Monday, November 24, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
My thesis today: AMERICA IS BEING CLUBBED TO DEATH.
I contend, after years of observation, that these two groups who have seized control over the forces of government, these two groups posing as self-proclaimed "National Parties," are, in fact, nothing more than clubs.
Actually, in the interest of accuracy, they are two factions of one Club: the Government Club.
From the elevated position of membership these two factions with the Big Government club, use plundered tax payer dollars to vie against one another, creating policies that aggrandize themselves and increase their overreach and control of citizens, while harming the populace in countless ways.
As evidence that these two factions are little more than one club there are multiple examples of how they work together to make sure all others, save themselves, are repeatedly shut out of the political process, on the local, regional and state level just as well as the national level.
Without the money it is almost impossible for anyone else to get on the ballot, or gain a voice on a national forum. No meaningful dissent is allowed. All that is permitted is "debate" between two distinctions that make no practical different.
Remember how the Republican party, with the assistance of an ignorant press, even did all it could to shut out Ron Paul from the 2007 debates, even though he was a member of the Republican party.
Why did they want Paul OFF the stage? Because he alone gave voice to positions and arguments that really did make a difference. Because he was the lone, anti-Big Government, anti-aggressive warfare Voice--the Voice that has traditionally been the heart and soul of Conservatism.
Note the Republican party was as intensely interested in making sure these ideas from Paul would be silenced and kept from the American people as the Democrats were, because both of these parties are members of the one big government, big spending, warfare Club. And they're clubbing We the People to Death!
These individuals as well as their parties should be swept from the face of the political scene, post haste. But the people remain asleep.
Meanwhile, both of these factions are using their club status to shut out the Tea Party--after the Tea Party was largely responsible for the Republicans now being in control of the House. I hope Tea Party members and leaders are waking up to what betrayal feels like, and understanding that this treatment is part and parcel of the kind of "rewards" any group may expect to receive from one or both Club factions.
The Founders warned against parties.
The fact that we're now being Clubbed to death, our liberties are being attacked by these criminals making bad law, our monetary value is being destroyed by the wild spending to protect and preserve the Club Status, and that we've been dragged into one failed war of aggression after another by these knaves and brigands vindicates their wisdom.
I contend, after years of reflection on this matter, that support of either is a flagrant betrayal of liberty and the American Revolution.
Monday, April 21, 2014
NEOCONS EXPOSED ON FOX
Here's the kind of tyranny advocated by the Neocons infesting FOX news.
Britt Hume, SENIOR adviser for FOX, show the true colors of the Neocon Speaking this morning of the situation with Russian and Ukraine he said, "[the American]...people, as a reflexive reaction, don't want to get in involved. That's where a President has to lead--to shape public opinion [that's called propaganda and lies, I do believe] not simply have his policies shaped by it."
Riiiiiight, Britt. Just ignore We the People and obey your favorite special interest group: the war profiteering overlords.
What do the people know? Who needs representative government? Just let them shut up and leave the waring policies to Neocons like you and the other bloodthirsty chicken hawks hiding safely behind your desks dressed in your three piece suits.
The fact is, Mr. Hume,We the People resist this conflict for three reasons.
First, it's none of our business.
Second,WE'RE SICK OF WAR. Third, we're sick of the madness of your neocon interventionism, a la Woodrow Wilson. They're sick of the effects of the interventionism, the purposeless loss of the lives of good, young men and women, and the massive COST.
Face it, Mr. Hume, you and the Godless tyrants with your false moral posturing, the consequences of your policies have discredited you and your corrupt ilk.
No argument need be made. You claim to be a Christian, and I also do. If that's so, by the criteria of Our Lord you are a terror and a fraud, for He had said, "By your fruits ye shall know them."
And the fruit of your policies is death; death, destruction, sorrow, lives ruined---for nothing. The only ones who have benefited from the evils you have supported have been those who have profiteered from the bloody, endless wars.
When will the Yankee Empire be filled with enough blood and enough power?
How Brazen is it of you, Mr. Hume, to shameless state the Will of the People be ignored?! In doing so, you have exposed for ALL to see, the Godlessness, and tyrannical nature of Neocon ideology, and its contempt for the people.
Neocons leading the warfare party, and the socialists leading the welfare party for the past 40 years have alternately and systematically destroyed what good there was in America and the American state, bringing loss, penury, and depravation on We the People.
Both of you, commies and fascists, need to go back to Hell where you came from and allow Americans to breathe the sweet air of Liberty once again, and live secure knowing the tyrants in Washington will no longer take the bread from the mouths of themselves, their children and others who labor to fund your cronyism, your sick social experiments, and your deadly international misadventurism.
We DEMAND our country back!
Monday, December 2, 2013
ARE YOU A SOCIALIST?
Most of the folks who see my blog would say they're not. But I wonder what they would say after reading the following paragraphs:
Are you a Socialist???
According to both Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, you are if you are not an opponent of the welfare state and the whole system of “progressive” taxation that funds it. Socialism started out meaning “government ownership of the means of production” with the ostensible purpose being “equality.” But the socialists of the world quickly determined that it would be easier to allow (heavily regulated) private enterprise to exist and then plunder it with taxes to fund their utopian dreams.
When you think about it, this is a brilliant plan. When America had slavery the slave master was face with several considerations.
1) First he had the high expense of buying a slave. The cost was very expensive, ordinarily taking almost a decade for the buyer to break even on the original cost.
2) He had to provide food, clothing, shelter and healthcare for his slaves. Records of the antebellum period show all these things constituted considerable expenses. The provision of these made up about 90% of compensation for labor, according to records.
This change in socialism, allowing business to remain in the hands of private ownership was genius. Because the government makes the laws, it meant that government could then plunder those in the so-called "private sector" as they pleased, but never having to worry about providing food, clothing, shelter and healthcare for those who are plundered.
Under such a concept, the government still, in reality, owned everything. It simply did not take everything, but graciously allowed "Private sector workers" to keep some of the fruit of their labor.
This provided the illusion of ownership for the worker up to a certain point. But it was not true ownership, because, at their whim, the government overlords could come in a take any amount they determined "government" (aka, the politicians and the connected special interests) might "need."
Put succinctly, ending chattel slavery and beginning the political slavery incrementally instituted through socialist programs greatly increased the number of slaves as a consequence of the so-called Civil War.
What we're beginning to see is that political slavery, owned and operated as it is by the government, unlike chattel slavery, is much more virulent, much more pervasive, and almost impossible to eradicate short of a complete revolution or---dare I say it---secession from the soul killing, cancerous government run socialist slave system.
Now, if a plantation owner in the early 19th century did not have to buy slaves and take on the burden of daily care for them, but could yet plunder any portion they wanted of their forced labor, these slave owners would have though they had died and gone to plantation slave owners heaven. This arrangement would constitute the slave owner's version of having your cake and eating it too.
Our central government, having consolidated all power in itself, having plundered the states of their sovereignty and instituted socialist programs and individual taxation of income, was able to realize that "heaven on earth," that "have your cake and eat it too" slavery arrangement plantation owners could only dream of.
What's more, "We the Plundered" have come to view it as normalcy, and those of us who advocate it have become the unwitting, hapless victims of Stockholm syndrome, defending with our last breath the socialist slave masters who rule us according to their arbitrary whim from Mordor on the Potomac.
The Russian people were never able to accept their Bolshevist version of socialism as normalcy, because it was a full-blown version, with government ownership. It was apparently to the Russian people they were under an oppressive slave system ruled by elites.
Until now, the genius of Fabian socialism and progressive socialism in America is that they preserved the illusion of private ownership. This mere appearance of private ownership has sedated Americans and made them increasingly accepting of increasing degrees of socialist control and oppressions, all done in the name of the public good or "the greater good," or "compassion," or some other such flimsy and transparent pretext.
But, as Lincoln said, we can't stay half-slave and half-free. Our elite government betters apparently agree, and are pushing for full-blowing government established and operated enslavement of "We the Plundered."
As a consequence, America is on the cusp of going full bore into the system that collapsed the Soviet Union. But our socialist leaders, blinded and overreaching due to their past successes here, are too stupid to see it. As with the devil at Calvary, as with Mr. Smith in the Matrix allegory, the very moment the socialists believe they have final and complete victor in AmeriKa will be the moment their twisted, dehumanizing vision will collapse under the weight of its own corruption.
That's how I see it. What say you, Komraden?
Monday, November 11, 2013
I'm going to say this here, because few others will understand this rightly.
Armistice day 2013
I'm DONE with the military! Why?
Because they are nothing but an arm of the exercise of Federal tyranny.
It may be we have fought just wars in the past. The war against Hitler was one, for sure. BUT, we shoulder a lot about the blame for Hitler because of the humiliating terms Wilson forced in WWI.
Other wars, the War to Prevent Southern Independence, and the Spanish American War were monstrous evils and injustices, as was the Mexican war. They were not wars of defense, but wars of choice and aggression. They were unjust and imperial wars--wars of conquest, oppression and suppression.
The evils of the war in the Philippines following on the heels of the Spanish American war is little known by Americans, but it is a period of shame that should have awakened the American conscience. But, it did not, because the press made sure few knew of it.
Since that time the young men and women in the American military have been little more than the pawns of the imperial designs of the American military complex and the Yankee, international bankers.
And they have been duped into growing empire under the euphemism of "serving their country" by being brainwashed into believing the absurd notion that invading other sovereign nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens, most of whom are clearly non-military, is "protecting our freedom" and serving Americans.
Nothing could be more false. The government lies to our military just as they lie to the citizens. To repeat, growing empire is not "protecting our freedoms." Rather, it is taking the freedoms of others--usually in the name of "democracy," and taking our freedoms by making us hated the world over.
I do not blame the youth in our military. I understand how they are yet unable to think with any depth. (If they were they'd not be in the military).
I understand they have not been trained to think at all--they don't know how to make the critical distinctions needed to understand the lies and contradictions their leaders and politicians present to them. No, I do not blame them. I feel sorry for them.
No amount of sincerity, no amount of sacrifice under false pretexts, can justify what the military is being used to do in OUR NAME, the name of We the People.
The government is a renegade institution, lawless, tyrannical, despotic, and aggressive. The government cronies and thugs speak to us about "individual sacrifice for the common good." But they, as rulers of the government, are all out for themselves, at the cost and sacrifice of everyone else.
The military is brainwashed into serving that institution of liars and usurpers in the name of patriotism and protecting our freedoms.
I just can't take it. The rhetoric of this day makes me gag. I'm sorry for our young men duped into carrying out acts of tyranny by the false rhetoric of politicians. But to pretend this awful reality does not exist out of consideration of and compassion towards the families of the fallen is to lay the ground work for the making of more victims of Imperial lies and abuses in the future.
You who object say you're a conservative. So am I.
You who object say you're a patriot. I do not doubt it. So am I.
Since we don't agree, I have a simple question to pose in the hope of finding some clarification for our manifest cognitive dissonance: "Exactly what is it you are loyal to?"
Personally, I favor loyalty to peace, liberty and prosperity, and to treating others as we think we should be treated.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
I begin by quoting no friend of the south, the Baltimore newspaper man, H.L. Mencken.
Here is what he wrote on Lincoln's Address:
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
One could say that virtually every statement in the address begs the question in some way. The first, for instance, claims that 87 years prior to the speech our forefathers formed a new nation. But in 1776 13 british colonies individually seceded from Great Britain. The secession succeeding, 13 separate documents of surrender was issued to 13 new,sovereign states or nations, not one document of surrender to a unitary nation-state.
This dedication to the proposition that "all men are created equal," once again begs the question.
Where is this official dedication? It seems it exists only in Lincoln's mind.
If we look at the Declaration we see it is not about equality. Rather, it is about the right of peoples to govern themselves. In other words, the equality of the colonists to the British had its quintessential expression in the form of the right of self-determination-- the right of the ability to rule themselves.
True as that is, in the Law of the Land, the Constitution, there is not only no "dedication" to equality, you can't even find the word equality.
Then, finally, there is the intimation that the union soldiers were fighting for that same right of self-determination the colonist patriots were.
This is totally Orwellian.
It was the union soldiers who were fighting to subjugate the southern Republics, and reduce them to little more than conquered provinces--which they did. It was the Confederate soldiers who were fighting for the right of their people to rule themselves. In this sense, they were on the side of the colonists. It was the union soldiers who were fighting in the spirit of the British soldiers trying to prevent the secession of the colonists.
Then, there is the claim the union soldiers were fighting for the actual existence of the nation. This is another linconian absurdity.
The states remaining in the union compact were in no danger of being overrun whatsoever. Nor was the home of their general government, Washington DC. The Southern Republics were not staging a revolutionary take over. They just wanted to get the heck out of Dodge--they didn't want to be a part of what they had understood was a VOLUNTARY union. In other words, they wanted to be free from Washington as their forefathers wanted to be free of George III.
Again, this is nothing but Jacobin-style, Orwellian propaganda on Lincoln's behalf. One could even argue this "nation" he invents exists only in his twisted, totalitarian fantasies. The Founders referred to the Constitutional Compact as "the union," not "a new nation." Union was the most common word for the alliance of nation states. When South Carolina seceded in 1860 the newspaper headlines read "Union Dissolved."
The National Government was never regarded as a unitary sovereign. The National Government lacked sovereignty altogether. It possessed only delegated, limited powers. It was, and Constitutionally remains, a mere Agent of the Sovereign States. The fact that the central government has usurped almost all the sovereignty of the states and the people does not change the reality of its legal status as a mere agent.
Thus, we see just some of the nonsense exposed in Lincoln's famous address, and the lawless fiction upon which "the American Nation"--I refer to it as "Linconia"--- is presently constructed, a lawless fiction in which the Central Government has usurped all power and reduced the sovereign states to mere administrative units.
What of the people's freedom? It is also a fiction. We have no recourse to our crumbling bill of rights. I write here, and people gather here, not as our God given right, but by the gracious negligence of the Central government. We only appear to have rights. And any more our alleged "liberties" and "rights" could be taken under any number of pretexts invented by our Overlords in Washington.
In truth, the logical working out of Lincoln's delusionary inventions and the acceptance of them as "normalcy" has resulted in the increasing LOSS of self-determination of our once sovereign Republics and peoples.
Any man not blinded by years of government school propaganda, buttressed by an ignorant and brain-dead press, could see this. Even a man like Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer, staunch abolitionist, no friend of the south, and hater of Lincoln and his minions, could see it as early as 1866. It was then he wrote something that should be much more famous than Mr. Lincoln's "coke is it" Gettysburg propaganda, but, alas, is not. I shall quote it here and dare any man to use the powers of reason and evidence to refute it.
"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- BETWEEN POLITICAL AND CHATTEL SLAVERY. [political slavery is what we're now experiencing in increasing degrees, thanks to Lincoln's FORCED consolidation].The former[political slavery], no less than the latter [chattel slavery], denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)
In support of my statement above, I also present a portion of Andrew Johnson's State of the Union Speech, given December 1867. At that time Johnson was outraged at the behavior of the Radical Republicans and the military occupation of the Southern Republics. He fought back with this official executive statement, which, sadly, foreshadows the tyranny with which the American Republics and peoples will be visited by this Central Agent gone wild--an Agent that is now TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL:
"...candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress; where one State is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to all the people of every section. That such is not the present "state of the Union" is a melancholy fact, and we must all acknowledge that the restoration of the States to their proper legal relations with the Federal Government and with one another, according to the terms of the original compact, would be the greatest temporal blessing which God, in His kindest providence, could bestow upon this nation. It becomes our imperative duty to consider whether or not it is impossible to effect this most desirable consummation. The Union and the Constitution are inseparable. As long as one is obeyed by all parties, the other will be preserved; and if one is destroyed, both must perish together. The destruction of the Constitution will be followed by other and still greater calamities. It was ordained not only to form a more perfect union between the States, but to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Nothing but implicit obedience to its requirements in all parts of the country will accomplish these great ends. Without that obedience we can look forward only to continual outrages upon individual rights, incessant breaches of the public peace, national weakness, financial dishonor, the total loss of our prosperity, the general corruption of morals, and the final extinction of popular freedom. To save our country from evils so appalling as these, we should renew our efforts again and again."
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, State of the Union address, 1867
And as a fictional southron, Forest Gump was fond of saying, "That's all I've got to say about that."