The Obama Betrayal
Jon Stewart does some funny stuff sometimes. Even he can see the Obama Betrayal.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Cheney Predacted | ||||
|
||||
ACLU and Steve Bierfeldt of Campaign for Liberty Sues the TSA
If you have no heard already. Steve Bierfeldt of the Campaign for Liberty (C4L) was detained and harassed by TSA agents after a C4L event over several thousand dollars in cash he had from proceeds he had from C4L products. Unbeknownst to the TSA agents he was recording the whole incident on his phone. It is quit shocking the way the TSA treats him. It just goes to show you how government agents despise us ordinary peasants.
The ACLU does many good things like this. I just wish they would focus on the whole Bill of Rights and not just the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments.
Ideas Have Consequences
by Charles A. Burris
Previously by Charles A. Burris: The Manichean Battle Over Sonia Sotomayor
I would like to call your attention to a virtually unknown little book, The Lost Literature of Socialism, by George Watson, Fellow in English at St. John’s College, Cambridge and editor of the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature.
As the publishers explain on the back of this book: “In this hard-hitting and controversial new book, the author examines the foundation texts of socialism to find out what they really say… and the result is blasphemy against its canon of saints. This study, the first review of socialist literature since 1945, reveals how closely socialism was linked to conservative, racist, and genocidal ideas. As a literary critic the author’s concern is to pay a due respect to the works of the founding fathers of socialism, to attend to what they say rather than to what their modern disciples wish they had said. The book forces the reader to abandon long-standing assumptions in political thought, enabling a genuine debate to be revived.”
In this brilliant work examining the foundation texts of socialism, Watson provides a powerful indictment of their reactionary, racist and genocidal ideas. There is a direct line from Marx and Engels to Hitler and the Holocaust; to Lenin and Stalin and the liquidation of the Kulaks and the extermination of the Ukrainians; to Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald and Auschwitz, and to Kolima, Vorkuta and Karaganda.
What distinguishes “socialism,” the political/economic ideology, and its ideological twin, “sociology,” the social science, are their common inheritance and origins from backward, reactionary ideas (anti-individualism, collectivism, anti-capitalism) and thinkers (Hegel, Comte, de Bonald, de Maistre, Southey, Saint-Simon). Scholars such the sociologist Leon Branson, The Political Context of Sociology, and Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science, have thoroughly traced and documented this non-liberal lineage. These horrific ideas were explicitly formulated and conceived against those of classical liberalism, individualism, and free market (laissez-faire) capitalism. But today, according to established authorities in academia and the media, they are the height of “progressive” thought. How did this all come about? Here is how Murray Rothbard put it in his magnificent For a New Liberty:
“(W)e must first remember that classical liberalism constituted a profound threat to the political and economic interests – the ruling classes – who benefited from the Old Order: the kings, the nobles and landed aristocrats, the privileged merchants, the military machines, the State bureaucracies. Despite three major violent revolutions precipitated by the liberals – the English of the seventeenth century and the American and French of the eighteenth – victories in Europe were only partial. Resistance was stiff and managed to successfully maintain landed monopolies, religious establishments, and warlike foreign and military policies, and for a time to keep the suffrage restricted to the wealthy elite. The liberals had to concentrate on widening the suffrage, because it was clear to both sides that the objective economic and political interests of the mass of the public lay in individual liberty. It is interesting to note that, by the early nineteenth century, the laissez-faire forces were known as “liberals” and “radicals” (for the purer and more consistent among them), and the opposition that wished to preserve or go back to the Old Order were broadly known as “conservatives.”
Totalitarianism in One City: Shreveport’s Gun-Grabbing Mayor
by William Norman Grigg
Recently by William Norman Grigg: An American ‘Yezhovschina’?
Any time a motorist is stopped by a police officer, insists Shreveport, Louisiana Mayor Cedric Glover, “Your rights … have been suspended.” This includes not only the freedom of movement, but also, in the event the officer inquires as to whether the driver is carrying a weapon, “Your right to be able to hold on to your weapon and say whether [you] have a weapon or not” – as well as the right to retain possession of that weapon, should the officer decide to confiscate it from you.
Should you choose not to answer the question, or answer it in the negative, the officer could still choose, “in the interest of officer safety, to secure you in a safe position” – this most likely means outside the car with your hands cuffed behind your back – “and then do an appropriate inspection of your vehicle.”
The phrase “appropriate inspection” is more honestly rendered “Unconstitutional warrantless search.”
Should the police officer then turn up a firearm or other weapon in the car, the driver “would be guilty or potentially guilty of even a more severe offense” than whatever he had allegedly done to precipitate the traffic stop, according to Mayor Glover. Police officers, according to Glover, are invested with “a power that the President of the United States does not have … and that is the ability to be able to suspend your rights.”
This is “one of the things that I say to each and every one of the police officers who graduates from the Shreveport Police Academy since I’ve been mayor.” Fortunately for the public, one supposes, Mr. Glover remembers the lesson that Peter Parker learned from his kindly and sagacious uncle Ben – that is, with great power comes great responsibility. “You have to understand there is a great deal of power that is vested within … the law enforcement personnel of this country,” Glover insists. “It’s why there is a great deal of responsibility that has to go along with it.”
Glover offered those remarkable observations, and many others like them, in a recorded phone call with Shreveport resident Robert Baillio.
Mr. Baillio had called to complain about a recent traffic stop in which an SPD officer, who – before dealing with any other matter of business – asked if Baillio had a firearm, then temporarily seized it from him.
Louisiana law recognizes the right of the state’s residents to carry loaded weapons in their vehicles, and Baillio has a state-issued concealed carry permit – that is, a piece of paper in which the state generously recognizes one facet of Baillio’s innate right to bear arms.
According to Baillio’s account, he was cordial and polite when he was stopped after supposedly neglecting to use a turn signal. That this was almost certainly a pretext stop is illustrated by the fact that Baillio never received a ticket. Supplemental evidence is offered by the fact that the conversation between the officer and Baillio focused entirely on the issue of gun ownership, including a question about Baillio’s membership in the National Rifle Association.
Celebrate Torture Day by Punishing Torturers
by James Bovard
Recently by James Bovard:
U.S. Bailout of Tinhorn Dictators Sacrifices Taxpayers on IMF Altar
Since 1997, every June 26 has been formally recognized as the International Day of Support for Victims of Torture. Political leaders around the globe take the occasion to proclaim their opposition to barbarism.
On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush proudly declared: “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.”
This was one of the most fraudulent assertions since 1936, when the new Soviet constitution guaranteed Soviet citizens complete freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. But this “perfect constitution” did nothing to prevent Stalin from sending millions of people to their deaths in the Gulag and in front of firing squads.
Similarly, Bush’s anti-torture proclamation did nothing to stop his administration from formalizing perhaps the most brutal abuses in modern American history. Top Bush administration officials created twisted rationales to authorize simulated drowning, “walling” (throwing detainees up against a wall, repeated ad nauseam), sleep deprivation (as long as it did not last more than 11 days), head slappings, and other methods to shatter people’s will and resistance.
Psychological Barriers to Anarchy
It seems to me that there is a large psychological barrier for many people in regards to anarchy. I have been thinking about this lately as I move closer and closer to being an Anarchists. Besides the obvious and unfortunate connotation of anarchy with chaos that most people have, I think a main problem is that people have lived with government for so long that that they can’t comprehend living without government. It isn’t even that people have lived with government their whole life, but most people’s ancestors have lived with government in one form or another for thousands of years, with possibl quasi-anarchistic periods thrown in now and again. Even many in the libertarian movement (especially in the Libertarian Party) are quick to distance themselves from Anarcho-Capitalists for fear of being thought crazy by other people (and fear of how different a world without government would be like).
I also think that people have this mystical view of government. They think that if there is no government, then they will not be Americans any longer. They like to be identified as part of the group. It is true, that if there was no government, then there might not be any United States of America, and hence people would not be Americans anymore. But why is it so necessary to be be identified as part of a group. Being identified as part of a group and not as an individual is generally the basis of every genocide in history. Maybe if there where no countries, then there would also be no more wars. Not a bad trade off for getting ride of your citizenship. Not a bad trade off at all.
In order to accept Anarchy as a viable system of civilization, one must defenestrate a lot of preconceived notions. I am finding that I am throwing out more preconceived notions lately than I have since I learned about libertarianism all those years ago. It is very hard when the idea that government is needed at least some basic areas has been drilled into your head by your government-approved schooling for so many years.
Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
By Ron Paul
Published 06/15/09
Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
The Ir-Af-Pak War
by Tom Engelhardt
Recently by Tom Engelhardt: Confronting the CIA’s Mind Maze
Obama Looses the Manhunters: Charisma and the Imperial Presidency
Let’s face it, even Bo is photogenic, charismatic. He’s a camera hound. And as for Barack, Michelle, Sasha, and Malia – keep in mind that we’re now in a first name culture – they all glow on screen.
Before a camera they can do no wrong. And the president himself, well, if you didn’t watch his speech in Cairo, you should have. The guy’s impressive. Truly. He can speak to multiple audiences – Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, as well as a staggering range of Americans – and somehow just about everyone comes away hearing something they like, feeling he’s somehow on their side. And it doesn’t even feel like pandering. It feels like thoughtfulness. It feels like intelligence.
For all I know – and the test of this is still a long, treacherous way off – Barack Obama may turn out to be the best pure politician we’ve seen since at least Ronald Reagan, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He seems to have Roosevelt’s same unreadable ability to listen and make you believe he’s with you (no matter what he’s actually going to do), which is a skill not to be whistled at.
Right now, he and his people are picking off the last Republican moderates via a little party-switching and some well-crafted appointments, and so driving that party and its conservative base absolutely nuts, if not into extreme southern isolation. In this sense, his first Supreme Court pick was little short of a political stroke of brilliance, whatever she turns out to do on the bench. Whether the opposition “wins” (which they won’t) or loses in any attempt to block her nomination, they stand to further alienate a key voting bloc, Hispanics. Now 9% of voters, Hispanics went for Obama in the last election by a staggering 35-point margin. Next time their heft might even bring solidly red-state Texas closer to in-play status in the two-party system. In other words, the president has left his opponents in a situation where they can’t win for losing.
Lincoln Rode into Office on the Arms of Slavery
On March 2, 1861, the Lincoln controlled congress passed the following amendment.
“ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Meaning, the federal government could not overturn slavery, ever. It is as simple as this. If the southern states really left the union merely because of slavery, all that they had to do was to return to the union and ratify this amendment. It is interesting that the only state to ratify this amendment before war broke out was Illinois, the home state of Lincoln. Lincoln was clearly a supporter of this amendment and of the institution of slavery in general. Simply look at his inauguration speech.
” Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
‘ I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’”
Clearly, the succession of the southern states was not about slavery. If was far more about the destruction of the southern economy by the protectionist tariffs instituted by the federal government. Many condemn those that would even discuss succession as racist and hate mongers. Those people are idiots. To think that one succession would have anything to do with another succession is moronic. The revolutionary war (our succession from Britain) had different origins than the southern states succeeding from the United States (Not to mention the 11 states that succeed from North Carolina and Rhode Island when they ratified the U.S. Constitution while those two states where still under the Articles of Confederation.) There is nothing hateful or racist when talking about succession. In fact, I would contend that it is those who prevent that discussion are the hateful ones since they would retain control through any means possible.
