life, but when one takes the sword and it results in murder the society that came up with the civil contract(Government) has the right to protect citizens. The government can only do what a citizen can do. You have the right to protect yourself, so the government has the right through police to protect you. This is also seen in the idea of property rights. Let's say you worked very hard and built a comfortable life for yourself. You acquired two brand new wave runner for you and your family to enjoy. But down the street there was a person who had not pushed himself hard and therefore did not have much to show for it. But lucky for him the benevolent neighbor that lives in between you two has decided that it is not fair you have two wave runners. So he takes one of your new wave runners and gives it to the man down the street. What would happen? You would call the cops and they would arrest the neighbor for theft and return the wave runner. But what is wrong with this story is that the neighbor is the government and they do this through taxation of one group and redistribution to another. The governments job is to protect you property, not to steal it and give it to someone else. This is why natural law is so important. It gives a man the right to reap what he sows, keep what he earns. Hard work and dedication do not always lead to a comfortable life, but laziness always leads to a useless life.
What is due process and how does it apply to us as citizens. It is the idea that basic fairness must remain part of the process and it provides rules and procedures so that this BASIC fairness is applied to an individual, to prevent arbitrary action by corrupt and powerful governments.
5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use,without just compensation."
This very eloquently states that are rights are not arbitrary, the state has no constitutional authority to take these rights and if they do they have to be fairly compensated through monetary or procedural law. The whole point is that the constitution set up government made up of free men and women, we are not subjects, we are the people(Individuals). This is very important. The government does not rule over us. The government's job is to protect our Natural Rights. They are suppose to protect our freedoms, our property, our life, and many other rights not enumerated on in the constitution according to the ninth amendment. See most people do not realize that the 9th amendment is one of the greatest amendments because it clearly states the government cannot not deny or disparage the other rights of the people.
9th amendment: The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Have you though about these other rights not mentioned in the constitution. Some might be to work in the occupation and company you want, to choose your own wife, to choose how many kids you want, what kind of car you drive or maybe that you want a bike, you might just walk. The point is that it is you right to decide. The government was suppose to protect the free choices of people. Look at China, is that how you want to be. You can only have one child, that is were we our heading. When you take away choice you always take away freedom. I Can't wait for the days when the government will tell us that we do not need trucks. They will dictate that we drive crappy little Eco-friendly death traps. I did say death traps, do you understand what i am saying, we our losing our freedom every election. The two party system is rigged to always grow government. One party spends the money on war, the other on socialists security, socialist medicine, and welfare programs to promote a collective state conciseness that methodically sucks all the life of a free people.
First we need to look back at what the founders to thought. What is natural law? Natural law can be simply described as a philosophy that says that man was made in the image of god and that there just rights cannot be dissolved unless they intrude on another natural rights. Very simple example of this is when somebody murders another person. Both have the right to life, but when one takes the sword and it results in murder the society that came up with the civil contract(Government) has the right to protect citizens. The government can only do what a citizen can do. You have the right to protect yourself, so the government has the right through police to protect you. This is also seen in the idea of property rights. Let's say you worked very hard and built a comfortable life for yourself. You acquired two brand new wave runner for you and your family to enjoy. But down the street there was a person who had not pushed himself hard and therefore did not have much to show for it. But lucky for him the benevolent neighbor that lives in between you two has decided that it is not fair you have two wave runners. So he takes one of your new wave runners and gives it to the man down the street. What would happen? You would call the cops and they would arrest the neighbor for theft and return the wave runner. But what is wrong with this story is that the neighbor is the government and they do this through taxation of one group and redistribution to another. The governments job is to protect you property, not to steal it and give it to someone else. This is why natural law is so important. It gives a man the right to reap what he sows, keep what he earns. Hard work and dedication do not always lead to a comfortable life, but laziness always leads to a useless life.
What is due process and how does it apply to us as citizens. It is the idea that basic fairness must remain part of the process and it provides rules and procedures so that this BASIC fairness is applied to an individual, to prevent arbitrary action by corrupt and powerful governments.
5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use,without just compensation."
This very eloquently states that are rights are not arbitrary, the state has no constitutional authority to take these rights and if they do they have to be fairly compensated through monetary or procedural law. The whole point is that the constitution set up government made up of free men and women, we are not subjects, we are the people(Individuals). This is very important. The government does not rule over us. The government's job is to protect our Natural Rights. They are suppose to protect our freedoms, our property, our life, and many other rights not enumerated on in the constitution according to the ninth amendment. See most people do not realize that the 9th amendment is one of the greatest amendments because it clearly states the government cannot not deny or disparage the other rights of the people.
9th amendment: The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Have you though about these other rights not mentioned in the constitution. Some might be to work in the occupation and company you want, to choose your own wife, to choose how many kids you want, what kind of car you drive or maybe that you want a bike, you might just walk. The point is that it is you right to decide. The government was suppose to protect the free choices of people. Look at China, is that how you want to be. You can only have one child, that is were we our heading. When you take away choice you always take away freedom. I Can't wait for the days when the government will tell us that we do not need trucks. They will dictate that we drive crappy little Eco-friendly death traps. I did say death traps, do you understand what i am saying, we our losing our freedom every election. The two party system is rigged to always grow government. One party spends the money on war, the other on socialists security, socialist medicine, and welfare programs to promote a collective state conciseness that methodically sucks all the life of a free people.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
My thoughts on the Swine Flu
Does it not feel like something weird is going on with the swine flu. I do not live that far from Livingston county were the first case of swine flu was reported in Michigan. I just have a sinking feeling in my gut about the whole thing. The flu has been exploding for the last few days. Cases in Israel, Scotland, California, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Michigan and numerous other places. The problem is that we only know the numerator(people in the hospital). The denominator is much larger(the people that have it that do not know that they have it or are afraid to let someone know they have it). The Great influenza started out much the same way and effected the same age of the population(25-56). From the reading that I have done on the subject the reason seemingly healthy die is not from the flu, but from the over reaction of the immune system. The young and old who have generally weaker immune systems do not have the same massive immune reaction.
Why has the government not closed the border. What the fuck are they doing. Everyone knows that in order to contain a virus you Isolate it, so it does not pass along in the population. This is not what the economy needs right now. 34,000 restaurants were closed in Mexico City today. Could you imagine what would happen if we had to close all restaurants in the United State? Why did we wait till Monday night to inform people that they should probably not go to Mexico?
Does it not feel like something weird is going on with the swine flu. I do not live that far from Livingston county were the first case of swine flu was reported in Michigan. I just have a sinking feeling in my gut about the whole thing. The flu has been exploding for the last few days. Cases in Israel, Scotland, California, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Michigan and numerous other places. The problem is that we only know the numerator(people in the hospital). The denominator is much larger(the people that have it that do not know that they have it or are afraid to let someone know they have it). The Great influenza started out much the same way and effected the same age of the population(25-56). From the reading that I have done on the subject the reason seemingly healthy die is not from the flu, but from the over reaction of the immune system. The young and old who have generally weaker immune systems do not have the same massive immune reaction.
Why has the government not closed the border. What the fuck are they doing. Everyone knows that in order to contain a virus you Isolate it, so it does not pass along in the population. This is not what the economy needs right now. 34,000 restaurants were closed in Mexico City today. Could you imagine what would happen if we had to close all restaurants in the United State? Why did we wait till Monday night to inform people that they should probably not go to Mexico?
The Obama Budget
The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever. That spending would equal 28.5% of GDP, an increase in the size of the federal government in Obama’s first year of 42% compared to the postwar average relative to GDP
Did anyone that follows politics not think that this was going to happen. If the so called fiscal Conservative Bush deficit spent 2.9 trillion, why would the true tax and spend party slow the train down. Party like it is 1999, we will be dead when our kids figure out that we screwed them.
The CBO estimates that this Obama budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1% of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal deficit alone! That is again the largest in U.S. history except for World War II and more than twice Reagan’s highest deficit as a percent of GDP
This is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. What do you say about this. They are gonna bury us so deep we will never come out of this mess. Like they say when you get in a hole stop digging. When will they relize that you can not spend your way out of debt. It has never worked before. If it did we could just print money and give it away. But you can't it will only cause inflation. Inflation is described in a expansion of the money supply. It will always fail.
(April 30 Update) New Information that I heard today is that if you are 24 right now you will pay approximantly 114,000 dollers over the lifetime just for the Interest on the debt of the money that Obama is spending. The numbers grow daily, almost seems to be no limit on the money he will spend. There is so much here, I will get back to the subject latter.
(May 1 Update) Before I forget, I wanted to mention that at the current rate of spending the Obama Adminstration will spend more money in the first 20 months through deciet spending that the bush adminstration did in all eight yrs of his adminstration. The thing is that Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. When will this end, maybe when China stops buying our treasuries. We will see, can't spend like this forever.
The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever. That spending would equal 28.5% of GDP, an increase in the size of the federal government in Obama’s first year of 42% compared to the postwar average relative to GDP
Did anyone that follows politics not think that this was going to happen. If the so called fiscal Conservative Bush deficit spent 2.9 trillion, why would the true tax and spend party slow the train down. Party like it is 1999, we will be dead when our kids figure out that we screwed them.
The CBO estimates that this Obama budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1% of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal deficit alone! That is again the largest in U.S. history except for World War II and more than twice Reagan’s highest deficit as a percent of GDP
This is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. What do you say about this. They are gonna bury us so deep we will never come out of this mess. Like they say when you get in a hole stop digging. When will they relize that you can not spend your way out of debt. It has never worked before. If it did we could just print money and give it away. But you can't it will only cause inflation. Inflation is described in a expansion of the money supply. It will always fail.
(April 30 Update) New Information that I heard today is that if you are 24 right now you will pay approximantly 114,000 dollers over the lifetime just for the Interest on the debt of the money that Obama is spending. The numbers grow daily, almost seems to be no limit on the money he will spend. There is so much here, I will get back to the subject latter.
(May 1 Update) Before I forget, I wanted to mention that at the current rate of spending the Obama Adminstration will spend more money in the first 20 months through deciet spending that the bush adminstration did in all eight yrs of his adminstration. The thing is that Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. When will this end, maybe when China stops buying our treasuries. We will see, can't spend like this forever.
Freedom
I have been observing the news of the last year with a sense of disbelief. How did we elect a fascist for the president. Why after the last idiot would we think that this community agitator would be able to provide real hope. (Fascism - definition: totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.)
Let me think, have we reached a point were the state is taking control of sectors of the economy.
1. Bailing out banks that made bad loans
2. Changing the rules of the tarp afterward ex post facto
3. Bailing out the car companies
4. Destroying equity holders, bond holders and giving car companies to Unions. Classic redistribution of wealth.
5. Label people with opposing political beliefs as Terrorists (Homeland Security-Assessment of
right wing extremism)
6. Taking control of large insurance companies (AIG 180 billion so far)
I challenge you to tell me that he does not meet the classic definition of a fascist. To be fair he has not taken complete control of the economy, yet. Will see if he has enough to push through national health care, and or cap and trade.
Please leave comments
Let me think, have we reached a point were the state is taking control of sectors of the economy.
1. Bailing out banks that made bad loans
2. Changing the rules of the tarp afterward ex post facto
3. Bailing out the car companies
4. Destroying equity holders, bond holders and giving car companies to Unions. Classic redistribution of wealth.
5. Label people with opposing political beliefs as Terrorists (Homeland Security-Assessment of
right wing extremism)
6. Taking control of large insurance companies (AIG 180 billion so far)
I challenge you to tell me that he does not meet the classic definition of a fascist. To be fair he has not taken complete control of the economy, yet. Will see if he has enough to push through national health care, and or cap and trade.
Please leave comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
