Posts
Read full story
Friday, April 30, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Bertha Lewis Is Insane and So Are All the Leftards
Margie Laupheimer Earthhope Action Network
These stinking liberals are really starting to get on my nerves. But you know, all they really do is moan and bellyache about the big mean conservatives and the evil libertarians. That's all this birch Bertha Lewis is doing in the video. They have the power and still they whine and cry and call us names. Patriot, and Constitutionalist, libertarian and conservative are dirty words now according to them. They say we're dangerous. They ignore us. They disparage us in the most despicable way. They have no decency. They spy on us, post pictures of us patriots on their websites, report us to the FBI and the DoHS. I am so sick of their constant caterwauling.
"We're living in a time that's going to dwarf the McCarthy era." says Bertha Lewis. Say what? These people are seriously confused. It's the other way around. They have the power. The likes of them set their despicable little whore spies on us to report us to the FBI, HLS, and the Secret Service. "It is going to dwarf the internment during WWII." What door did I just walk through? Am I still on planet earth? And they call us conspiracy theorists. At least our conspiracies make some sort of sense in the context of the real world. "They are coming... and they are coming after you." Holy freaking cow, man, this woman really needs to resume her Thorazine. She then calls the Tea Party movement (I presume the tea-partiers are the ones who are going to incarcerate her in a concentration camp) a bowel movement and gets loud guffaws from the audience. Haw, haw, haw.
These stinking liberals are really starting to get on my nerves. But you know, all they really do is moan and bellyache about the big mean conservatives and the evil libertarians. That's all this birch Bertha Lewis is doing in the video. They have the power and still they whine and cry and call us names. Patriot, and Constitutionalist, libertarian and conservative are dirty words now according to them. They say we're dangerous. They ignore us. They disparage us in the most despicable way. They have no decency. They spy on us, post pictures of us patriots on their websites, report us to the FBI and the DoHS. I am so sick of their constant caterwauling.
"We're living in a time that's going to dwarf the McCarthy era." says Bertha Lewis. Say what? These people are seriously confused. It's the other way around. They have the power. The likes of them set their despicable little whore spies on us to report us to the FBI, HLS, and the Secret Service. "It is going to dwarf the internment during WWII." What door did I just walk through? Am I still on planet earth? And they call us conspiracy theorists. At least our conspiracies make some sort of sense in the context of the real world. "They are coming... and they are coming after you." Holy freaking cow, man, this woman really needs to resume her Thorazine. She then calls the Tea Party movement (I presume the tea-partiers are the ones who are going to incarcerate her in a concentration camp) a bowel movement and gets loud guffaws from the audience. Haw, haw, haw.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Microchip in Mexico Law enforcement
Microchip in Mexico Law enforcement
"The next step is developing an implantable chip with a global positioning system."
Earthhope Action Network
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Ron Paul Can Be the Next President "Freedom in our time" – is it possible?
Ron Paul Can Be the Next President
"Freedom in our time" – is it possible?
by Justin Raimondo Anti-war
Editor's note: To see all references read Justin Raimondo's original article "Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment"
The news that a Rasmussen poll has Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) running in a dead heat against President Barack Obama in a hypothetical Paul-Obama face-off for the White House has the pundits fuming. Ben Smith, over at Politico, can hardly contain his annoyance: the poll "is a useful reminder of how totally flaky early polling is," he rants, and "this is the Ron Paul who polled, literally, thousands of votes placing fifth in the Iowa caucuses," and then only breaking ten percent after everyone but McCain had bailed. This evaluation depends on a static model, however: back then, there was no bank bailout, no insurance industry takeover, no tea party movement, and Ron had no real public record to run on – the 2008 campaign, in short, was a way for the country to get to know Rep. Paul, and the Rasmussen poll is a clear indication they liked what they saw. Instead of invoking Paul’s showing in the Iowa caucus, it’s more useful to compare this poll to the results of another similar Rasmussen poll taken in 2008, in which, as the pollster reported, "For Ron Paul, 10% of all voters would definitely vote for him. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say it’s No, no matter what."
Voter sentiment is now completely reversed: today, he’s in a dead heat with a sitting President. No matter how hard you try to minimize that, it’s an astonishing fact.
What Smith has to say about the perils of early polling would normally be accepted as beyond dispute: after all remember when Fred Thompson was the man to beat for the GOP nomination? However, we are not living in normal times, which I define as any period when Americans abandon their traditional attitude toward politics: i.e. indifference bordering on contempt. These days, the indifference has given way to not only awareness but also to active engagement, and the contempt for politicians has turned into a burning hatred, i.e. the very stuff and fuel of politics.
(Article continues below)
Shop Earthhope Magazines
What makes it possible for Paul to ride this untamed mare is that he isn’t a politician at all: he is, in fact, the archetypal anti-politician, a professorial figure who lectures Republicans on the gravity of their fiscal and foreign policy sins, and is about as charismatic as plain oatmeal served without milk and sugar. What’s more, he tells the public what politicians have been loath to tell their constituents, and that is the necessity of deflation and the bearing of economic pain. In Paul’s view, the economic bubble generated by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies has led to the current downturn, and nothing less than gritting our teeth, cutting spending radically, and allowing the market to correct itself from government-induced distortions, is the cure.
His message, in short, is eat your spinach – not something any politician who hopes to keep his job (or get one) would normally say. But then again, as I said above, these are not normal times: far from it. The crisis of the American republic is acute, as we teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and our overseas empire shows every sign of imploding, just like the old Soviet Union – and, what’s more, the American people know it.
As our corporatist masters feast on our tax dollars in Washington, out in the provinces voters faced with economic ruin are looking for some explanation, a conceptual framework that gets at the root of the problem and provides some solution. Paul’s rising popularity is due to the fact that he does indeed have a consistent philosophical approach, one that has propelled him from being a mere marginal figure – a "gadfly," as they said – to a very real contender. Yes, that’s right, I said a contender for the White House: it’s real, it’s possible, and here’s why.
Paul has consistently emphasized two themes that successfully capture the sentiments of the average American voter, and address the top two issues on their minds: 1) Fiscal sanity, and 2) A non-interventionist foreign policy. As regards the first point, Ron is the foremost opponent of government spending in Congress, and has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" many times over. But of course practically all Republicans at least pay lip service to this ideal, although none that I know of lives up to it like Dr. Paul. However, it’s the second point – opposition to imperialism, and especially opposition to our crazed post-9/11 foreign policy of perpetual war – that is the key.
As Paul explained at the CPAC conference – where he won the presidential preference poll – and on many other occasions, we can’t have our old republic back unless and until we rid ourselves of the empire we’ve acquired along the way to bankruptcy. Lecturing them on the evils of Woodrow Wilson’s "progressivism," and the virtues of the Old Right’s Robert A. Taft, he received a standing ovation (as well as a few boos from the minuscule-but-loud David Frum Fan Club). A similar reception occurred at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, where he came within a single vote of winning the presidential poll (losing only because the SRLC officials closed registration early, betting correctly that Paul’s youthful supporters wouldn’t show up until it was time to address the convention).
What’s interesting about this, from the perspective of my readers – a majority of whom are not libertarians, I dare say, and are not generally sympathetic to my "anti-government" views – is that the more Ron talks about the one subject that is supposed to rile Republicans – his foreign policy views – the more popular he gets. It was the leitmotif of his CPAC speech, and a main theme of his SRLC speech: his opposition to what he calls "the Empire" inveigles its way into most of his public utterances: even if he’s asked a specific question about, say, the economy, he emphasizes the impossibility of ever getting out of the economic slough we’re in unless we throw off the burden of empire.
Paul’s candidacy is interesting to the antiwar movement, because he has managed to mainstream ideas that were long considered too radical for the ordinary American to even bear hearing about. To even raise the idea that the 9/11 attacks were "blowback" – in CIA parlance, an unintended consequence of US policies – was once considered a cardinal, self-marginalizing sin. Yet Paul took this view from the beginning: that the attacks were the boomeranging after-effects of playing "king of the hill" in the Middle Eastern sandbox and succoring the Afghan "freedom fighters" (as Ronald Reagan called them) who later morphed into al-Qaeda.
When Paul bravely brought this up at a Republican primary debate, the thuggish Rudy Giuliani said he’d "never heard" such an analysis, and demanded that Paul withdraw his statements. Paul refused, and cited the 9/11 Commission’s own words to back up his point, and yet the pundits in the peanut gallery crowed that Dr. No was finished, a "gadfly" who had been swatted by the thuggish Giuliani.
After spending millions in the GOP primaries, Giuliani was rewarded with exactly one delegate. Paul went to the GOP convention with a small but respectable platoon of elected delegates, and in spite of being thoroughly locked out the Paulians stayed in the party and worked at the precinct level, educating activists and recruiting lots of independents and conservatives previously disdainful of the GOP. The Paul movement was really the GOP’s lifeline to the emerging "tea party" movement, of which it was always an essential – and certainly a founding – element.
Again, what’s distinctive about the Paul movement within the tea party phenomenon is that they always bring their entire politics with them wherever they go: they raise the issue of the costs of war, and, as such, are currently the most active – and certainly the most successful – antiwar formation in this country. Here we have Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin offering to join in common cause with the tea partiers, and I think they should take her up on it. the Paulians are the logical mediators between what would, on the surface, appear to be oil and water.
As I said in a recent issue of The American Conservative, however, I don’t think the prospects for a left-right alliance on the issue of war and peace are all that bright, to begin with because what used to be the left has essentially been absorbed into the Obama cult, and co-opted by power. In the end, all liberals really care about is getting their "fair share" of the spoils, for themselves and their supposed constituencies. So what if the price they have to pay is going along with mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan? We all have to die sometime.
I harp on Ron Paul for all sorts of reasons, but the one of most interest to my readers is the fact that he is by far the most successful antiwar politician in recent American history. Derided as being one of those dreaded "isolationists," and attacked even by some alleged "libertarians" precisely for that – and because he appeals to the common man – he not only insists on raising this issue, for him it is central to his analysis of what he calls the "Welfare-Warfare State," a phrase coined by the late Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul’s diagnosis of a nation fast exhausting itself in an orgy of spending and militaristic adventurism has the stark ring of truth about it – an alarm bell ringing in the night.
When Paul and others first sounded that alarm, back in the early formative years of the libertarian movement, very few were heeding the call. We were looked on as eccentrics, and, for example, the libertarian enthusiasm for gold was viewed as indicative of our archaic perspective, put down as an ideological curiosity and nothing more than a "crackpot" notion and a bad investment. Today, of course, those libertarian doomsayers who said the crisis was coming have been vindicated – and all that gold they bought way back in the 1970s, and kept buying in spite of the disdain of more worldly investors, today adds up to quite a bundle. Which is one way to get around to saying that a great deal of Paul’s newfound political authority and credibility comes out of his having predicted the current economic downturn. Virtually every speech made in Congress, and wherever he appeared, was dotted with references to the coming collapse if we didn’t mend our ways. Well, we didn’t, and it’s here.
That’s one factor the learned Ben Smith, and the rest of the "experts" and media know-it-alls fail to take into consideration. What fuels the tea party phenomenon and the vast anger animating the American public at the moment is the series of bailouts: the banks, the auto industry, the government workers, the Afghan government of our erstwhile ally, Hamid Karzai, not to mention the Israelis, the nation of Iceland, and maybe even the Greeks, for all we know.
As ordinary people see their homes foreclosed, their jobs evaporate, and their savings disappear, the rich get richer – not because of capitalism, or even "socialism," as the tea partiers describe the Obama administration’s philosophy, but due to corporatism, as Ron Paul recently explained. Corporatism is, in essence, socialism for the rich, that is, for the benefit of certain big corporations over other big corporations, and a raft of would-be smaller competitors. That would seem to be a precise definition of what’s going on in the country today, one that fits nicely in with the left-right synthesis the Paul movement represents, and for which the country yearns. Paul sweeps the independents in the Rasmussen poll, with an astonishing 47-28. Add to this Paul’s appeal to what a recent Pew poll characterized as rising "isolationist" sentiment, and what you have is a new American majority based on the proposition that the US government should start minding its own business, both at home and abroad.
So much, by the way, for those "libertarian" academics and ivory tower Deep Thinkers who pointedly snubbed Ron, and his supporters, just as they had been doing for years, constantly denigrating his chances of making a significant difference and echoing the orchestrated smear campaign launched by neoconservatives against Paul’s personal character and that of his supporters. Accurately tracing the Paulian strategy to a series of articles by Murray Rothbard written in the 1990s in favor of cultivating "right-wing populism" as a vehicle for the introduction of libertarian ideas into the national discourse, these self-styled ultra-sophisticates sneered at the "rednecks" and rubes the Rothbardian strategy would attract: and they specifically turned up their noses at Ron Paul.
Instead of following the Paulian star, as most other libertarians were doing outside of Washington, D.C., they sought to recruit their liberal friends and fellow cocktail party goers – or at least make themselves less unacceptable in the Washington social circuit, where the Obama cult reigns supreme. In a self-conscious rebuff to libertarians outside the Imperial City, these worthies – mostly subsidized by a certain eccentric billionaire, owner of the largest family-owned corporation in the United States – launched their own "liberal-tarian" movement, as they dubbed it, which, so far, consists of either three, or perhaps four, stalwart cadre, all of them employed by the same eccentric billionaire or one of his satellites.
To even compare the respective achievements of Ron Paul and these sub-political pygmies is to diminish Ron’s astonishing success: the latter don’t want to create a real movement. Their goal is to suck up to whoever’s in power, and somehow convince them to let us have a little more liberty, and a little less warfare, all the while ensuring their own career prospects and social status in the Washington pecking order.
They said it couldn’t be done: that the Paul movement would go nowhere, and that it would hurt the libertarian cause to have the Good Doctor become known as the fountainhead and symbol of the freedom movement in America. They gave money to his worst critics – and to his son’s opponent running in the GOP Senatorial primary in Kentucky – and used their mouthpieces to defame him. They did everything they could to destroy him – and now he’s running even with Obama in the polls.
These bare facts should tell libertarians everything they need to know about what kind of leadership they need, and who is going to provide it. At this crucial juncture – the libertarian moment – these losers will pardon our dust as the rest of us move confidently into a future when we can truly raise that old libertarian slogan, "Freedom in our time," and really believe it as if for the first time.
Justin Raimondo's Archives
Source: Antiwar
"Freedom in our time" – is it possible?
by Justin Raimondo Anti-war
Editor's note: To see all references read Justin Raimondo's original article "Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment"
The news that a Rasmussen poll has Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) running in a dead heat against President Barack Obama in a hypothetical Paul-Obama face-off for the White House has the pundits fuming. Ben Smith, over at Politico, can hardly contain his annoyance: the poll "is a useful reminder of how totally flaky early polling is," he rants, and "this is the Ron Paul who polled, literally, thousands of votes placing fifth in the Iowa caucuses," and then only breaking ten percent after everyone but McCain had bailed. This evaluation depends on a static model, however: back then, there was no bank bailout, no insurance industry takeover, no tea party movement, and Ron had no real public record to run on – the 2008 campaign, in short, was a way for the country to get to know Rep. Paul, and the Rasmussen poll is a clear indication they liked what they saw. Instead of invoking Paul’s showing in the Iowa caucus, it’s more useful to compare this poll to the results of another similar Rasmussen poll taken in 2008, in which, as the pollster reported, "For Ron Paul, 10% of all voters would definitely vote for him. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say it’s No, no matter what."
Voter sentiment is now completely reversed: today, he’s in a dead heat with a sitting President. No matter how hard you try to minimize that, it’s an astonishing fact.
What Smith has to say about the perils of early polling would normally be accepted as beyond dispute: after all remember when Fred Thompson was the man to beat for the GOP nomination? However, we are not living in normal times, which I define as any period when Americans abandon their traditional attitude toward politics: i.e. indifference bordering on contempt. These days, the indifference has given way to not only awareness but also to active engagement, and the contempt for politicians has turned into a burning hatred, i.e. the very stuff and fuel of politics.
(Article continues below)
Shop Earthhope Magazines
What makes it possible for Paul to ride this untamed mare is that he isn’t a politician at all: he is, in fact, the archetypal anti-politician, a professorial figure who lectures Republicans on the gravity of their fiscal and foreign policy sins, and is about as charismatic as plain oatmeal served without milk and sugar. What’s more, he tells the public what politicians have been loath to tell their constituents, and that is the necessity of deflation and the bearing of economic pain. In Paul’s view, the economic bubble generated by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies has led to the current downturn, and nothing less than gritting our teeth, cutting spending radically, and allowing the market to correct itself from government-induced distortions, is the cure.
His message, in short, is eat your spinach – not something any politician who hopes to keep his job (or get one) would normally say. But then again, as I said above, these are not normal times: far from it. The crisis of the American republic is acute, as we teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and our overseas empire shows every sign of imploding, just like the old Soviet Union – and, what’s more, the American people know it.
As our corporatist masters feast on our tax dollars in Washington, out in the provinces voters faced with economic ruin are looking for some explanation, a conceptual framework that gets at the root of the problem and provides some solution. Paul’s rising popularity is due to the fact that he does indeed have a consistent philosophical approach, one that has propelled him from being a mere marginal figure – a "gadfly," as they said – to a very real contender. Yes, that’s right, I said a contender for the White House: it’s real, it’s possible, and here’s why.
Paul has consistently emphasized two themes that successfully capture the sentiments of the average American voter, and address the top two issues on their minds: 1) Fiscal sanity, and 2) A non-interventionist foreign policy. As regards the first point, Ron is the foremost opponent of government spending in Congress, and has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" many times over. But of course practically all Republicans at least pay lip service to this ideal, although none that I know of lives up to it like Dr. Paul. However, it’s the second point – opposition to imperialism, and especially opposition to our crazed post-9/11 foreign policy of perpetual war – that is the key.
As Paul explained at the CPAC conference – where he won the presidential preference poll – and on many other occasions, we can’t have our old republic back unless and until we rid ourselves of the empire we’ve acquired along the way to bankruptcy. Lecturing them on the evils of Woodrow Wilson’s "progressivism," and the virtues of the Old Right’s Robert A. Taft, he received a standing ovation (as well as a few boos from the minuscule-but-loud David Frum Fan Club). A similar reception occurred at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, where he came within a single vote of winning the presidential poll (losing only because the SRLC officials closed registration early, betting correctly that Paul’s youthful supporters wouldn’t show up until it was time to address the convention).
What’s interesting about this, from the perspective of my readers – a majority of whom are not libertarians, I dare say, and are not generally sympathetic to my "anti-government" views – is that the more Ron talks about the one subject that is supposed to rile Republicans – his foreign policy views – the more popular he gets. It was the leitmotif of his CPAC speech, and a main theme of his SRLC speech: his opposition to what he calls "the Empire" inveigles its way into most of his public utterances: even if he’s asked a specific question about, say, the economy, he emphasizes the impossibility of ever getting out of the economic slough we’re in unless we throw off the burden of empire.
Paul’s candidacy is interesting to the antiwar movement, because he has managed to mainstream ideas that were long considered too radical for the ordinary American to even bear hearing about. To even raise the idea that the 9/11 attacks were "blowback" – in CIA parlance, an unintended consequence of US policies – was once considered a cardinal, self-marginalizing sin. Yet Paul took this view from the beginning: that the attacks were the boomeranging after-effects of playing "king of the hill" in the Middle Eastern sandbox and succoring the Afghan "freedom fighters" (as Ronald Reagan called them) who later morphed into al-Qaeda.
When Paul bravely brought this up at a Republican primary debate, the thuggish Rudy Giuliani said he’d "never heard" such an analysis, and demanded that Paul withdraw his statements. Paul refused, and cited the 9/11 Commission’s own words to back up his point, and yet the pundits in the peanut gallery crowed that Dr. No was finished, a "gadfly" who had been swatted by the thuggish Giuliani.
After spending millions in the GOP primaries, Giuliani was rewarded with exactly one delegate. Paul went to the GOP convention with a small but respectable platoon of elected delegates, and in spite of being thoroughly locked out the Paulians stayed in the party and worked at the precinct level, educating activists and recruiting lots of independents and conservatives previously disdainful of the GOP. The Paul movement was really the GOP’s lifeline to the emerging "tea party" movement, of which it was always an essential – and certainly a founding – element.
Again, what’s distinctive about the Paul movement within the tea party phenomenon is that they always bring their entire politics with them wherever they go: they raise the issue of the costs of war, and, as such, are currently the most active – and certainly the most successful – antiwar formation in this country. Here we have Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin offering to join in common cause with the tea partiers, and I think they should take her up on it. the Paulians are the logical mediators between what would, on the surface, appear to be oil and water.
As I said in a recent issue of The American Conservative, however, I don’t think the prospects for a left-right alliance on the issue of war and peace are all that bright, to begin with because what used to be the left has essentially been absorbed into the Obama cult, and co-opted by power. In the end, all liberals really care about is getting their "fair share" of the spoils, for themselves and their supposed constituencies. So what if the price they have to pay is going along with mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan? We all have to die sometime.
I harp on Ron Paul for all sorts of reasons, but the one of most interest to my readers is the fact that he is by far the most successful antiwar politician in recent American history. Derided as being one of those dreaded "isolationists," and attacked even by some alleged "libertarians" precisely for that – and because he appeals to the common man – he not only insists on raising this issue, for him it is central to his analysis of what he calls the "Welfare-Warfare State," a phrase coined by the late Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul’s diagnosis of a nation fast exhausting itself in an orgy of spending and militaristic adventurism has the stark ring of truth about it – an alarm bell ringing in the night.
When Paul and others first sounded that alarm, back in the early formative years of the libertarian movement, very few were heeding the call. We were looked on as eccentrics, and, for example, the libertarian enthusiasm for gold was viewed as indicative of our archaic perspective, put down as an ideological curiosity and nothing more than a "crackpot" notion and a bad investment. Today, of course, those libertarian doomsayers who said the crisis was coming have been vindicated – and all that gold they bought way back in the 1970s, and kept buying in spite of the disdain of more worldly investors, today adds up to quite a bundle. Which is one way to get around to saying that a great deal of Paul’s newfound political authority and credibility comes out of his having predicted the current economic downturn. Virtually every speech made in Congress, and wherever he appeared, was dotted with references to the coming collapse if we didn’t mend our ways. Well, we didn’t, and it’s here.
That’s one factor the learned Ben Smith, and the rest of the "experts" and media know-it-alls fail to take into consideration. What fuels the tea party phenomenon and the vast anger animating the American public at the moment is the series of bailouts: the banks, the auto industry, the government workers, the Afghan government of our erstwhile ally, Hamid Karzai, not to mention the Israelis, the nation of Iceland, and maybe even the Greeks, for all we know.
As ordinary people see their homes foreclosed, their jobs evaporate, and their savings disappear, the rich get richer – not because of capitalism, or even "socialism," as the tea partiers describe the Obama administration’s philosophy, but due to corporatism, as Ron Paul recently explained. Corporatism is, in essence, socialism for the rich, that is, for the benefit of certain big corporations over other big corporations, and a raft of would-be smaller competitors. That would seem to be a precise definition of what’s going on in the country today, one that fits nicely in with the left-right synthesis the Paul movement represents, and for which the country yearns. Paul sweeps the independents in the Rasmussen poll, with an astonishing 47-28. Add to this Paul’s appeal to what a recent Pew poll characterized as rising "isolationist" sentiment, and what you have is a new American majority based on the proposition that the US government should start minding its own business, both at home and abroad.
So much, by the way, for those "libertarian" academics and ivory tower Deep Thinkers who pointedly snubbed Ron, and his supporters, just as they had been doing for years, constantly denigrating his chances of making a significant difference and echoing the orchestrated smear campaign launched by neoconservatives against Paul’s personal character and that of his supporters. Accurately tracing the Paulian strategy to a series of articles by Murray Rothbard written in the 1990s in favor of cultivating "right-wing populism" as a vehicle for the introduction of libertarian ideas into the national discourse, these self-styled ultra-sophisticates sneered at the "rednecks" and rubes the Rothbardian strategy would attract: and they specifically turned up their noses at Ron Paul.
Instead of following the Paulian star, as most other libertarians were doing outside of Washington, D.C., they sought to recruit their liberal friends and fellow cocktail party goers – or at least make themselves less unacceptable in the Washington social circuit, where the Obama cult reigns supreme. In a self-conscious rebuff to libertarians outside the Imperial City, these worthies – mostly subsidized by a certain eccentric billionaire, owner of the largest family-owned corporation in the United States – launched their own "liberal-tarian" movement, as they dubbed it, which, so far, consists of either three, or perhaps four, stalwart cadre, all of them employed by the same eccentric billionaire or one of his satellites.
To even compare the respective achievements of Ron Paul and these sub-political pygmies is to diminish Ron’s astonishing success: the latter don’t want to create a real movement. Their goal is to suck up to whoever’s in power, and somehow convince them to let us have a little more liberty, and a little less warfare, all the while ensuring their own career prospects and social status in the Washington pecking order.
They said it couldn’t be done: that the Paul movement would go nowhere, and that it would hurt the libertarian cause to have the Good Doctor become known as the fountainhead and symbol of the freedom movement in America. They gave money to his worst critics – and to his son’s opponent running in the GOP Senatorial primary in Kentucky – and used their mouthpieces to defame him. They did everything they could to destroy him – and now he’s running even with Obama in the polls.
These bare facts should tell libertarians everything they need to know about what kind of leadership they need, and who is going to provide it. At this crucial juncture – the libertarian moment – these losers will pardon our dust as the rest of us move confidently into a future when we can truly raise that old libertarian slogan, "Freedom in our time," and really believe it as if for the first time.
Justin Raimondo's Archives
Source: Antiwar
Southern Poverty Law Center Slams Patriots in Their Latest Attack against the Right Wing
(Or terrorists according to the Southern Poverty Law Center)
Oh the dangerous terrorist patriots!
This has got to be the one of the most despicable articles yet from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Terrible Patriots
-------
Kimm: Seems the Southern Poverty Law Center has compiled quite an extensive list of “so-called Patriots.” The list of folks on page five is especially interesting.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-
--------
LOL "Like many other Patriot leaders, Bleish charges that the government is behind these economic woes. "The dollar has been systematically destroyed. And that is not the American people's doing. That is the central bank. The central bankers, what they do is they go from country to country, and they destroy currency and bring themselves lots of power and lots of wealth."
Is there any question that the government caused "these economic woes"?
-----
OMG a black man is a patriot according to the SPLC? This is progress! But SPiLCartards, is this possible? Wouldn't that (GASP) make Broughton a racist! He must be a self-loathing negroid.
Arguing at Gunpoint
Chris Broughton, 29
Broughton made headlines in August 2009 when he showed up outside an Obama rally in Phoenix with an AR-15 assault rifle slung over his shoulder and a pistol holstered on his waist, becoming a hero to many in the "Patrtiot" movement in the process. He said he carries his guns habitually.
-----
Notice the 'mugshot' of Franchi. Evil patriot.
The FEMA Fabulist
Gary Franchi, 32
The camps "are on existing military bases now," he said in a February webinar posted on his magazine's website. "It's not a big secret."
-----
The Exaggerator
Al Garza, 64
Garza was born in Texas and raised in California. Over the past seven years, since retiring to Arizona, he has become a key leader in the nativist movement – first as national executive director of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps and now as president of the Patriots Coalition, an organization he launched in August 2009.
The Patriots Coalition scouts the Mexican border for signs of undocumented immigrants and reports "suspicious activity" to the U.S. Border Patrol. Garza claims the group has about 400 members.
-----
Another terrorist.
The Red-Hot Patriot
Devvy Kidd, 60
Kidd gained popularity with an anti-tax message and by writing two booklets that she claims have sold more than 2 million copies. She ran for Congress in 1994 and 1996, and she says she has appeared on more than 2,500 radio broadcasts.
-----Should have guessed they would have Mack in here. God, I hate these dicks.
A Sheriff of Their Own
Richard Mack, 57
It seems hardly a day goes by without another Mack attack on the evils of the federal government. This one-time sheriff of a rural county in Arizona and present-day icon of the Patriot movement has parlayed his antigovernment ardor into a full-time job doing speaking gigs at county fairgrounds, high school auditoriums and hotel banquet rooms. He even has a sponsor.
Richard Mack is introduced — often to standing ovations — as "Sheriff Mack." His website calls him that too, even though he hasn't been the top cop of Graham County since 1996, when its population was around 30,000.
Mack's mantra is this: The federal government is too big, too corrupt and too oppressive. "The greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our federal government," he warns on his website. Some agencies, including the "Gestapo" Internal Revenue Service, should be eliminated, he says.
What would ever give him that idea?-----
This one I find particularly repulsive. (If anything from Potok's SPLC can be called particularly repulsive.)
Out of the Barrel of a Gun
Larry Pratt, 67
Health care reform? It's a plot to take your guns, according to the GOA website.
Environmentalism? You guessed it — another plot to take your guns. At the Ninth Annual Freedom 21 Conference in Texas in 2008, Pratt warned that "the major goal of the sustainable development movement is to disarm Americans."
-----
These people are gonna turn me into a terrorist if they haven't decided I'm one already.
Of Cops and Conspiracies
Stewart Rhodes, 44
Rhodes is an Army veteran and a Yale Law School graduate. He and others in his organization have been frequent speakers at Tea Party rallies, helping channel Patriot ideas into that movement. Rhodes insists his group isn't antigovernment, but he and other Oath Keepers do describe the government as tyrannical and repressive. "We saw a dangerous increase in power of the executive branch and a dangerous increase in government power over the American people," he told Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy on the latter's radio show in April 2009.
(Notice how they mentions that Liddy is a felon.) Yeah, he also said the same thing to you, Potok, and that traitorous bag of dirt Chris Matthews.-----
Uncommon Citizen
Paul Venable, 56
Using Thomas Jefferson's words to refer to himself as a "Common Citizen of Little Consequence," Venable is definitely a "party" guy, having run for the Idaho House of Representatives as a Constitution Party candidate in 2008.
Holy cow! Two apostate negroes. Man, this isn't looking good for the SPLC, is it now, Jerktards? Could it be that Venable is really a white man who has shoe polished himself so as to undermine King Obama? Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of patriots and to what lengths they'll go to undermine the sitting emperor?
-----
Oh boy! Kimm, page 5 is, indeed, very interesting.
There's just too much too comment on, on page 5. I won't even try. Please die, Mark Potok, and SPLC. And please, Homeland Security, put me on your Terrorist Watch List.
SPLC along with the ADL are the ones who do training courses at the fusion centers. The fusion centers are the places where the lovely govt. reports defining who all the potential terrorists are held.
The Creme de la creme of patriot terrorists
Fox Pox
Andrew Napolitano, 59
But Beck is not the only one weakening Fox's credibility. Another hot contender in the far right-wing advocacy department is Fox's "senior judicial analyst" — Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano, a former state judge in New Jersey, appears on several Fox shows and is broadcast on any given day over the television, radio and the Internet. He was scheduled to be the keynote speaker this past February at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, but was snowed in and never made it. He missed out on rubbing elbows with neo-Confederates, conspiracy theorists and antigovernment Patriot activists.
It seems the TV judge is vying to become a fixture on the far-right lecture circuit. He was also scheduled to address the 2010 New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a gathering of self-described "pro-liberty activists" who are striving to "cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more."
Napolitano has joined other conspiracy theorists in falsely claiming that efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act were responsible for the crash of the economy in 2008. He called Sarah Palin's baseless accusation that Obama was trying to set up "death panels" a "legitimate concern." He falsely suggested that Obama bribed a congressman to change his vote on health care by appointing his brother to an appeals court.
Napolitano joined Fox in 1998. He appears daily on "The Big Story with John Gibson," co-hosts "Fox & Friends" once a week and is a regular on "The O'Reilly Factor." Napolitano taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years. He was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey and served on the bench from 1987 to 1995. He returned to private practice in 1995 and began his career in broadcasting that same year.
'Dr. No'
Ron Paul, 74
Whether he's advocating pulling out of the United Nations, trashing the Fed, or returning to the gold standard, Paul's views have scored him plenty of points among the Patriot crowd. One Patriot activist minting his own currency in the late 2000s even created the "Ron Paul Dollar."
With his straight-shooting style and unwavering ideology, Paul represents an accessible brand of Patriot politics that helps validate and stoke fears of an overreaching government on the far right. Paul told Fox Business News earlier this year, for example, that the health care reform legislation "is immoral because it's based on government theft." On his congressional website, he warns that Census information has been used to intern Japanese Americans and find alleged tax evaders and draft dodgers. "It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the Census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary."
Paul has encountered controversy over racially charged comments that surfaced during his 1996 congressional campaign. A March 15, 1993, issue of his newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, included this nugget: "If there is one thing we don't need in this country, its [sic] more Haitians [sic] immigrants with AIDS. Congratulations to the Senate for stopping, at least temporarily, Clinton's plan to have the AIDSians move here to die at $100,000 a pop, courtesy of the taxpayers."
A May 15, 1995, newsletter delved into traditional Patriot paranoia, including an article about foreign troops training on American soil and President George H.W. Bush's "New World Order." An article about a botched raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is presented under the headline, "Jack-Booted Thugs."
Paul claimed in 2001 that ghostwriters had penned the newsletters that bear his name but acknowledged he bore "some moral responsibility." Paul, a physician who is often called "Dr. No" for his routine opposition to government programs, not only survived the controversy and won the election, he continues to build his popularity. He easily won the Conservative Political Action Committee's presidential straw poll this year.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority
Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority and Waiver of Certification of Statutory Provisions Re: The Palestine Liberation Organization
Thanks to Boyd White for finding this. This is for real find them here. and here
Waiver of and Certification of Statutory Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization Office
Comrade Obama Wrote:
[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 19537]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-98]
Presidential Documents
[[Page 19537]]
Presidential Determination No. 2010-05 of April 7, 2010
Waiver of and Certification of Statutory
Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation
Organization Office
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
Pursuant to the authority and conditions contained in
section 7034(b) of the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2010 (Division F, Public Law 111-117), I hereby
determine and certify that it is important to the
national security interests of the United States to
waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204.
This waiver shall be effective for a period of 6
months. You are hereby authorized and directed to
transmit this determination to the Congress and to
publish it in the Federal Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2010
[FR Doc. 2010-8791
Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 19537]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-98]
Presidential Documents
[[Page 19537]]
Presidential Determination No. 2010-05 of April 7, 2010
Waiver of and Certification of Statutory
Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation
Organization Office
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
Pursuant to the authority and conditions contained in
section 7034(b) of the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2010 (Division F, Public Law 111-117), I hereby
determine and certify that it is important to the
national security interests of the United States to
waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204.
This waiver shall be effective for a period of 6
months. You are hereby authorized and directed to
transmit this determination to the Congress and to
publish it in the Federal Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2010
[FR Doc. 2010-8791
Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority
Commissar Obama Wrote:
[Federal Register: April 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 72)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 19535]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-97]
Presidential Documents
[[Page 19535]]
Presidential Determination No. 2010-06 of April 7, 2010
Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the
Palestinian Authority
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including section 7040(b) of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, Public Law 111-
117) (the ``Act''), I hereby certify that it is
important to the national security interests of the
United States to waive the provisions of section
7040(a) of the Act, in order to provide funds
appropriated to carry out Chapter 4 of Part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to the Palestinian
Authority.
You are directed to transmit this determination to the
Congress, with a report pursuant to section 7040(d) of
the Act and to publish the determination in the Federal
Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2010
[FR Doc. 2010-8793
Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 19535]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap10-97]
Presidential Documents
[[Page 19535]]
Presidential Determination No. 2010-06 of April 7, 2010
Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the
Palestinian Authority
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including section 7040(b) of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, Public Law 111-
117) (the ``Act''), I hereby certify that it is
important to the national security interests of the
United States to waive the provisions of section
7040(a) of the Act, in order to provide funds
appropriated to carry out Chapter 4 of Part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to the Palestinian
Authority.
You are directed to transmit this determination to the
Congress, with a report pursuant to section 7040(d) of
the Act and to publish the determination in the Federal
Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2010
[FR Doc. 2010-8793
Filed 4-14-10; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Earthhope Action Network
Mohammad was a Large Load of Camel Dung
Muhammad was a piece of shit (large load of camel dung).
Extremist Muslims are little dip-shits with big automatic weapons and small dicks
10 women beheaded in Iraq
Iranian Revolution -- protester murdered by Basj police.
"This is an axe wound, just one, doled out by the (Iranian) regime's thug basiji animals on Saturday, June 20, 2009."
What do the big-mouth small-dick Muslims have to say about all the horrors done in the name of Mohammad and Allah?
Extremist Muslims are little dip-shits with big automatic weapons and small dicks
Islamic Rage: Why a Cartoon in Bangladesh Leads to Killing of Christians in Nigeria
10 women beheaded in Iraq
Amina and Sarah, the Said sisters - raped and murdered by their Muslim father - still at large.
Iranian Revolution -- protester murdered by Basj police.
"This is an axe wound, just one, doled out by the (Iranian) regime's thug basiji animals on Saturday, June 20, 2009."
What do the big-mouth small-dick Muslims have to say about all the horrors done in the name of Mohammad and Allah?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Pendulum
"Pendulum" Lyrics:
I been walking a tightrope between fact and fiction
I been wrestling with demons in small bottled prisons
I been talking with sinners who claim to be Christian
I been shouting at leaders who claim to be listening
& the pendulum swings from the left to the right
and momentum increases the need for the fight
Like a moment of blindness in a lifetime of sight
& I am caught somewhere in the middle
I saw a president blind to the needs of his people
I saw a camel that passed through the eye of a needle
I saw a group of old men whose money was evil
I saw a cross breaking free from the cage of a steeple
I saw beggars and cripples dying in squalor
I saw a son whose sins had exceeded his father
I saw a nation of sleepers whose dreams were forgotten
& a bushel of apples from a tree that was rotten
& the pendulum swings from the left to the right
as momentum increases the need for the fight
Like a blindfold when its time to walk towards the light
& I am lost somewhere in the middle
I heard the echo of suffering in the valley of laughter
I heard the rumble of earthquakes far under the water
I heard a court jester whose forked tongue was twisted
Who told us of dangers that never existed
I heard voices that claimed to be moral and righteous
Whose lies and deceit were all dark and contagious
I heard talk of a country that valued its freedom
But when I protested I was arrested and beaten
& the pendulum swings from the left to the right
As momentum increases the weight and the height
But if nobody's listening, is anyone right?
& I can't seem to find the key to the riddle
I met a young woman with a baby inside her
I looked but there wasn't a safe place to hide her
I met an old man with a face like a mirror
He showed me his sadness so I could see clearer
I met an arrogant leader who robs us and cheats us
He pretends that his orders come directly from Jesus
When he sends out our children to strange foreign soil
To kill for the right to monopolize oil
I'm a raising my voice 'gainst the house of derision
That murders our freedom with short-sighted vision
I'll sing a new song about civilization
& the palace of wisdom and the death of a nation
I'll lift up the veil that's hiding the holy
& remind all the people that change happens slowly
I'll scream out a name to the echoes of Heaven
& pray that the world don't end up where its heading
& the pendulum swings from the left to the right
as momentum decreases the end is in sight
There's a lunatic handling our future tonight
& I am lost somewhere in the middle
Visit Jordan Page at: http://www.jordanpagemusic.com
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Yes We Can Be Just Like Cesar Chavez
Thanks to Boyd White for alerting me to this.
From Bamie's I love Chavez page
From Bamie's I love Chavez page
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the
United States of America, by virtue of the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2010, as
Cesar Chavez Day. I call upon all Americans to observe
this day with appropriate service, community, and
education programs to honor Cesar Chavez's enduring
legacy.
I'd like to know what in the Constitution grants him the authority to
declare a day a holiday. (Aside from the fact we're all asked to salute a
commie recruited by Saul Alinsky and educate each other with pure
insanity.) Usually our Congress nitwits waste taxpayer money trying to
pass crap like this and that's bad enough. But WTF?
Calling all Brownshirts.
Fuck you, Obama. You can kiss my American ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
