Idiot

Wayne Allen Root might be perfect as Senator McMussolini's running mate.

But what about mystery #2: Ron Paul's own passionate Libertarian supporters who wonder how it's possible that their hero is polling only 1% to 3% nationally?

That answer is also simple. Look at it from outside the insulated world of Ron Paul Inc. You see Ron Paul has one big flaw. He's just too nice for his own good. Some would even call him na‹ve. He sees the world with rose-colored glasses. That prevents him from seeing the evil and disaster aimed squarely at our country.

In the political world, a candidate is only as strong as his weakest link. Ron Paul's weak link is national security and the war on terrorists.

Unfortunately for him, that's the issue at the top of almost every American voter's list. In the end, almost every parent in this country will put aside every other issue. They want a President who will keep their children safe at night. A President willing to fight and win the war on terror at all costs. They want a President who's strong enough to stand up to the most evil enemies of freedom since Adolph Hitler.

It is conceivable that the Libertarian Party may have effectively died last Sunday night.

You Might Say..............

This country has been in one long war since 1917.

The Fascist Corporate State

Here's Alan Stang's take:

“Mercantilism” was the system the Founding Fathers designed our new country to reject. In part, it meant government control of the economy and colonies controlled by force of arms. One example of a mercantilist enterprise was the British East India Company, which ruled that country for the Queen. Another was the Dutch East India Company, which, at the height of its power, had forty warships.

A man named Benito Mussolini renamed this system and installed it in Italy after World War I. He called it “Fascism.” Remember that Fascism had nothing to do with oppressing Jews. Mussolini came to power legally in 1922, after the infamous March on Rome, when no one had ever heard of former Corporal Hitler. Hitler would not become Chancellor, legally, for another eleven years, not until 1933. Both Mussolini and Hitler were basically street thugs, but, again, they took control of their governments legally, within the constitutional frameworks of their respective countries.

What was and is Fascism? Mussolini is the expert. Would you believe him? According to Mussolini, Fascism is an amalgamation of the monster corporations and the government, which gives the former the force they need to impose their will and gives the latter the power they crave. Indeed, Mussolini’s system also became known as “the corporate state.”

In the beginning, there was considerable admiration for Mussolini’s system in Washington, District of Corporatism. Yes, he was a thug, and, yes, his followers wore black shirts, but he certainly did “make the trains run on time.” Indeed, there was even some enthusiasm in the District for Adolf’s typical German efficiency at the very beginning, before the discovery of the Holocaust.

Heil Senator McDoubletalk! Heil Barack! Heil Billary!

Pro Libertate: Martial Law on the Installment Plan

Pro Libertate: Martial Law on the Installment Plan

This makes renouncing one's US citizenship look good. The time has come for the breakup of the united States into dozens, hundreds, thousands of independent states.

Nice Going, Michelle

It seems that Michelle Malkin has found something to get uptight over:

In the ad, Ray wears a scarf around her neck and holds an iced coffee. Malkin, complained that the scarf looked similar to the black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian scarf. Malkin explained:

The kaffiyeh “has come to symbolise murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

The ad has been pulled.

Of course, this is the same "conservative" columnist who praised econofascist and war criminal Franklin Roosevelt for his concentration camps.

Seen here is a picute of Rachel for her ill-fated Dunkin Donuts ad (photo from Dunkin' Donuts via AP).

Was The Decline Of The West Sir Winston's Fault?

You might get an answer in the affirmative from Pat Buchanan.

The first blunder was a secret decision of the inner Cabinet in 1906 to send a British army across the Channel to fight in any Franco-German War. Had the Kaiser known the British Empire would fight for France, he would have moved more decisively than he did to halt the plunge to war in July 1914.

Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.

The second blunder was the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that added a million square miles to the British Empire while putting millions of Germans under Czech and Polish rule in violation of the terms of the armistice and Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points.

A third was the British decision to capitulate to U.S. demands in 1921 and throw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years. Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of 80,000 to a Japanese army half that size.

A fourth British blunder, which Neville Chamberlain called the "very midsummer of madness," was the 1935 decision to sanction Italy for a colonial war in Ethiopia. London destroyed the Stresa Front of Britain, France and Italy that Mussolini had forged to contain Germany, and drove Mussolini straight into the arms of a Nazi dictator he loathed.

Mr. Buchanan has a new book out describing these and other diplomatic disasters.

Food Fascist Mike Is At It Again.....

The former governor of Arkansas is just another part of the myriad of problems plaguing the two old established parties.

The Welfare State....

Is just another collectivist racket:

In contrast, the theoreticians of the welfare state believe that people are incapable of improving their condition and would ultimately become little more than pawns of the “greedy capitalists” without the support of a wise and benevolent state. Of course, while redistributionism and its nasty cousins – socialism, communism, and fascism – have created many shortages, one thing it has produced in abundance is power-hungry politicians eager to protect the people from the forces of private greed!

It must be abolished.

Some Takes On "Human Smoke"

From David Gordon:

Where, then, lies Baker's offense? Rather than write a standard historical narrative, he presents on each page a separate fact, often taken from contemporary newspaper accounts. A number of these facts show Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in less than a favorable light, and this has proved too much not only for Pryce-Jones but for John Lukacs as well. For Lukacs and his ilk, Churchill is the Schwannritter of the 20th century, and inconvenient truths must not be permitted to jar unwary readers from the veneration properly his due.


And from Peter Hitchins (as well as his thoughts on Pat Buchanan's new book):

In that case, how can we be sure that Churchill's war was a good war?

What if the Men of Glory didn't need to die or risk their lives? What if the whole thing was a miscalculated waste of life and wealth that destroyed Britain as a major power and turned her into a bankrupt pensioner of the USA?

Funnily enough, these questions echo equally uncomfortable ones I'm often asked by readers here.

The milder version is: "Who really won the war, since Britain is now subject to a German-run European Union?"

The other is one I hear from an ever-growing number of war veterans contemplating modern Britain's landscape of loutishness and disorder and recalling the sacrifices they made for it: "Why did we bother?"

Is Government To Blame....

For the massive loss of life in the recent earthquake in mainland China?

The problem is that these buildings were not up to standards, but the more fundamental question is why they were not. It is not merely a matter of obedience. It is a matter of economics. The people who build buildings need to be held liable for the structural integrity of the buildings. But of course a lack of accountability is a famed feature of all governments everywhere, in contrast with private enterprise.

China has undergone a private-enterprise revolution in the last decade and a half, one that has transformed the country and dramatically raised the living standards of the population. But the system that built the schools that collapsed is as stuck in the past as the system of Chinese communism itself. The government orders schools to be built and they must be built, period.

What if the resources aren't available? What if the workers lack the skill to accomplish the task? What if the machines that are to build them do not work properly and lack replacement parts? What if resource supply should be allocated differently according to the needs of the people? Under socialism, economics is beside the point. The schools must appear. This is the way the system works.

Bob Barr Captures LP Nomination

At Denver:

Former Republican congressman Bob Barr from Georgia won the Libertarian Party presidential nomination on the sixth ballot at the party's national convention on Sunday.

Barr said he anticipates qualifying for the national presidential debates this fall.
Barr had to overcome the objections of many Libertarians who viewed him as an interloper and who questioned his commitment to Libertarian ideals.
Ruwart said Barr had not embraced fully the Libertarian message on key party issues, such as the legalization of all drugs or the ending of all federal taxation.
Georgia had 35 delegates at the convention, and 33 voted for Barr on all six ballots. Two went for Root.
Georgia delegate James Bell, who supported Barr, said the outcome was never certain.
"I don't take anything for granted in the Libertarian Party convention, because there's no preconceived notion of what could happen, unlike the Democrats and Republicans. It's a genuine process," Bell said.
In the end, enough delegates saw a chance with Barr to take the party to new heights.


Wayne Allen Root, a one-time rival for the nomination, picked up the Vice-Presidential nod.

I still have plans to vote for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party nominee) in November.

Could the Libertarian Party be legitimately known now as "GOP 2?"

Shills For World Government?

Why do you suppose groups like these adopt names that have the suffix "Without Borders?"

What is going on here? What accounts for this new "without borders" initiative? What do all these groups have in common? Do they resemble each other in any way apart from choice of appellation? And, where are the "libertarians without borders?"

At first glance, these groups are as dissimilar as they can be. What, after all, do doctors, reporters and Mexicans share apart from their humanity, of course? But, by digging a little deeper we are able, at least, to hazard an informed guess as to what is going on.

All of these organizations are associated with leftish political philosophy in general, and with support for world government in particular.

Are We Capable Of Self-Government?

Not so, say the ruling and political elites:

History has been loudly answering Jefferson’s question! Are we listening?

The two camps that exist within all political structures at all times and in all places are those who support government Over man – and those who support government Under man. To the former camp man is the tool of government. To the latter, government is the tool of man. All governments begin as tools of the man or class of men who design them. And so far, all free governments have later been perverted to the extent that individual liberty founded in the protection of life and property is limited, eroded or eradicated completely. The two currents of liberty and tyranny run against each other all of the time.

The Fear of Government Over Man is a principle that we ignore at our extreme peril. If you can observe the latest election cycle [which is more obscene than mud wrestling] and not conclude that we have trusted too much to "government" I will realize you have been "educated" but I will not condemn you. I do however have a few things I would love to have you read – and think about very carefully – as though your life depended upon it.

As soon as a government servant has made a decision based on party association, affinity, or loyalty, and in violation of his oath and ethics – he has in effect sold out. This experience usually happens very early in his party career – unless he is Ron Paul. Once you have sold out in the little things it becomes easier to move on to the big things. But if you happen to be a Ron Paul you tend to gain a reputation for being one of those recalcitrant people of true and enduring principles. Those folks can really annoy the establishment who regards them as hopelessly naïve – right up until the bottom falls out.

Right now, Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

A Challenge To Our Country

Here is a 2001 assessment of our republic from the peace, freedom, and sound money presidential candidate.

Pro Libertate: They Have a Little List

Pro Libertate: They Have a Little List

War, Peace, and The State

Here is what Murray Rothbard wrote back in 1963:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.¹ In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.²

Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for a while and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute: it holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathize with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel, by violence if necessary. In short, A aggresses against B because C is threatening, or aggressing against, A. We may understand C's "higher" culpability in this whole procedure; but we must still label this aggression as a criminal act which B has the right to repel by violence.

To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is.

Kinda like President Bush's foreign policy.

Ron Paul's Book

Here's an interesting review of The Revolution: A Manifesto:

This slender (173 page) book presents that choice as persuasively and elegantly as anything I have read. Further, the case for liberty is anchored in the tradition of American history and the classic conservatism which characterised the Republican party for the first half of the 20th century. The author repeatedly demonstrates just how recent much of the explosive growth in government has been, and observes that people seemed to get along just fine, and the economy prospered, without the crushing burden of intrusive regulation and taxation. One of the most striking examples is the discussion of abolishing the personal income tax. “Impossible”, as other politicians would immediately shout? Well, the personal income tax accounts for about 40% of federal revenue, so eliminating it would require reducing the federal budget by the same 40%. How far back would you have to go in history to discover an epoch where the federal budget was 40% below that of 2007? Why, you'd have to go all the way back to 1997! (p. 80)







I have this feeling that many people who read Dr. Paul's book feel the same way.

GOP II ?

Is there a concerted effort to seize control of the Libertarian Party?

Recent events within the LP show a similarly disturbing trend.

The convention organizers were told that they must invite Neal Boortz, a conservative Barr supporter, to be the speaker at the Sunday Banquet. Boortz had to cancel because of knee surgery, but the pattern of placing Barr supporters in many of the prominent speaking spots has continued.

The convention organizers were told that they must have Barr himself as the convention’s keynote speaker. After Barr launched his presidential exploratory committee, they were then told that his replacement would be Richard Viguerie. This choice of having Viguerie, a movement conservative, deliver the keynote was imposed on the convention organizers contrary to their own desire, which was to fill the slot with one of the many Libertarian speakers available and eager to fill the keynote slot.

The LP’s former Executive Director, Shane Cory, used the national office to release without authorization a statement that many considered to be openly hostile to candidate Mary Ruwart. He then resigned and has since accepted a position within Viguerie’s organization. (The unauthorized press release appears to have been taken down, but here’s the text.)

Sunday, it was announced that Mr. Viguerie has purchased the popular blog Third Party Watch, which until now has been a largely unmoderated site where proponents and opponents of all third party candidates could freely express their views.

Monday morning, longtime libertarian activist and Third Party Watch contributor Tom Knapp attempted to post a piece about a highly critical story appearing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about Bob Barr’s fundraising practices. Within minutes, his piece was deleted and his previous posting privileges on the site were revoked.

Clearly, Barr and Viguerie are attempting to gain control of the LP so that Barr can campaign on a conservative/libertarian hybrid platform and Viguerie can extend his fundraising empire into the libertarian quadrant of the political universe. If they succeed, the Libertarian Party will become just one more mouthpiece for malcontent Republicans.

One would have to wonder if Dick Viguerie was behind Alan Keyes' unsuccessful campaign for the Constitution Party nomination.

It Pays To Snitch

Here is Karen DeCoster's take on the art of snitching (when it pays, or course).

Here In These United States..........

Has freedom become a dirty word?

Once he arrived home from the Hennepin County Courthouse, where he’d been served a gross misdemeanor for spray-painting the interior of a campus elevator, the lanky, wavy-haired University of Minnesota sophomore flipped open his phone and checked his messages. He was greeted by a voice he recognized immediately. It belonged to U of M Police Sgt. Erik Swanson, the officer to whom Carroll had turned himself in just three weeks earlier. When Carroll called back, Swanson asked him to meet at a coffee shop later that day, going on to assure a wary Carroll that he wasn’t in trouble.

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Gee, I wonder whatever happened to freedom of assembly.

HEIL, BARACK!

The Slumlord's Buddy has one hell of a nerve:

Pro Libertate: Texas Child Grab: Possession Is The Entire "Law"

Pro Libertate: Texas Child Grab: Possession Is The Entire "Law"

Before some Kiddie Kare Kollectivist comes for your kid, remind him of the origins of such organizations.

Should The US Government, Through The Forced Contribution Of Taxpayers, Give Money To Foreign Countries?

HELL, NO!

Overlooked amid all the attention focused on Myanmar is the $200 million Bush released last month for global emergency food aid. This was followed by his recent call for Congress to approve an additional $770 million in food aid to help the people in some of the world's poorest nations — "where rising prices can mean the difference between getting a daily meal and going without food," said the president — to cope with rising food prices that have caused hunger and social unrest. But this is just the beginning, for Bush has also said that the United States intends to spend a total of $5 billion on food aid this year and next year.

But whether it is termed disaster relief or food relief, it is still foreign aid funded by the forced looting of American taxpayers and given to countries that most Americans can't locate on a map and in many cases have never even heard of.

The last time I checked, all foreign aid was unconstitutional.

I case you wonder, Myanmar is also known as Burma.

America's "Addiction To Oil?"

Well, folks, are we citizens of these united States of America really addicted to oil?

But there is a problem in using the term “addiction” to refer to oil. The term “addiction” denotes a moral choice, as though it were immoral to use oil, but moral to use a fuel developed from a different source. While I will deal with the use of particular fuels that Bush apparently believes to be the “moral” ones, I will first deal with the issue of whether or not it is immoral to use petroleum.
Petroleum is petroleum, and whether it comes from under the ground within the borders of the United States or from elsewhere, it contains the same molecular structure and the same physical properties. There is no intrinsically moral difference between oil extracted from within the United States and oil extracted from another country. The only question that remains is about its use.

For decades, the worshipers of the great, wonderful, Jesus-like State has slung a bunch of male bovine excrement about how they will solve our energy problems.

Unrest In The GOP?

One might only hope so:

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

This coming September's Republican convention could be more interesting than expected.

Excellent Cartoon

Loving tribute to Maine's Grand Old Party from the Bangor Daily News.

Amtrak's Privatization or Abolition....

May not come soon enough.

Amid the festivities, there's one thing we can safely assume no one will be singing about: Amtrak's draconian new security measures. These reflect a drastic change from Amtrak's heretofore easygoing policies that allowed you to pretty much just show up and board – no searches, no wandings, no pat-downs. Whatever one might say about Amtrak otherwise, this was its great advantage over air travel in the months and years following September 11, 2001.

Now, though, Amtrak is sending police to perform random screenings of passengers' carry-on bags. It's also deploying bomb-sniffing dogs and police armed with automatic weapons to patrol trains and platforms.

If a passenger doesn't want to have his bag searched, he's free to decline, not board the train, and have his ticket price refunded.

How any of this will increase passenger safety remains a mystery.

What The &$&*%*(& Did Harry Say?

President Harry Truman said this sixteen hours after the Hiroshima nuking:

The term "political leaders everywhere" is govspeak for "political leaders everywhere but here," because just 16 hours after the FIRST bomb was dropped, Harry Truman issued a press release promising even more destruction on the Japanese:

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

Does that sound like Truman, after seeing the "horrible devastation" wrought by the FIRST bomb, vowed to refrain from dropping the SECOND bomb?

Was Harry planning on dropping more nukes than the two that ultimately were?

General Smedley Butler On War....

Here is Don Bacon's "interview" with the late general.

Iraq War, Torture, and Duplicity of The War Party

Here is Arthur Silber's take:

You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.

It may take the full-blown secession of states from the union------or possibly the overthrow of the United States government by force-----in order for these heinous crimes to end.

Pro Libertate: One Of These Things Is Just Like The Other#links

Pro Libertate: One Of These Things Is Just Like The Other#links

Just another sign of the growing Nazification of local "law enforcement."

"The Revolution: A Manifesto"

A couple of days ago, I bought my copy of Ron Paul's book.

Here's Michael Scheuer's take on the book.

Dr. Paul reminds Americans that they are the inheritors – the posterity, if you will – of the work and guidance of the single wisest, most courageous, and most foresighted group of leaders who ever lived at one time and labored successfully to form a new republic. Refusing to be fashionable – a most admirable characteristic – Dr. Paul forthrightly declares that the Founders’ work and guidance remain just as relevant to Americans today as it was two-plus centuries ago. [p. 10] In making this argument, he echoes Oxford Professor Daniel N. Robinson’s contention that the Founders drew from "the political life of early America [which itself] is an extended treatise on the nature of human nature," a treatise that held as a certainties the beliefs that man was a flawed, non-perfectible creature whose attitudes and character did not change over the ages. The Founders knew that people do not change, that good and evil are constants in history, and – most important -- that power not freedom is the universal value.

Hope you visitors to this blog get a chance to pick up a copy of Dr. Paul's book.

You May Say.................

That Biblical Christianity is being eclipsed by worship of the state:

Biblical Christianity is becoming eclipsed by state worship. The "obey the powers that be" mantra is still recited incessantly. The state is revered by too many Protestants as a force for good or social justice instead of the criminal gang that it is. The state’s latest pronouncements about this country or that country being a threat to American interests are too often accepted by evangelicals at face value. The need for the invasion of, the bombing of, the imposing of sanctions against, or the need to take some other belligerent action toward other countries is swallowed by some Catholics like a communion wafer.

Biblical Christianity is also being eclipsed by leader worship. Instead of being viewed as a war criminal, President Bush is seen as the messiah in chief by many evangelicals, with Huckabee as his heir apparent. Any president will do, however, as long as he is a Republican, claims to be a Christian, and wants to continue killing Muslims lest they kill us first because they hate our freedoms. In spite of Bush’s horrendous violations of civil liberties, his doubling of the national debt, his debacle in Iraq, and his tremendous expansion of the power of the presidency, he is still revered by way too many Christians both in and out of the evangelical community.

It's unfortunate that those who are supposed to be Biblical Christians are turning into fundamentalist Busheviks.

Environmentalism...

As is now formulated, is just another totalitarian movement:

Most of the so-called solutions we hear from so-called environmentalists are not really solutions at all. They are ideas that simply make life for human beings more difficult and more expensive, while slowing down human progress. The whole so-called environmental movement is anti-human and anti-freedom. When communism collapsed in the late 80’s and early 90’s, it was given a bad name association, and rightly so. The communists had to go into hiding and could no longer directly call for communism since their ideas had been discredited. The communists decided to become environmentalists and take a new approach to their agenda.
If you’ll notice, nearly every single solution offered by the green movement is to impede human progress. It also usually involves using the force of government or at least it is a suggestion that could later lead to government force.

Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that the first "Earth Day" was observed on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov, who went by the pen name Lenin.

If A Person Wants To Discrimate....

That's HIS business, not that of the omnipresent state.

Discrimination is nothing more than making distinctions and being selective. Without discrimination, freedom to choose is an empty exercise. I favor the freedom to choose. Therefore, I favor discrimination.

Not only do I favor discrimination, I discriminate constantly. And so does everyone else.

I am completely certain that your cupboard and your refrigerator contain a different assortment of foods than mine. I am sure that your choice of words differs from mine. Your friends are not mine. Your causes are not mine. Your movie and music favorites are not mine.

Why can't, or won't ,whese Wilsonian fascists leave us alone?

Winston Churchill: A War Criminal?!

I am shocked.................SHOCKED!

The campaign of murder from the air leveled Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. There were high points: the bombing of Lübeck, when that ancient Hanseatic town "burned like kindling"; the 1000-bomber raid over Cologne, and the following raids that somehow, miraculously, mostly spared the great Cathedral but destroyed the rest of the city, including thirteen Romanesque churches; the firestorm that consumed Hamburg and killed some 42,000 people. No wonder that, learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would listen" that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan.

The most infamous act was the destruction of Dresden, in February, 1945. According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden, which was the capital of the old kingdom of Saxony, was an indispensable stop on the Grand Tour, the baroque gem of Europe. The war was practically over, the city filled with masses of helpless refugees escaping the advancing Red Army. Still, for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, Dresden was pounded with bombs. At least 30,000 people were killed, perhaps as many as 135,000 or more. The Zwinger Palace; Our Lady's Church (die Frauenkirche); the Bruhl Terrace, overlooking the Elbe where, in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, Uncle Pavel went to spend his last years; the Semper Opera House, where Richard Strauss conducted the premiere of Rosenkavalier; and practically everything else was incinerated. Churchill had fomented it. But he was shaken by the outcry that followed. While in Georgetown and Hollywood, few had ever heard of Dresden, the city meant something in Stockholm, Zurich, and the Vatican, and even in London. What did our hero do? He sent a memorandum to the Chiefs of Staff:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise, we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. . . . The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. . . . I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives . . . rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.

The military chiefs saw through Churchill's contemptible ploy: realizing that they were being set up, they refused to accept the memorandum. After the war, Churchill casually disclaimed any knowledge of the Dresden bombing, saying: "I thought the Americans did it."

And still the bombing continued. On March 16, in a period of 20 minutes, Würzburg was razed to the ground. As late as the middle of April, Berlin and Potsdam were bombed yet again, killing another 5,000 civilians. Finally, it stopped; as Bomber Harris noted, there were essentially no more targets to be bombed in Germany. It need hardly be recorded that Churchill supported the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another 100,000, or more, civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the "500,000 U.S. lives saved" by avoiding an invasion of the Home Islands the highest military estimate had been 46,000. Churchill topped his lie: the atom-bombings had saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans, he fantasized.

The eagerness with which Churchill directed or applauded the destruction of cities from the air should raise questions for those who still consider him the great "conservative" of his or perhaps of all time. They would do well to consider the judgment of an authentic conservative like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who wrote: "Non-Britishers did not matter to Mr. Churchill, who sacrificed human beings their lives, their welfare, their liberty with the same elegant disdain as his colleague in the White House."

Ol' Winston had a lifelong lust for war. He and FDR should have been tried as war criminals for their duplicity.

Pro Libertate: The Real Cult Menace (Part Two): "Freedom" Through Submission

Pro Libertate: The Real Cult Menace (Part Two): "Freedom" Through Submission

Pro Libertate: The Real Cult Menace (Part One): "Waco" in Slow Motion

Pro Libertate: The Real Cult Menace (Part One): "Waco" in Slow Motion