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.
Before you get your blood up over the amount of beer I consumed, bear in mind that I am just a shade under 200 pounds, and I drink beer almost every day of the year. In other words, consuming ten beers over the course of an afternoon and evening is not that big of a deal to me, (and my Mother’s maiden name is Hofmeister, if that explains anything). After the party, I caught a ride up to our team pub and had one more pint with the team.
At the end of the evening, though, I knew that I probably wouldn’t be able to blow less than Mr. Clinton’s requisite and arbitrary .08 BAC, and I decided I probably ought not to risk a DUI. My teammates, however, had already left the pub, and I had no place to stay for the night. So, I decided to catch a ride back to my truck where I could sleep. I spent the remainder of the night in a smashed heap on the bench-seat of my Ford Ranger.
Sounds somewhat responsible doesn’t it? Thanks to MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving," people like me were choosing to sleep off their buzz before driving home. A victory in the battle against drunk driving!
Unfortunately, while MADD can perhaps claim to have kept me from driving while slightly intoxicated, they cannot thereby claim a victory for safe driving. For, the following morning, I did not even remotely resemble a safe driver. After having overslept in my truck, I woke up with the sun cruelly beating down on my face, and sweat literally forming puddles on my vinyl seats. I also had a headache that nearly blinded me, eyeballs totally lacking moisture, and a kink in my neck that felt like I’d fallen down a flight of stairs. I was a wreck. So, while I was driving home sober that morning, I was also driving horribly – and I knew it.
From this example we can clearly see the fallacy involved in MADD’s most deeply-held belief. It is clearly not true that sober men are necessarily safer drivers than intoxicated drivers. I am a larger than average man who drinks beer almost every day, and I can function completely normally with beer in my veins. I am the first to admit, though, that I am a shockingly poor driver when I have even a slight hangover. But, thanks to MADD and the insane drunk-driving laws in this country, I am encouraged to drive when I know that I am not a very good driver. Some people may be worse drivers when they are drunk than when they have a hangover, but I certainly am not one of them. MADD’s "War Against Drunk Driving," and the draconian laws they have pressured Congress to pass, (utilizing the argumentum ad misericordiam to its fullest extent), forced me to wait to drive until I was in a physically and mentally worse condition. Quite simply, MADD and the U.S. Congress made me a more dangerous driver than I otherwise would have been.