Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The short was narrated by Pete Smith, who, until the mid-1950s, produced and/or narrated numerous MGM short subjects.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
And we are on the verge of a rerun of this disastrous program, which included many elements of fascism.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
An excellent review of an excellent book.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
For me, World War I was the most tragic 20th Century conflict. It was triggered by Serbia and Austro-Hungary. After Russia and France began gearing for war, Germany was dragged into the conflict by the doomsday machine of troop mobilization schedules. Britain could have halted the war, or let the continental powers fight until they came to a truce. But Churchill and his fellow imperialists determined to destroy Germany, a new rival to Britain’s wealth and power.
World War I should have ended in 1917 when both sides were exhausted and stalemated. America’s entry into the war resulted in Germany’s defeat and ensuing postwar suffering. The German, Habsburg, and Ottoman Empires were torn apart by the lupine victors and reduced to ruin, creating today’s unstable Balkans and Mideast.
Had Germany and its allies not been defeated, had a Carthaginian Peace not been imposed upon them at Versailles and Trianon, there might never have been a Hitler, Communist Russia or World War II. Europe’s Jews may have escaped destruction.
Churchill made the fatal error in World War II of backing Poland’s hold on Danzig even though Britain could do nothing to defend Poland, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia from Hitler’s attempts to reunite million of Germans stranded in these new nations by the dreadful Versailles Treaty. Britain’s declaration of war on Germany over Poland led to a general European war. After suffering 5.6 million dead, Poland ended up occupied by the Soviet Union.
My thinking is that had the US not entered World War I, we might very well have been spared the rise of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and the German National Soclialists (Nazis), WWII, all the various other wars we have been involved in (all undeclared, starting with Korea) , and there would have been no nuclear arms race, among others. But Woodrow Wilson (under whom Franklin Roosevelt served as assistant Secretary of the Navy) was jonesing to get us dragged into a European war. I have grown to consider him a war criminal.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Professor Mark Thornton is interviewed by Lew Rockwell.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Here's Lew Rockwell's take:
A McCain victory would have been perceived at home and abroad as a ratification of the past eight years, and it is hard to imagine a worse course of events than that. The Obama victory symbolizes a well-deserved repudiation of this ghastly experience.
Of course, the Obama victory elicits its own spin, which is also highly dangerous. The main message concerns race. All the headlines blared that a racial barrier had been broken. The subtext here is impossible to miss: heretofore America has been a hopelessly racist country that put up barriers to the advance of people of color.
But why should politics be the standard for what constitutes a barrier or a barrier broken? The ability of individuals in a group to navigate the murky and treacherous waters of electoral politics has no necessary connection to the status of the group as a whole.
A much better indicator concerning the status of any group – racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise – is commerce, which is the real engine that makes society work. And here we see that there are no such barriers in existence. We need only look at the status of black-owned businesses to see that there are more than one million in the United States, generating revenue of some $89 billion per year, which is more than the GDP of 140 countries around the world, and growing (according to most recent data) at a faster pace than all businesses.
Tragically, Obama does not seem to see that expanding this trend is a pathway forward. For him, the answer is the failed politics of redistribution, a pathway that can only exacerbate racial tension. Far from being a healing force in American life, his success at taking from one group to give to another will only increase conflict.
Conflict is the critical word here, for the conflict view of society is what is really behind the hysterical claims that Obama's real contribution is to have broken through barriers. To understand this view, we must examine the implicit social philosophy held by those who write the headlines and put the political spin on all important events.
Lacking any kind of serious training in economics or liberal political philosophy, these people assume a soft-Marxist approach to social observation, believing that all important steps forward grow out of great clashes between intrinsically antagonistic groups.
Step back in history and try to understand how the Marxists came to understand the Industrial Revolution and all subsequent steps forward in economic development. There were ever more people benefiting from economic exchange and investment, and the standards of living of the working class were rising year after year, while the population was living longer and better. But the Marxists refused to see this or understand its meaning. All they could see came from their fixed frame of mind that posited a conflict between capital and labor. All the gains of one came at the expense of the other. If there were rich capitalists living luxuriously it could only be due to their having robbed surplus value from labor. The only way forward was to turn the tables: to expropriate the expropriators.
Now, this old-fashioned mindset is not much on display today, but other versions of the conflict view of society are all around us. There is the view that the relationship between men and women is inherently antagonistic, and the only way to overturn this and push history forward is to unseat the economically dominant group and exalt via state intervention the economically weaker group. (In case you are wondering which is which, the convention asserts that women are the exploited group.)
Hey, Mr. President-Elect, how 'bout civil liberties, eh?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
So, what else is news?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
In 1932, the marginal tax rate went up to 63 percent on top incomes. In 1935 Roosevelt pushed it up to 79 percent, and we started at five percent, and the exemption was lowered, so more people were paying taxes. But it starts at five percent and it goes up to 79 percent. Now, you could see why, right? All these programs had to have a payment. But here's something that is not explained. What about the work ethic of those people in those top brackets? In 1929, you were telling them, you get to keep three-fourths of whatever you make. Now you're telling them you give more than three-fourths to the government. What's your work ethic going to be with a 79 percent tax? Tax-exempt bonds, stamp collections-that was Roosevelt's personal exemption, he had a good stamp collection-coin collections, foreign investments, Swiss banks, anything to shelter that money. But do you see why the depression is prolonged? Who's going to invest to create the jobs to get us out when you're being taxed 79 percent? Do you think the revenue then is going to go up when the tax rate is 79 percent? Very good thinking, we have some supply-side thinking in the crowd. We raised in 1929 over $1 billion. It was almost $1.1 billion in income tax revenues. In 1935 when the tax rate was 79 percent, our take for the government on income tax was $527 million-less than one-half of what it was in 1929. Did you catch that? Twenty-four percent of something is something, and seventy-nine percent of nothing is nothing-because the high tax rates chased capital into tax-exempt investments.
Therefore in order to get money, Roosevelt had to tax poor people, so he instituted excise taxes-especially on whiskey and tobacco. Prohibition ceased to be law. He explicitly said I want that whiskey in there so we can tax it. Disproportionately middle-class and lower-class people drink. Roosevelt wanted their money. We therefore had a high excise tax on whiskey and tobacco. We instituted for the first time in our history a federal gasoline tax. See, the income tax hits the rich back in the twenties, now we are putting in excise taxes because we have to fund the New Deal. The money has to come from somewhere, and the rich people just sheltered their investments. We had other excise taxes on cars, taxes on tires, on telephone calls, telegrams, movie tickets, and bank checks. And they wanted to do it on soft drinks, but Coca-Cola was too strong a lobby, so they settled for grape concentrates. The revenue from excise taxes in this country went from $500 million in 1929 to $1.36 billion in 1935.
What I want you to see is these programs-WPA, AAA, and Silver-are funded by excise taxes on middle-class, lower-class people drinking, smoking, driving cars, going to movies. That is where much of the funding for the New Deal came from.
Now, with Roosevelt you say, "My gosh! How could he win elections?" Roosevelt went on the campaign trail in 1936 and said, "You poor people are doing your share, but the rich are avoiding the taxes. We should make them pay." And he recommended a tax to congress, on all income over one hundred thousand dollars. His recommendation in 1941 was for a 99.5 percent tax on all income over one hundred thousand dollars. And when the budget director said, "What!" Roosevelt's comment was, "Why not?"
When congress refused to pass that bill, Roosevelt was furious. Therefore he instituted a 100 percent income tax, by executive order, on all income $25,000 or more. I repeat, Roosevelt instituted an executive order on April 27, 1942 for a 100 percent income tax on all income over $25,000. How many of you knew about that? Oh good, somebody did. Actually, the Republicans won the next election and voted it out, and Roosevelt had to settle for 90 percent. He had to settle for a 90 percent marginal tax. Here's a quotation from Roosevelt, it was during World War II, "Discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened." Oh, and he used the war as a crisis, you see. "And I therefore believe that in this time of grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income after he's paid his taxes of more than twenty-five thousand dollars."It was simply designed- as with any other socialistic piece of male bovine excrement- to wind up an abysmal failure.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
"Private ownership of savings . . . can be socially controlled. The social abuses connected with savings are encountered mainly in the mechanics of investment and financial management by the large banks, savings institutions, and insurance companies which handle savings. It is a relatively easy matter for the State to preserve the present de facto rights and interests of small savers while completely nationalizing the financial institutions which now administer their savings."
This excerpt was from page 176 in the chapter entitled "Why Fascism Instead of Communism?" in the 1936 book The Coming American Fascism written by American pro-fascist author Lawrence Dennis.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Who, of course, is the Democratic Party's version of God.
I've got news for the Roosevelt and/or state worshipers.
The New Deal was an abysmal failure.
World War Two did not end the Great Depression.
It was NOT the free market that started the Great Depression. It was government intervention.
Another memo to the FDR worshipers.
God is dead. Has been since April 12, 1945.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Here's Ron Paul's take.
UPDATE (10/06/2008): Here's the roll call of the House members who re-voted on the Bailout Bill.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
How and why tens of thousands of Northern men said "no" to Lincoln’s military invasion of his own country in the name of "national unity" is told in chapter and verse. Some men "deliberately enlisted in the Union forces in order to be carried South on to Confederate soil in order more easily to cross the lines and join the Confederates." In the border states about half of the men in the U.S. Army deserted. Many took advantage of sick leave and furloughs to leave the army for good. An entire Pennsylvania regiment simply refused to go to West Virginia when ordered. After being coerced onto a train, over 100 of them jumped off. Many Northern men refused to cross their state lines, seeing it as a violation of their enlistment agreements, and eventually deserted.
There were thousands of "bounty jumpers" who, because of "the large and numerous bounties given to volunteers," were induced "to desert for the purpose of reenlisting, or to enlist when the recruit knew that he had no intention of remaining in the field." Many of the bounty jumpers were from "the large Eastern cities" where many of the men in the Union Army were "raked in" by the Lincoln regime despite the fact that they were "criminals, bullies, pickpockets, and vagrants." A great many of them "enlisted under fictitious names, such as Abe Lincoln, Johhny Boker, or Jim Crow."
There were also secret organizations in the Northern states that discouraged enlistment (Lincolns abolition of free speech in the North required secrecy of all dissenters to the war). "The existence of disloyal organizations through the North is notorious," wrote Professor Lonn. The massive desertions by Union solders were "disgusting to the rebels themselves," wrote one Union soldier.
Although General McClellan had 180,000 men on his official roster prior to the Battle of Antietam (a.k.a., Sharpsburg), he had no more than 90,000 during the battle itself, Professor Lonn remarks. General Sherman reported 70,000 men missing during the Battle of Shiloh.
In June of 1862 General Buell reported from Tennessee that 14,000 officers and soldiers were "absent" from his command. When General Hooker took command of the Army of the Potomac in January of 1863, "desertions were occurring at the rate of several hundred a day." About 25 percent of his army was "absent" according to the Official Records. There was still massive desertion taking place as late as the spring of 1865.
"Tender-hearted" Lincoln oversaw a government in which "executions [of deserters] were taking place almost daily in the Army of the Potomac." General Halleck complained to Lincoln that "hundreds of officers were almost continually absent from their commands" and that about 200 more were absent without leave every month.
According to the Official Records there were 100,000 deserters from the Union Army in 1862 alone. When General Hooker took control of the army he found that 2,923 commissioned officers were missing along with 82,188 non-commissioned officers and privates. General Halleck computed that one-third of the entire army was "absent." The largest numbers of deserters were from New York, followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey.
Among the methods used by Union soldiers to desert were: taking advantage of the confusion of battle; purposeful capture by the Confederates; escaping while on the march; jumping from trains; riding off on their cavalry horses; deserting the picket line; hiding in suttler’s wagons; pretending to be teamsters; and posing as telegraph repairmen.
Yeah, sure. That was par for the course for Dishonest Abe.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
More than 2/3 of the GOP membership plus nearly 100 Democrats said NO to this taxpayer-funded monstroscity.
Pro Libertate: Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part II: Perpetual War, Here and Abroad#links#links#links#links
This is the second part of a special series by Will Grigg.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
I found this Monday night on the Lew Rockwell website.
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
It is not real capitalism that failed, it is government intervention that has failed-----again.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
How can anyone not like Teddy Roosevelt? He is an American legend, the hero of San Juan Hill, and an American icon.
I believe Teddy Roosevelt had a noble reason for his conservation policies, and in some ways, those policies were worthwhile. Obviously, however, those very same policies have evolved into little more than additional tools for Big Government in modern America.
I am considering changing my support to Ron Paul for November.
On a somewhat unrelated subject:
Dr. Paul just authorized me to send this press release to the national wire. Stay tuned!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jesse Benton
September 5, 2008
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – On the heels of his historic three-day rally in Minneapolis that drew over 12,000 attendees, Congressman Ron Paul will make a major announcement next week in Washington at the National Press Club.
More details will be announced Monday.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Is it just me, or did the scene at Invesco Field look like a scene right out of a Nuremberg rally?
I would be just as incredulous if John McMussolini gave his acceptance speech at the Metrodome.
As for the Republicans, their convention, scheduled for next week in St. Paul, Minnesota, and sponsored by the Israel Lobby in association with the warfare division of the welfare-warfare state (which also sponsors the Democrats).
Speaking of the evils of the State,
Lew Rockwell hit the bulls-eye with his latest blogcolumn:
Note that they don't talk about this. But that is the core of all their plans for fairness and justice: an increased use of violence in society, and an increased centralization of political power. Often the person who recommends this path imagines that he will be the dictator, and that his plans alone will prevail.
They don't consider that the state they advocate is also wholly capable of doing things that they do not like, like crushing civil liberties and starting wars all over the world. Note that the left's critique of Bush's big government is not that it is crushing liberty; rather, they believe that government power is being used for the wrong purposes.
Another problem with these people: they can't stand capitalism. They resent the commercial society. They have not come to terms with the fact that without capitalism, most of the human race would starve the death. Why do they hate it? Because wealth under capitalism will always be unequally distributed.
They favor a different form of dictatorship.
Now to the Republicans, who imagine themselves creating a modern form of Sparta, with military strength and a disciplined citizenry unified in the drive to national greatness, courage, and heroism. Along with this comes support for national service (the draft) and a demand that Congress stop meddling in executive-branch matters.
They also say that they are for free enterprise, but what they really mean is that they support their main constituents who are large corporations dependent on government contracts and privileges. That goes for the banks and the mortgage companies too, whose interests they defend through a fiat money system that further fuels state growth.
This too is their version of dictatorship.
It is long past time for both of these parties to admit it. They won’t of course, so it is incumbent on the rest of us to at least recognize it for what it is. It is often said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, but there is little reflection on what precisely they have in common. It comes down to a love of some version of dictatorship, of which they believe they will be the administrators.
This country might be better off if there were no political parties.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
But aside from being a flaming neoconservative interventionist with a foreign policy that often sounds more bellicose and more reckless than Bush, CFR member McCain has taken positions for abortion, gun control, the UN, amnesty for illegals, the North American Union, and global warming legislation and against free speech, tax cuts, and limited government and liberty in general. And we are supposed to believe that he is the lesser of two evils?
Some conservative Christians are already starting to hold their nose to block out the stench of McCain’s "conservatism" as they prepare to vote for him in the November election because he is a Republican and not one of those evil Democrats. It’s just too bad that they are not holding their nose because of McCain’s dangerous view of what U.S. foreign policy should be. Even James "Focus on the Family" Dobson, who once said that he would never support McCain, is now entertaining the thought of doing so.
Given McCain’s views on the military and foreign policy, and without even taking into account his positions on other issues, if Machen were alive today, would he be even a reluctant McCain supporter? I think not.
It's hard to believe that so many Christians who march under the banner of modern "Conservatism" would support the continuation of this country's nose-sticking into other countries' business. Then again, maybe not.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
In March, as Washington went ahead to recognize the independence of Kosovo in former Yugoslavia, making Kosovo a de facto NATO-run territory against the will of the United Nations Security Council and especially against Russian protest, then president (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin responded with Russian Duma (parliament) hearings on recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, a pro-Russian breakaway republic in Moldova.
Moscow argued that the West's logic on Kosovo should apply as well to these ethnic communities seeking to free themselves from the control of a hostile state. In mid-April, Putin held out the possibility of recognition for the breakaway republics. It was a geopolitical chess game in the strategic Caucasus for the highest stakes - the future of Russia itself.
Hell, you might say that the current president of Georgia is doing his Abe Lincoln impersonation.
Besides, this is none of our goddamned business. Why do we keep shoving our noses into other countries' affairs?
The time has come to pull the plug on NATO.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
As usual, Ron Paul gets to the heart of things: "Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the playthings of government."
No kind of conscription, whether on behalf of the welfare or the warfare sectors of the imperial capital, can be reconciled with freedom. Nor can it be reconciled with the Constitution. But those who govern us laugh with contempt at such arguments. And yet Americans persist in the delusion that they have a Constitution that limits their government. There is something deeply pathological about this. What else can be said?
Tom Woods hit the bull's-eye.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Truman’s campaign could not have succeeded without the enthusiastic cooperation of the American media. Led by the Times, the Herald Tribune, and Henry Luce’s magazines, the press acted as volunteer propagandists for the interventionist agenda, with all its calculated deceptions. (The principal exceptions were the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, in the days of Colonel McCormick and Cissy Paterson.)37 In time, such subservience in foreign affairs became routine for the "fourth estate," culminating during and after the 1999 Yugoslav war in reporting by the press corps that was as biased as the Serbian Ministry of Information.
Overwhelmed by the propaganda blitz from the administration and the press, a Republican majority in Congress heeded the secretary of state’s high-minded call to keep foreign policy "above politics" and voted full funding for the Marshall Plan.38
The next major step was the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The true significance of the NATO treaty was hidden, as new Secretary of State Dean Acheson assured Congress that it would not be followed by other regional pacts, that no "substantial" numbers of American troops would be stationed in Europe, and that the Germans would under no circumstances be rearmed. Congress was likewise promised that the United States was under no obligation to extend military aid to its new allies, nor would an arms race with the Soviet Union ensue.39 Events came to the aid of the globalists. In September 1949, the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb.
Congress approved the military appropriation for NATO that Truman had requested, which, in the nature of things, was followed by a further Soviet buildup. This escalating back and forth became the pattern for the cold war arms race for the next fifty years, much to the delight of U.S. armaments contractors and the generals and admirals on both sides.
And of course, it was Harry who ordered the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A remarkably similar outburst occurred during government leaders’ deliberations with regard to forcibly removing persons of Japanese ancestry from a huge swath of the West coast states and confining them in concentration camps. In a meeting on February 1, 1942, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy bridled at what he took to be Justice Department criticism of the Army, telling Attorney General Francis Biddle: “You are putting a Wall Street lawyer in a helluva box, but if it is a question of safety of the country, [or] the Constitution of the United States, why the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me.”
I've got the idea that Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. Of course the Chief Executive is NOT supposed to be the leader of the World (or the Free World).
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Velkome to das Fourth Reich, formerly known as the United States of America.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Becoming a slave for Massa McMussolini und Massa HitlerObama vould be so vunderbar.
Contemporary advocates of National Service, whether they admit it or not, seek to install coercion -- not commerce or contract -- as the organizing principle of the economy. They likewise seek to indoctrinate young Americans in the idea that human needs are best met through social regimentation administered by a supervisory elite. And behind the conceit expressed in the common refrain that National Service teaches a person to serve something "larger than himself" looms the murderous assumption that the individual exists to serve the pleasure of the State.
All of this explains why modern collectivists, from the Jacobins to the Bolsheviks to their disavowed but unmistakable kindred, the Fascists and National Socialists, have made compulsory universal "service" a central pillar of their totalitarian platforms.
It is conscription and it is morally repugnant and unconstitional.
To freedom loving people----RESIST!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
SEIG HEIL! Or you will be the next target of Herr Fuhrer's health Gestapo.
I sincerely wish he would do an impossible sexual act, if you know what I mean.
Monday, July 21, 2008
According to dictionary.com, a fascist State has such features as a dictator with great powers, the suppression of criticism and opposition, regimentation of business, etc., and aggressive nationalism. I give us a high grade, almost an A.
We have the dictator with great powers. That would be Congress and the President. There is almost nothing that they have not done already and could not do to us "legally." A man could not grow a tomato in his back yard if Congress told him not to.
The Federal government has detailed and sophisticated operations and means to quiet criticism and opposition. There are not yet concentration camps filled with dissidents, although we are coming nearer to that in the treatment of suspected terrorists. But the mainstream media has, nevertheless, been brought into a condition of remarkable quietude and docility. The marked deterioration in adhering to the Bill of Rights under Bush II may be placed under this heading.
Regimentation steadily increases, symbolized by what any ordinary air traveler must endure. But behind the scenes, control over every corner of one’s personal life has increased. Toilets, cars, lightbulbs, washing machines, draining land, investing, medical care, education – you name it, the State is telling us what to do and how to do it, or else. In the realm of business, agriculture is regimented as are most other industries. There is regimentation in every facet one can think of from hiring to firing, and from product safety to Sarbanes-Oxley.
Aggressive nationalism we have with a vengeance, and have had for almost our entire history as a nation. Our huge military-industrial complex that reaches deeply into business in many of the 50 states is the visible machinery that reflects this facet of American fascism. The war in Iraq is yet one more manifestation of it.Heil Amerika!
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
The state party abruptly ended its state convention in April to head off a delegation of Ron Paul supporters who had captured control of the proceedings and appeared on track to elect a majority slate to the Sept. 1-4 national convention.
Party officials planned to reconvene on July 26. But only about 300 delegates sent in RSVPs, well short of the 675 needed for a quorum.
“With so many people concerned about the economy, it simply wouldn’t be fair for us to ask delegates from all over the state to spend money to attend a convention if we know that a quorum won’t be present,” Chairwoman Sue Lowden said in a news release.
Anything to avoid embarrassing Senator McMussolini.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
"If there be one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1791, "it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." We are here today because our bipartisan governing elite and its media apologists have turned Mr. Jefferson on his head to America’s detriment. Today’s leaders in both parties unrelentingly intervene in the affairs of other nations and regions, and, by all appearances, care not a damn about preserving America’s independence. These individuals aspire to be celebrated citizens of the world, believing that being an American citizen is a hum-drum affair best left to the rest of us who pay for their imperial aspirations and interventionist wars with our taxes and soldier-children.
Mr. Jefferson certainly hit the bulls-eye. Unfortunately, our ruling elites, from both establishment political parties have been exporting a lot of male bovine excrement to we peasants.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
One of the most recent examples of comic book history is a July 5 article in the Wall Street Journal Online entitled "Alexander Hamilton’s Capital Compromise," by Fergus M. Bordewich. The article celebrates the fact that the house Hamilton lived in in New York City is being transformed into a shrine of sorts. In true hagiographic fashion, Bordewich makes several false claims about his saintly hero. The first claim, probably motivated by the fact that Hamilton advocated manumission – the ability of slaves to purchase their own freedom – is that Hamilton was "one of the most ardent abolitionists of his generation." There are several major problems with this assertion, however: Hamilton was a slave owner; he never advocated the abolition of slavery per se; he once purchased six slaves at a slave auction (for his brother-in-law, says biographer Ron Chernow); and he once returned runaway slaves to their owner.
Hamilton’s wife Eliza was from a wealthy New York slave-owning family, the Schuylers, and retained some of the "house slaves" after marrying Hamilton. This fact is mentioned by Hamilton’s hagiographers, but is usually excused. For example, in Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution Clinton Rossiter wrote that "Hamilton may have had a slave or two around the house," and "was too much a man of his age . . . to push for emancipation." Moreover, what kind of "abolitionist" is it who attends a slave auction, purchases six slaves, and watches as they are manacled and delivered to a relative where they are doomed to be enslaved for the rest of their lives?
If you think that old Alex was this enlightened abolitionist, think again.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
“It’s preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy,” Professor Chin said. “But this is the constitutional text that we have.”
Several legal experts said that Professor Chin’s analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.
Maybe Ron Paul should consider undending his presidential candidacy.
Friday, July 11, 2008
We can see a pattern in the apparent incoherence of the prohibitionists’ position if we recall that the war on drugs, like all the preceding prohibitionist crusades in American history (some of them still continuing), amounts to a defense of bourgeois WASP conventions against persons and classes deemed less respectable. So, SSRIs, yes, ecstasy, no; Benzodiazepines, yes, heroin, no; a pleasant cocktail party, yes, reefer madness, no; and so forth. Everything turns on the sort of people who tend to consume the substance.
The better sorts have been waging war for centuries to keep the rabble in line. The self-anointed "respectable" people live in constant anxiety that their beloved way of life faces mortal menace from the disorderly masses, who may be disinclined to toe the line drawn for them. As David Wagner has written in The New Temperance: The American Obsession with Sin and Vice, "the Victorian and Progressive Period movements [to ban alcoholic beverages and tobacco cigarettes, among other things] were characterized by what scholarly observers consider an exaggerated . . . notion of their ability to change behavior, by a huge faith in government's ability to regulate every aspect of private life, and by a strong ethnocentric belief in the correctness of white, Protestant, middle-class social norms." The Progressive Era ended, thank heaven, but this twisted puritanical obsession endured.
Their forefathers helped bring fascism to this country even before the term was coined.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Jefferson and most other founders viewed the Constitution as a set of constraints on the powers of government. Hamilton thought of it in exactly the opposite way – as a grant of powers rather than as a set of limitations – a potential rubber stamp on anything and everything the federal government ever wanted to do. He and his fellow nationalists (the Federalists) set about to use the lawyerly manipulation of words to "amend" the Constitution without utilizing the formal amendment process. "Having failed to persuade his colleagues at Philadelphia of the beauties of a truly national plan of government," Rossiter wrote, "and having thereafter recognized the futility of persuading the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to surrender even a jot of their privileges, he set out to remold the Constitution into an instrument of national supremacy."
And how did he "remold" the Constitution? He began by inventing a number of myths (i.e., lies) about the American founding. On June 29, 1787, before the Constitution was even ratified, he said that the sovereign states were merely "artificial beings" that had nothing to do with creating the union – despite the fact that the Constitution itself (in Article 7) declared that the document would be ratified (if it was to be ratified) by the citizens of at least nine of the thirteen states. He told the New York State Assembly in that same year that the "nation," and not the states, had "full power of sovereignty," clearly contradicting the written Constitution and actual history. This lie would be repeated by nationalist politicians from Clay, Webster and Story, to Lincoln. It is still repeated to this day by various apologists for the American empire.
The bloating of government as well as our sticking our noses in other countries' business were indeed part of Mr. Hamilton's disastrous legacy.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The author of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was the abolitionist and social activist, Julia Ward Howe (1819–1910). The song first appeared, minus the last verse, on the front cover of The Atlantic Monthly for February 1862. That it originally had six verses can be seen by looking at her first draft, which was written on a scrap of Sanitary Commission paper. Christian hymnbooks that contain this song only include verses one, two, four, and five. The words as it was first published are slightly different than her original draft, which is transcribed here.
The tune is from a camp-meeting song with a "Glory Hallelujah" refrain by William Steffe, written about 1856. This tune was in turn used for what became the Union marching song, "John Brown’s Body," the first verse of which begins by repeating three times: "John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave," and ends with: "His soul goes marching on!" Other lines read: "They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!" and "Now, three rousing cheers for the Union."Next time you go to church, or feel like singing a hymn, think twice before you sing what is in essence, a piece of Yankee propaganda.