Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Tom Sowell on Immigration

Cartoon by BALOO
As I've said many, many times before, the only valid purpose of a nation's government is to further that nation's interests.  Simple enough, you'd think, but we have been taught for years by liberals and neocons and various other charlatans that our purpose is to make the world safe for democracy or fight for feminism in Afghanistan or help some poor benighted country overthrow its evil dictator and become a utopia.  And in one specific area, a very important one, we are taught that the purpose of our immigration policy should be to benefit the immigrants.  And any mild repercussions from so benefitting them, like depressed wages, increased crime, the destruction of public education, etc., should be borne with a brave smile, because we're not here to take care of ourselves, but of all the other people in the world.  "We're not going to deport eleven million people," say the Perrys and Gingriches, and I reply, "Why the hell not?"  Is this American exceptionalism of some kind?  Other countries are allowed to operate in their own interest, but we're morally required to operate in everybody else's?  It would be immoral for us to actually police our own border, but we're morally required to help everybody in the Middle East police theirs?

Tom Sowell, as he always does, puts it very clearly and succinctly:

The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

Read the rest of his column HERE.

The Media is the Message

Cartoon by BALOO
This is apparently all over the net, but I found it over at The Irish Savant, q. v.

All you need to know about the MSM in one post.

Isn't it amazing that, within only one week of Tiger Woods crashing his Escalade, the media found every woman with whom Tiger has had an affair during the last few years? And, they even uncovered photos, text messages, recorded phone calls, etc.!
Furthermore, they not only know the cause of the family fight, but they even know it was a wedge from his golf bag that his wife used to break out the windows in the Escalade. Not only that, they know which wedge.

And, each and every day, they were able to continue to provide America with updates on Tiger's sex rehab stay, his wife's plans for divorce, as well as the dates and tournaments in which he will play.

Now, Barack Hussein Obama has been in office for three years, yet this very same media:

·Cannot find any of his childhood friends or neighbors;

·Or find any of Obama's high school or college classmates;

·Or locate any of his college papers or grades;

·Or determine how he paid for both a Columbia & a Harvard education;

·Or discover which country issued his visa to travel to Pakistan in the 1980's;

·Or even find Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis on racism.

They just can't seem to uncover any of this. Yet there are still some idiots out there who actually believe what the media tells them.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Professor Newt

The big difference with Newt is that he's obviously brainy.  Indeed, that's the first thing you notice about him.  That's not to say some of the others aren't brainy.  Ron Paul is clearly brainy, but that's not what people notice right off.  Likewise with Romney, who first makes you think of the guy modeling shirts in the Sears catalog.  Cain is sorta brainy, and I think Bachmann is, too.  Probably Huntsman, too, and maybe Santorum, but the jury is still out on Perry.  But with Newt, your first impression is that he knows what he's talking about and says it well.  He's a little like Clinton in that respect.  Nobody would dream of saying that Clinton isn't smart.  Newt is so smart that he even writes, or at least helps write, alternate history fiction, which puts him in the same category as L. Neil Smith, Stephen Fry, and Harry Turtledove.

What's the significance of all this?  Well, ever since 1952, the Democrats have run on the issue that the Republican candidate is dumb. Right.  Even Eisenhower was portrayed as a dumb old guy.  The only exception since that time has been Nixon, who was obviously too smart to hang the dummy label on, so the Democrats did the next best thing and made him out to be unhip.  But all the others — Eisenhower, Goldwater, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain, all have been called dumb.  And that goes for VP candidates and those who just tried for the nomination, like Quayle and Agnew and Palin.  Another exception there was Pat Buchanan, who was just called evil and/or crazy.

But they can't play the dummy card with Newt, no way.  Especially if he runs against Obama, who may be the dimmest bulb to sit in the White House of all time.  They can't even call him unhip, really, as his personal behavior is almost as super-cool as Clinton's.  Calling him evil can only go so far. They may have to talk about issues, which is kinda scary for Obamaites.

Of course, we'll have to vote for some swinish Republican this time, but if it's Newt, at least we'll be voting for a smart one.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Viele Volk, Viele Führer, Ein Globalism

Cartoon by BALOO
While we're all agonizing over the infinitesimal differences between such statesmen as Gingrich, Romney, and Obama, we should pause to reflect on the essential unity of their message — Globalism now, globalism tomorrow, globalism forever.  What the hell is globalism, anyway?  The Wikipedia Article is somewhat enlightening in this respect, but what it boils down to is old-style utopianism that goes at least back to the 19th Century and people like Marx and Bellamy and the stupid-smart H. G. Wells.  But this basically anti-capitialist idea has done a dialectic and synthesized itself with capitalism, producing a disgusting hybrid known as mercantilism, where it becomes impossible to distinguish between the captains of industry (or, more to the point, finance) and the wise statesmen who rule us all.  And right now it's more popularly known as "Crony Capitalism," which has the advantage of being absolutely clear in meaning.

The World's Best Blogger, Steve Sailer, has gone into this concept more deeply than anybody else I know, and shows us that the differences between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton isn't night and day, but rather the distinction between two points of time a microsecond apart in the late afternoon.  If politicians were pies, they wouldn't be peach and pumpkin and raspberry, but they'd all be apple, with slightly different crinkles in the crust.  Oh, there are the occasional pecan pies, like Ron Paul, but they're too rich for the commentariat's blood, and the talking heads always advise us all to stick with good ol' apple, where we're safe.

And the primary ingredient of our contemporary apple pies is globalism.  Globalism is where there is no more economic struggle going on, as in nasty old free-market capitalism, but a nice cozy cooperation between regular princes and merchant princes, greased by lots of money changing hands, while we, the hoi polloi, finance it all and do as we're damn well told.  Big bailouts for the big shots and the nonproductive idlers at the bottom, while as for the middle class, the productive class... Well, have you been bailed out lately?

I'm beginning to rant, an occupational hazard.  I'll shift you over to a cooler, less excitable essayist, who has read Bill Clinton's latest book so the rest of us don't have to.  Yep, it's Steve Sailer again.

A call for Libertarian Rigor

Cartoon by Baloo
Buy his "Libbie" products HERE.
A guest post from Neale Osborn:

Libertarians of the Vine- UNITE!! We have nothing to lose but the idiots currently ruining our party!
Are you a Libertarian tired of the Bob Barrs of the party getting the presidential nomination? Are you tired of seeing our message watered down till people think of us as "Republican light" when actually, we're "Republican/Democrat HARDCORE"?  Are you tired of idiots calling you a TEABagger, not even knowing what the LP stands for (Or at least STOOD FOR before our leadership decided to "mainstream" our positions into mediocrity? Well if so, I have news for you. There's still a place you can go to be with fellow Libertarians who HAVEN'T gone mainstream. You can read our works at The Libertarian Enterprise. TLE It's the Libertarian weekly newsletter of the people who HAVEN'T decided to be an adjunct of the Republican Party. Be advised. The people here aren't willing to sit back and let others decide what we want to achieve. We are all, in our own ways, working to improve the way the LP operates. And also trying to drag the TEA Party to the Libertarian way of thinking.
Ron Paul left the party when he decided the party was going no where fast, and joined the Republicans, but almost all his policies that he's running on are Libertarian at their core. I really don't know if he's on the right track (suborning the Republican Party and trying to return it to a freedom-loving group rather than the socialists they have become) or not, but he's starting to get our message out AGAINST the wishes of the LP "leadership".
One of the leading people pushing the LP to either return to it's roots or else go away, and we'll form a new party that keeps to it's founding principles is L. Neil Smith. Libertarian Science Fiction author, self defense expert, and all around Libertarian icon. He's won the Prometheus Award for best Libertarian Science Fiction several times. He DID create it, but he doesn't award it. He is the man responsible for The Libertarian Enterprise. A man who knows what he believes and isn't afraid to say it, and let the chips fall where they may. He walks the walk as well as talks the talk. Go to the link. Read an issue or two. Decide if you want to be part of it. Not everyone there is going to be what you think they should be, but all of them are DEFINITELY Libertarian or fellow travelers. Do you dare to go?
This originally appeared on NEWSVINE.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Newts and other undersea creatures

Does Sheriff Joe Arpaio know something I don't know?  He evidently thinks he does, because he's said to be on the point of endorsing Rick Perry, and Rick Perry's record on immigration is horrible.  We'll see how that turns out.

But speaking of horrible records on immigration, we now have Newt Gingrich, who is in favor of amnesty for just about everybody — true, his opponents are lying when they say that he's in favor of citizenship for illegals, he's only in favor of legalizing their residence (so far) — but telling people who are here illegally that it's okay, they can stay, and it's no longer against the law is, indeed, amnesty.  All you need to do is look up 'amnesty' in the dictionary.  Now, the important thing here is that Newt has been endorsed by the Union-Leader, which is a big plus for a politician, and that he's practically been endorsed by old Slick Willy himself.  What's going on here?  Some say Clinton wants to help Obama out, as Gingrich would be easier for Obama to beat than Romney.  I think that's probably a bad idea, if it is the idea, because I frankly think Gingrich could beat Obama more decisively than Romney could.  You see, Newt's record is out there, and they can't do much to him but repeat old stuff and hammer away at it.  But if Romney's nominated, they'll be able to drag out all the Mormon stuff — oh, the media will do it, not the Obama campaign — and scare everybody to death with horror stories about the admittedly offbeat theology and customs of the Mormon Church.  Just wait and see.  And they'll probably succeed in convincing a large slice of the electorate that Romney himself has a squad of wives hidden out somewhere.

Or maybe Clinton wants to be part of the Gingrich administration.  Stranger things have happened, you know.  Maybe Slick Willy sees that Obama's going down the drain no matter what, and wants to forge some ties with Gingrich.  And he knows that Gingrich can win.  I think so, too.  One thing about Newt that's good is that he's brainy, and Clinton certainly emphasized that.  Would a Newt/Hillary ticket be possible?

But I'll be voting for Ron Paul.  He's at least as brainy as Newt, and actually right on most of the issues.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

My Inquisition is bigger than your Inquisition

Cartoon by BALOO
Now, when you go around grabbing people and forcibly cutting their hair and beards off, you're probably not doing it because you like them.  Well, Peter the Great shaved the Boyars to try to drag them into the 17th Century, and those guys at Fort Campbell did the same to me so I'd fit in better back in '68, but then I'd signed something agreeing to it.  But the whackos in Ohio certainly aren't attacking apostates that way out of love.  But, then, what difference does it make why they're doing it?  Are you any better off knowing that the guy who attacks you with clippers is doing it for theological reasons rather than blind hatred?  What's the deal with "hate crimes," anyway?  In Western law, the tradition has been that a crime is a crime whatever the motivation, and said motivation has been taken into account only to lessen the seriousness of the crime, not increase it.  The self-defense argument can be used to remove all guilt from violence, because it can be considered to justify it.  The insanity argument removes responsibility for a crime. But not until we got to the "hate crime" theory has anybody ever suggested that motivation can make a crime worse.  In short, the whole concept of a "hate crime" is in complete contradiction to Western legal tradition.  And if that's not bad enough, it can be used to Federalize what should be a local or state matter, a very popular idea with the Obamaites, who think of states as servants of their Lords in Washington.  For an explanation of the hideous consequences of that, go to Taki's Magazine.

Friday, November 25, 2011

The Horse Manure Problem

The United States has a serious horse manure problem.  It's all over the place, and causes all sorts of problems — economic, curtural, criminal, you name it — and one thing we can be sure of is that it's caused by something like capitalist greed, or lack of regulation, or not enough stimulus, or racism, because if you search through the media, you'll see that nobody thinks it could be caused by horses.  Yeah, this is a metaphor, a barnyard metaphor, which is the best kind.  Steve Sailer talks about the real thing HERE.

Ilana Mercer on South Africa

Ilana Mercer is a squarepegger.  I borrow that term from L. Neil Smith, who coined it to refer to those square pegs who just don't fit into the usual round holes prepared for them. Given Ilana Mercer's biography — born the daughter of an anti-apartheid rabbi in South Africa, raised in Israel, now a Canadian citizen, and living in the United States — you'd expect her to be a garden-variety flaming liberal, wouldn't you?  And if she isn't' a liberal, she must be a neoconservative, you'd guess.  Well, she isn't either one.  She's usually described as a paleoconservative, which is what I often call myself, and occupies an interesting position on the spectrum.  In most senses, she's a libertarian minarchist, calling for limited government, but she departs from the usual libertarian open-borders stance, calling for the US to guard its own borders instead of everybody else's.  So far, so good.  The one big flaw in her world view, in my opinion, is that she's rather knee-jerk pro-Israel, which is not surprising, considering that she's a rabbi's daughter.  That's not to say she's a supporter of Israeli aggression.  In fact, she's rather critical of it.  But she does perpetuate the notion of Israel's being an outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East, which I think is exaggerated at best and dead wrong at worst.  So when you read her, that's the main caveat.  Anyhow, for your convenience, her main site is HERE.

But the main point of this post is her book, Into the Cannibal's Pot, which you can get HERE.  It's a history of South Africa, which has, to be kind, turned into a gawdawful mess since the fall of apartheid.  Now, she's anti-apartheid herself, as was her father (the main reason he left South Africa in the first place), but unlike other anti-apartheiders, she doesn't ignore the consequences of the end of it.  It hasn't been very nice, folks.  The liberals who called for the destruction of White rule in South Africa have completely ignored the hideous results of Black rule, which they are wont to do with respect to most of their enthusiasms, elevating intentions over result being a basic tenet of liberalism.  Derek Turner reviews her book, and adds his own thoughts on South Africa HERE.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Indians and Europeans

Thanksgiving always leads me to ponder the clash between European colonists and Amerindians, and I usually refer everyone to what Bad Eagle had to say about Thanksgiving.  And one thing I've long wondered about is the different impact different Europeans had on different Amerindian groups.  For one thing, there are all those Spanish missions all over the place in the Southwest, which I understand were largely established for the conversion of the locals, but you seldom hear of anything similar done by British colonists.  Is it my imagination, or did the Spanish have a completely different attitude towards the Amerindians than the British did?  And is it a national difference, or mainly a difference between Catholic and Protestant attitudes?  Like I say, I've wondered about this, but have never gotten around to really researching it.  And lo and behold, that leads me back to Bad Eagle, who has researched it and thought about it a lot, and he concluded that there was a profound difference in the thinking of the two national groups.  His treatment of the subject is HERE.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Remembering JFK

Cartoon by BERGSTROM
Well, it's been 48 years, and time to remember some of the reality of John F. Kennedy, as opposed to the hagiography.  The record is mixed.  He was, of course, a spoiled brat in many ways, reminding us of Bush II, Albert Gore II, and such people.  If he hadn't been Joe Kennedy's kid, he never would have amounted to much.  But he did amount to quite a lot, beating the much more qualified Richard Nixon for the Presidency, and having a Presidency that would be considered terrifyingly right-wing by current standards. He was, in contrast to his slower brother Ted, a hard-core anti-communist, and of course a communist assassinated him, despite the fact that most young punks today have a vague impression that it was a right-wing plot.  He was reluctantly pro-civil rights, but again, even the "conservatives" of today are much further left on the subject than he ever was.  And yes, Virginia, he got us into the Vietnam war, continuing the draft.  It was Nixon who got us out of the war and who ended the draft.  And of course we all know about the Kennedy tax cuts.  Nicholas Stix has a longish piece today on the JFK Presidency, with more enlightening comparisons to poor old Nixon.  Read it HERE.

Today's cartoon illustration (click it to see it larger) is probably the finest treatment of the Kennedy Presidency in cartoon form ever.   And by definition such a thing has to be sort of R-rated.  It's by the incomparable John Bergstrom, and his site is HERE.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Crony Capitalism

The new fashionable phrase is "Crony Capitalism," and it's about time.  Even Sarah Palin is saying it.  Some would say it's an oxymoron, because the basic idea of free-market capitalism is that it works best without government intervention, and it's even questionable whether, once the cronyism starts to dominate, you can still call it capitalism.  Some like to call the system we're operating under "fascism," because it bears some resemblance to Mussolini's idea of the corporate state.  I oppose that, because fascism has too many other referents, and because whatever else its failings might have been, it included patriotism and nationalism as part of its creed, and the current gang of crony capitalists don't have a shred of either in their makeup.

When business and government corrupt one another, and businesses use government influence to crush their competitors, and government uses business to aggrandize itself, you indeed no longer have capitalism, but a perversion of it called "mercantilism."  This is explained very well by L. Neil Smith HERE.

Now, this crony capitalism has been going on for a long, long time, but it's reached outrageous proportions under Obama's neo-African style of government, which makes Bush's outrageous proportions seem feeble in comparison.  We have a clever system where all businesses are burdened with "Obamacare" requirements, except for special friends of Obama, and they get "exemptions."  And we have Solyndra, for crying out loud, which just got handed money.  Yes, I know the same stuff happened with Bush.  It's just getting worse.

Now, this will shock the naive, but crony capitalism is just as prevalent, perhaps even more so, among Democrats as it is among Republicans.  Obama didn't start something new, here.  True political enlightenment strikes when one realizes that the parties are practically identical in that respect as in so many others.  Democrats are a little cuter, usually, because they talk about taxing the rich, when they have no real intention of doing so.  They intend to tax the middle class, because it's vulnerable. For a clear view of the rich creeps that run the Democratic Party, see what Jim Goad has to say.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

L. Neil Smith on Republicans

My last post evaluated the Republican candidates, and I concluded that the only one worth anything much is Ron Paul.  Coincidentally, L. Neil Smithy has come to the same conclusion, and does so with a history lesson:

Republican Party R.I.P.   (1854-2012)
by L. Neil Smith
Bookmark and Share

It pretty much agrees with my experience—as I'm confident it must agree with yours—that the collective intelligence of any given group may be accurately calculated by dividing the intelligence of the group's smartest individual member by the number of people in the group.
Everett Dirksen—or was it Sam Francis?—used to say we have two political parties in this country, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party. While it's hard to imagine the Democratic Party getting any more evil than it is right now, the Republican Party continues to get stupider with every passing year—or nanosecond, whichever comes first.
Why do those supposedly most concerned with individual liberty keep enabling mental and moral midgets like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, when what they really want in office—and desperately need— is somebody like Ron Paul? Part of the reason is that for at least 70 years, and possibly even longer, certainly long before the advent of Libertarians, Greens, or even Dixiecrats, America has actually had a three party system, in which one of the three parties has largely been invisible.
I'm only going to take this back to slightly before my time, when a fellow named Robert Taft was considered the most powerful figure in the Senate. As a leader of the Republicans, and principal spokesman for what might be called rational conservatism (and what Wikipedia calls libertarianism), Taft was the son of former President William Howard Taft, and was thought by many to be headed for the White House, himself.
Taft was a bitter foe to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, believing—correctly—that the American economy, which had been severely damaged by government activity in the first place (chiefly the 1913 Federal Reserve Act—is this beginning to sound familiar?), would heal more quickly if government left it alone, instead of continuing to interfere with and damage it. As bad as Roosevelt's administration was for the country, Taft and his cohorts were able to contain it to a degree.
Taft was also a non-interventionist and did everything he could to keep America out of the European war, while Roosevelt's gang defamed him as an "isolationist" and attempted to imply the he was less than loyal. When the Japanese were egged into attacking Pearl Harbor, he shut up and stayed out of public view. But afterward, he opposed the Nuremberg Tribunals on principles correct, but too complex to go into here.
Taft ran for the Republican presidential nomination three times, in 1940, 1948, and 1952. Each time, although he was far and away the party's favorite, he was edged out through chicanery, propaganda, and parliamentary skullduggery by what we would call liberal Republicans, gutless, spineless, cojoneless creatures of low character who had bought into Roosevelt's New Deal or were afraid to try to roll back collectivism.
In 1940, Taft lost the nomination to that very model of a modern major corporatist, former Democrat Wendell Willkie (supported, oddly enough, by Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor). In 1948, Taft was beaten once again by the liberal Republicans' darling Thomas E. Dewey, who became the laughingstock of the decade. In 1952, the nomination was snatched away a third time, by openly illegal means, and handed to another former Democrat, the smiling first Cold Warrior, General Dwight David Eisenhower.
And that's how things stood in the GOP for 14 years. It was no longer fashionable, Republicans were lectured by "older and wiser heads", for political parties to stand for anything in particular. What had once been ideological groups—most Republicans believed, however naively, that their party had been born to put an end to slavery—now became mere "broker parties" whose job it was, simply to get their candidate-clients elected, regardless of what philosophy they represented, or whether they represented any philosophy at all. Those who ran the campaigns were much happier if it were the latter. Whether you were a candidate or only a voter, your choice of political party was just as arbitrary and meaningless as your choice of sports teams.
That's what my political science professor said in my Freshman year.
Which happened to be 1964.
What my political science professor and other "older and wiser heads" hadn't reckoned on was the unquenchable thirst voters had begun to develop—in part because they were growing tired of endless foreign wars and being taxed half to death to pay for them and for the welfare state Roosevelt had given birth to—for candidates who atually stood for little things like peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity.
As a direct consequence, in one state after another, grassroots organizations had sprung up strongly in support of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who appeared to be reviving the political philosophy of Robert Taft. Democrats hated, loathed, and despised the man because he wanted to defend the country by making it strong and mostly staying out of other people's business. Goldwater wanted to shut down New Deal boondoggles like the Tennessee Valley Authority, whose hydroelectric dams—the generators had never been installed; I've seen the empty funnels with my own eyes—had never produced a single watt of electricity.
Goldwater's public popularity was a prophetic image of what the Tea Parties would eventually become. I look back now—I was at the Alabama state Republican Convention that gave him their nod, and in Denver, when he spoke to a solidly packed arena—and seem to see the same people, wearing AUH2O pins and talking up the candidate. I have never gotten over that heady feeling of excitement and, above all, hope.
So it came as a horrible surprise, a shock like having a bucket of Ice-water dashed in our faces, when the "older and wiser heads" of the Republican Party—most of them northeastern right-wing billionaire socialists like Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Cabot Lodge, "Weeping Willie" Scranton, and especially George Romney, the father of today's northeastern right-wing billionaire socialist Mitt Romney—did everything they could to oppose Goldwater's nomination. When he won it despite them, they went completely limp on him, leaving him to campaign all alone in the wilderness, preferring to see the vile and repulsive Lyndon Baines Johnson win the presidency, instead, mostly by portraying Goldwater as a murderous war-mongering finger-on-the-button lunatic.
Exactly the kind of President that Johnson himself became, soon afterward by escalating the Vietnam War. Any time I see Bill Moyers or hear his name (look him up) I have to resist the urge to spit on the floor.
In 1980, Republicans elected a man they believed was like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. I believe they're mistaken, but won't go into it here. Today, we have a real choice, and this is what it looks like:
With one and only one exception, every Republican presidential candidate is either stupid, crooked, insane, or a little of all three. And they all seem to be getting more stupid, more crooked, and more insane with every day that passes. None are any real threat to Barack Obama.
The one exception is doctor and Congressman Ron Paul. I have been severely critical of the good doctor in the past, and will doubtless continue to be in the future. He is mistaken on a couple of important issues. But he is also the only Republican candidate who understands what's wrong with this country, how to fix it, and is willing to do so.
People are fond of saying this is the most important election ever held in American history, and with the possible exception of 1860, I agree with them. But it's important for different reasons than many people suspect. Unless Republicans act more wisely than they ever have in my lifetime, if they fumble this election it will probably be their last, because that invisible third party I mentioned will cease to be invisible.
If Republicans nominate the candidate who wins or ties virtually every poll, raises more money than the rest, and has a decades-long record of standing for the principles of individual liberty on which this nation is supposedly based, the GOP could enjoy something of a renaissance.
That candidate, of course, is Ron Paul.
If, however, Republicans act as they always have, and slip their nomination to a cold greasy plate of yesterday's mashed potatoes, a left-leaning northeasterner who saddled the serfs of his state with his own version of medicalized Marxism, and (just like the remainder of his rivals for the nomination) exhibits no love whatever for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the spirit that backed Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater, the people of the Tea Parties, will give up on the Republicans, and create their own party, conceived in liberty.
I will certainly do everything I can to help them.
As to the Libertarian Party, after forty stupid, futile years, I have expended my last breath, and wasted my last keystroke trying to show them how to change the course of American—and therefore human—history.
They were never really interested, anyway.

From L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Friday, November 18, 2011

The Republican Candidates, Such As They Are.

Atlantea the Beautiful, by Baloo
The Republicans have been debating away for awhile now, so it's time for me to give you my evaluations:
1. Romney.  A chameleon of undependable ideology.  Probably quite competent, having run businesses and been Massachusetts Governor.  Has inevitability going for him so far, and could probably beat Obama.
2. Perry.  Unlike Bush, who was smarter than he looked, Perry is probably dumber than he looks.  It doesn't matter whether he remembers which cabinets he says he'll eliminate, because he won't eliminate any of them anyway, being a supreme hypocrite who pretends to worry about illegal immigration while fighting everybody's efforts to do anything about it.
3. Santorum.  Sounds like some sort of medication for over-65s and probably is.  So bland that all I remember about him is that he lost a Senate race.
4. Cain.  Maybe sort of competent, but no more than hundreds of other CEO's around the country.  I'd feel safer with Trump.
5.  Huntsman. The other Mormon.  Seems like a very liberal Republican.  Less bland than Santorum only because he is a Mormon.
6.  Bachmann.  Probably not very competent, at least hasn't been a governor or CEO to show that she is.  Better instincts than most on immigration, but screwily fanatical about Israel.  A Christian Zionist, the currently popular oxymoron.
7.  Gingrich.  Just might get nominated because some Republicans are going to say to themselves, hey, why don't we nominate a really smart guy this time?  Certainly smart and competent, but horribly squishy on ideology.  Has suggested that John Bolton might be his Secretary of State, Good Goddle Mighty!
8.  Paul.  Only one of the bunch worth voting for.  Only one of the bunch not to beat the drums for invading or bombing or annihilating Iran.  Only one who consistently points out that all the money being currently wasted or planned to be wasted by the Government is borrowed from China.  Only one of the bunch who's discussed eliminating birthright citizenship.  I'll be voting for him.

And, down in sunny Mayheeco, Fred Reed feels pretty much the same way I do.  Here's his latest.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Pervasiveness of Egalitarian Dogma

A few posts ago I blogged about Human Equality, and how it's imaginary at best, and a big lie at worst.  Despite heaps of evidence, both from ordinary experience and scientific studies, that show the clear differences among human groups, the dogma prevails that everybody is equal in capacity.  Children, if you don't let them out much, can come to believe such nonsense, but any human being who's had any experience at all knows that groups differ.  And when the mantra of equality is chanted, we have a clear-cut case of doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory opinions simultaneously.  Everybody speaks as though they believe in human equality, but behave as though they don't.  Otherwise, White liberals would move into the ghettos instead of the Pacific Northwest.

There are differing levels of this doublethink.  Some people don't know they're doing it, and some are just cynical about it, giving lip service to the dogma while knowing full well that it's nonsense.  I don't know who's worse, the conservatives or the liberals.  Oh, yes.  Despite liberal blather about how everybody to the right of Lowell Weicker is a racist, the so-called conservatives in America are every bit as egalitarian as the liberals.

Just as liberals make Obama out to be some kind of transcendent genius, despite his being of clearly ordinary intelligence, the conservatives are making Herman Cain out to be the best thing since sliced bread, although there are several thousand White CEO's out there who would make much better Presidents.  In order to maintain the doublethink, you see, you have to kid yourself a lot and spread the benefit of the doubt around really thick.

If you have any doubts about the deep denial of human differences on the so-called right as well as the left, Richard Spencer can enlighten you.

A really great cartoon from ElvisNixon.  I read his blog every day, and you should too.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

David Starkey in the News Again

David Starkey hit the news awhile back when he blamed Black culture for the Tottenham riots.  He was correct, of course, which is what really made everybody mad.  Now he's being politically incorrect again, calling on immigrants to assimilate.  I remember back when it was assumed that immigrants wanted to assimilate, otherwise, why not stay home?  But with multiculturalism, things have changed.  It's thought that Western Culture is enhanced by importing savages and encouraging them to continue to be savage.  Read about his latest in the Daily Mail.

J. Edgar Hoover — The Plot Thickens

In a recent post, I commented on a movie I haven't seen, J. Edgar, with respect to its treating the homosexual smear as factually correct, therefore warping the historical record in the minds of heaps of moviegoers who never heard of Hoover before.  Sort of like how practically everybody younger than me seems to think that Nixon started the Vietnam War, instead of ending it.

Well, here's a sort of smear that wasn't part of the movie, no doubt because it has an ambiguous political message.  The rumor that J. Edgar Hoover was a mulatto.  As the photograph shows, not only was he a mulatto, but he was also a Black Muslim (just kidding).  But, seriously, just Google:

Hoover  Mulatto

And you'll get a lot of sites discussing it.  Personally, I think it's a canard, and irrelevant if true.  But it's great fun to consider that rumor in tandem with the homosexual one.  Which is what the H. L. Mencken/John Peter Zenger of our time, Steve Sailer has done in his review of the movie.  Steve has a knack for seeing connections that most of us miss, and also seeing the humor in some of them.  He reminds us of the Hoover/McCarty connection, which has sort of been forgotten, because it's hard to leave the heroic messiah Bobby Kennedy out of the story, and shows there was a real homosexual vibe in that bunch.  Steve also makes the case for an under-the-radar political struggle between organized Blacks and homosexuals that most of us are failing to notice.  Steve introduces the review on his own site HERE and you can read the whole thing HERE.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Hallelujah Chorus Quinhagak Alaska 5th Graders

It's a little early for Christmas, but you have to see this.

Human Equality — Biggest Lie in History

Well, maybe not the biggest.  There's a lot of competition.  But a really big one, and the source of a lot of other stupid ideas.  Now, you probably know that the notion that human beings should have equal rights is completely unrelated to the idea that human beings are equal in capacity.  The Founders never suspected that anybody would get the notions mixed up, so they failed to denounce the idea of human equality explicitly, never imagining for a minute that such a stupid idea would ever get any traction.
Well, it did get traction, and the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) insists on the dogma of human equality, no matter that there isn't a scrap of evidence for it, and heaps of evidence against it.

Now, those of us who accept the evolution hypothesis also accept the fact that we and our hominid relatives are profoundly unequal in a multitude of ways, most particularly in intellect.  Here's a family group, consisting of, from left to right,

HOMO SAPIEN (you and me)


Now, according to the prevailing equality dogma, the hominids are unequal, and were unequal until the all died out except Homo Sapiens, at which point we all became equal.  Completely equal, in the sense that any random human group is precisely equal in intellect to any other.  Got that?  Unlike any other known species, the human species is all equal.  Which means that if school test scores vary significantly between Slobbovians and Ruritanians, some kind of racism must be responsible, because by definition, Slobbovians and Ruritanians are equal.

This is an incredibly stupid idea that shouldn't even need to be refuted, but since it's the dogma of the Zeitgeist, it has to be anyway.  And if you don't believe me, ask Greg Cochran, an actual scientist.

The Latest on Anders Behring Breivik

No, this isn't a photo of the young Chevy Chase.  This is Anders Behring Breivik, the John Brown of our time.  The news media seem to have forgotten about him, moving on to the latest about J-Lo and other cultural leaders, so as a public service, this is what's going on with him lately.  Story at Gates of Vienna.

The Stupid Party Prepares to Lose Again

"There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party." — attributed to Sam Francis.

As the Baloo cartoon indicates, Obama has made an outrageous mess of things, and just about anybody should be able to beat him, right?  All a Republican candidate has to do, really, is keep pointing out Obama's screwups and make it clear that the Republican will be different.  Or even indicate that he'll just tone down the screwups and mess things up in a more moderate fashion than Obama has.

But don't count the electoral votes just yet.  There's one overwhelmingly big issue that the Republicans can crash and burn on, and that's yet another stupid war, this time with Iran.  Now, before you rush to tell me, I've very well aware that Obama's running even more wars right now than Bush ever managed, but that doesn't matter.  The MAG (Media, Academia, Government) remains solidly in the Obama camp, and they will continue to portray him as a peaceful, moderate guy, despite all his military adventuring, and portray the Republicans as the guys who start evil wars.  And the Republican candidates seem to be trying to prove them right. They've been falling all over each other, each trying to sound more belligerent toward the world in general and Iran in particular than all the others.  Their reaction to the flap about Netanyahu the Liar is instructive.  Israel, or the people currently in charge of it at least, would love for us to cripple Iran for them so they can continue to do whatever they damn please in the region without worrying about going too far and getting seriously attacked.

Now, I don't know if Newt or Romney or any of them really give a damn about Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons plans, but they certainly give a damn about the money and media influence of the Israel lobby.  And that seems to be more important to them than the concerns of rank-and-file Americans.  So will they sacrifice themselves, their party, and ensure four more years of Obamugabe out of their fealty to a foreign country.

Oh, there's an exception.  Ron Paul, who thinks any American military action should be in the interest of America, and not Israel or Paraguay or Kosovo or whoever, pointedly does not participate in all this armchair generaling.  He thinks the Middle East should work out its own problems, and we should use our energy and resources to work out our own.  And that's why I remain a Ron Paul supporter, no matter how much the liberals and neocons trash him.

And, as is so often the case, Pat Buchanan feels pretty much the same way I do about all this.  Read his latest on the subject HERE or HERE.  Or even HERE.

And, tangentially, some comments on this by Jerry Pournelle.

Monday, November 14, 2011

The Not-So-Monolithic Left

Cartoon by BALOO
Those of us on the right are inclined to think of the left as a big, monolithic thing that opposes us, and in practical terms, it's sometimes useful to view it that way.  But it's not accurate. There's the old left, the new left, the Clinton left, the Obama left, the Occupy Wall Street flaky left, and the old hard-core Marxist left, to name but a few.  Now, most of these groups cooperate and work together, because they see us as a big monolithic thing that opposes them, but there are some fundamental differences between factions of the left.  We have what I like to call the sincere left, which simply believes that people would be better off with more socialism — government management of economic resources.  This faction can be debated with, because its goals and reasoning are explicit, and you can actually discuss them on their merits.  And then you have the phony left, which really doesn't give a damn about socialism or anything like that, tho they may give it lip service. The phony left is basically just out to destroy Western Civilization — elsewhere, its purposes may be to destroy other civilizations, but I'm zeroing in on our own left here.  The phony left is interested in government control of things because it sees that as a method for marginalizing other institutions — family, church, business, etc. — that mostly support the ideas and traditions of Western Civilization.  So if the phony left can increase the power of government and lessen the power of the other institutions, while maintaining its grip on the reins of government, which it's managed to do quite nicely for decades now, it can chip away at what remains of Western Civilization.

One way of doing this chipping is to import as much nonWestern culture as possible. First, with its control of government, the phony left can expedite the immigration of hordes of nonWestern people, who either can't or won't adapt to Western norms.  That program is moving right along.  Second, once we have the hordes present, the phony left does what it can legislatively to discourage the hordes from adapting even when they want to. This is done through affirmative action laws, anti-discrimination rules, and just plain financial subsidizing of all their nonWestern behavior.  And, of course, plenty of welfare and child support to ensure that the hordes will have a population explosion.  In tandem with this, we have the ACLU-style regulations to take Western norms out of public life — religion in particular — so they can be replaced by foreign norms.  This has been going on in the public schools in particular for years, and in the public square for almost as long.

For the most part, the sincere left is either opposed to all this, because they don't hate Western Civilization, or indifferent to it because they're focussed on economics.  But at least one sincere leftist is Robert Lindsay, who, if you didn't know better, you'd think was one of us, because of his deep critique of what I consider the basic program of the phony left.  He's especially against the Islamification of the West, which is one of the most dangerous things going on right now. Read what he has to say HERE.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

L. Neil Smith Sticks to His guns

Cartoon by BALOO
Figuratively, as well as literally.  O, my friends of the right — the real right — we need L. Neil Smith.  You can, as I do, disagree with him here and there, and sometimes he'll make you mad as Hell because you think he's missing some point or overemphasizing another point at the expense of a more important one, but you need him.  Neil's the canary in the coal mine, except instead of expiring, he chirps like a banshee and makes sure we don't miss a point here and there.

For example, I disagree with his prediction of the demise of the nation-state in the following essay.  I don't think it's going away, because I think self-organization into something like a state is fundamental to human nature.  However, his evaluation of the manifestation of the nation-state as it is is dead on.  Our idea of a state as anything other than the guardian of the preservation and rights of a given set of human beings is wrong, and that's what just about all the states seem to be these days.

So I don't think it's going away, but it takes the kind of thinking Neil produces to come to a proper, useful critique of the nation-state, and the following essay, which first appeared in the Libertarian Enterprise, is just that.  Read and learn.

L. Neil Smith's
Number 644, November 13, 2011

"Who do you trust more, somebody who will tell you the
truth, no matter how unpleasant it may turn out to be,
or somebody willing to lie to you to keep you happy?
Better make up your mind—if you haven't already—
because we have a lot of unpleasant truths to deal
with, if we want to save America."

The Loss of a Friend 
by L. Neil Smith
Bookmark and Share
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
Any writer of fiction worth his salt will do his workmanlike best to finish his stories by tying up all the "loose ends" that he may have generated, by accident or deliberately, over the course of taking his characters from "Once upon a time" to "And they lived happily ever after".
Alas, real life consists of practically nothing but loose ends. There is an entire universe of questions, out there and in here, that each of us will die never having found answers to. This, I think, is the important difference between real life and fiction, and why it's healthy to indulge ourselves in the latter occasionally. As the saying goes, reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with science fiction.
A while ago, I wrote an article in which I said (not for the first time) that, assuming we accept the government's "account" of what happened on September 11, 2001, it can't be regarded as an act of war, justifying the invasion of two countries that had nothing to do with it and had never done us any harm. An act of war is something that one nation-state does to another. The 9/11 hijackers had been acting as individuals.
This made them criminals and conspirators, not soldiers of some enemy government. Had we pursued the surviving plotters as such, our economy might not have been wrecked, our prestige among nations would not have been irreparably damaged, the structure of our civilization would not now be on the edge of collapse, and it would have saved thousands of lives, rather than simply adding them to the 9/11 body count.
Some time after that article appeared, I found a message in my Inbox from a friend and widely respected fellow freedom fighter whom I had known, not particularly well, but for a number of years. Had I actually meant to say, he asked, what he had read in that article, basically that the 9/11 hijackers were criminals rather than enemy combatants.
Yes, I answered him, that's exactly what I had meant, adding my belief that our nation (not the state, which is something entirely different) would be immeasurably better off if we had acted on that basis.
I had expected that my friend would want to argue with me about that, and I was well prepared. He considered himself a libertarian—albeit with one foot in the conservative camp—and both history and the fundamental principles of libertarianism are clearly arrayed on my side.
Instead, I never heard from him again.
How unhappy this has made me, I can't begin to tell you. What was I supposed to do, lie to him about the conclusions I have reached with regard to 9/11? (He'd have been unhappier if I'd told him what I think really happened that day.) My friendship with this fellow was rooted, originally, in politics and ideology, in certain eternal and immutable values we shared; should I have contaminated all that by shading the truth?
Over the years I had been urged many times to do exactly that, for the sake of my income and career. My first publisher, Judy-Lynn del Rey, once told my agent "Neil could be a great writer if he'd just give up this libertarian nonsense." But I had news for Judy-Lynn—if my agent had ever had the cojones to convey it: I already was a great writer, just one who was unwilling to purchase the whole-hearted support of his publisher (which I was supposed to have anyway) at the cost of what some might have called his soul. I have given up a great deal—and my family a great deal more—for the sake of maintaining a reputation for independent, individual judgment. I have done my best never to lie about what I think, or step back from what is ethically obligatory.
Should I have started now?
Is the loss of a friend truly the price of integrity?
The worst was that it wasn't the first time something like this had happened. Several years ago, an individual I had worked with, often on a daily basis, for more than a decade, a man I would have been proud to call my brother, one of the few great men I have ever known, suddenly stopped communicating with me and wouldn't tell me why. I asked him several times and never got an answer. I asked his other friends and associates, and if anybody knew, they wouldn't tell me. He died, and now I'll never know. That's what I meant about loose ends.
More recently, I began a conversation with an individual I admire who manufactures some of the best tools and edged weapons in the world. I had planned, as writers will, to talk him out of one knife in particular in exchange for featuring it prominently in a forthcoming novel. After two or three exchanges, he abruptly stopped communicating with me, and I am left to assume that he saw something about me online—I'm not shy at all about telling the world what I think—that clashed with what he believes. In the end, I found a better knife anyway.
It isn't my purpose here to call the two surviving people out, to embarass them in any way, or resume communications with them. I don't intend to name them or identify them further than I have already. What has struck me most about these episodes, aside from their underlying sadness, is the inability of these great big, rough and tough right wingers to tell me straightforwardly what their beef is. Instead, they run away like little girls, apparently afraid to object to whatever they disagree with, or even tell me how I have offended them. Understand, I have been blacklisted, more or less, by northeastern liberal publishers who clearly hate and fear the things I say. I have come to expect that kind of thing from so-called "progressives". And yet even they have had the good grace, at least, to offer me lame excuses.
But conservatives?
No wonder, although they outnumber the left 2-1, they're always losers.
It's true, I have my differences with conservatives. But we're not talking about open borders, here, or what they call national security, or Judaeo-Christian tradition, or even abortion, we're talking about what may be the biggest change in human history our species has ever undergone.
The Age of Authority is ending, and along with it, the geographic, political, and economic entities we call nation-states. But after six thousand years of government, some people have trouble imagining that any event can take place that doesn't involve it. However—except to the extent that it was a backlash against nearly a century of evil, insane, and just plain stupid American foreign policy—9/11 was just such an event, conceived and executed by individuals and organizations that have nothing to do with any existing nation-state. The inability of western society's leaders to get their tiny reptilian minds around that simple truth has so far cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars.
All of it wasted on ideas that have been dead for forty years.
Please believe that I am not changing the subject when I say I have to laugh—or at least grin ruefully—whenever I hear some two-for-a-penny Marxist accuse the Koch brothers of Wichita of being the radical right-wing masterminds behind such political phenomena as the Tea Parties. (For all their fine talk about anarchism over the years, the left can't conceptually handle the idea of statelessness, either.)
However I knew Charlie Koch, back when we served together on the Libertarian Party national platform committee in the late 1970s. Where it came to ideology, the poor guy was strictly from Samsonite—all soft sides and rounded corners—whimpering like that little girl I mentioned against adopting any hard-edged definition of libertarianism (a grave strategic blunder that continues to plague the Libertarian Party to this day) or any extension of libertarian ideas into the future.
Charlie's brother David ran for Vice President on the same ticket—with Ed Clark playing the Lost Kennedy Brother—that moved me to leave the LP in disgust for 13 years and ultimately write books on my own.
If the Koch brothers had been anything like what the left makes them out to be today, if they hadn't scrupulously evaded defining libertarianism, if they'd been able to see that the concept of liberty is a technology that can be improved on, if they'd understood the value of painting pictures for the public of what a libertarian future might look like, then by now, speaking ideologically, the ice would be broken, the air would be cleared, and the Libertarian Party might actually stand for something, instead of having spent the last three decades practicing the pusillanimous me-threeism that it's best known for.
The reason I have to laugh—or at least grin ruefully—is that the Kochs were afraid of offending anyone, yet in the end, despite all that, and everything it cost, they are viewed by the media today, and advertised by their enemies, as figures of villainy second only to Nixon.
There's an important lesson there for anyone who hasn't buried his head in the sand, or somewhere else the sun doesn't shine. What did the fabulous Koch brothers accomplish by soft-pedaling the message of libertarianism?
Exactly dick.
Yesterday morning I heard an idiot on the radio asking listeners if Iraq, which we are supposed to be leaving soon, had been worth it. Had it been worth the blood and gold? Had we won or had we lost? The talk inevitably meandered to Afghanistan, then to Iran, Syria, and then to Israel. Also inevitably, it got so stupid I had to turn it off.
America has fared as badly in Iraq—and in Afghanistan, as well—as it did in Vietnam and before that in Korea. And for all the same reasons. We have no legitimate driving political or economic interests in the middle east. There is no shortage of oil, that's propaganda to maintain the price and keep us engaged—against our actual interests—half a world away. Oil is the second most abundant liquid on the planet. We can drill for it and refine it right here, or we can make it out of garbage for less than it costs to drill for it and refine it.
Or maybe you think it isn't about oil, but about something else. But if we have nuclear weapons and delivery systems ourselves, in all equity and logic, why shouldn't Iran? (If you have trouble getting this ethical equation through your head, you have more problems than I can help you with.) Please do not attempt to convince me that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is any crazier than Barack Obama and his wacky cartoon pals.
Maybe it isn't oil or even nukes, but simply a matter of honor, keeping our word, assuring the security of our good friend and ally Israel. But I was never asked to give my word, were you? And Israel is not our friend, it's a police state that systematically limits the liberties of those it disapproves of. Nor is Israel our ally; it has set spies on us and then expected them to be treated like miscreant celebrities.
In 1967, Israeli warplanes deliberately attacked and crippled our unarmed Navy radio ship the U.S.S. Liberty, killing 34 sailors and injuring 173. Today, Israel treats Arabs and Muslims the same way we treated American Indians and the Nazis treated Jews. No amount of blustering or whining can get around those facts, which are not anti-semitic in character (Arabs are Semites, too) but political and economic.
No amount of blustering or whining.
With the exception of the nasty little pup-tent proletarians and Che Guevera groupies demonstrating on Wall Street and elsewhere, most Americans bear no ill will of any kind toward Jews. They can still be horrified to the core, contemplating what happened under Hitler's rule in Germany. A great many are fully cognizant of the uncountable and valuable contributions that Jewish people have made to American culture.
But Americans are tired of carrying Israel's water. Happily, the Israeli state and the Jewish nation—the sixty-three year old government and the 3500 year old people—are entirely different entities.
As Edith-Ann used to say on Laugh-In, "And that's the truth." So I ask the question again: should I have pulled my punches? What's more important, valued friendship or personal integrity? Who do you trust more, somebody who will tell you the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may turn out to be, or somebody willing to lie to you to keep you happy?
Better make up your mind—if you haven't already—because we have a lot of unpleasant truths to deal with, if we want to save America.
The nation, not the state.

Friday, November 11, 2011

More Thinking on the Joe Paterno Problem

I posted yesterday about the Penn State Scandal, and I got this comment:

Jerry Sandusky was a married man: statistically speaking a child molester is most likely to be a self identified heterosexual male who is married with children of his own.

This is interesting.  The comment sounds as though it's saying that Sandusky was some kind of heterosexual, but it only says that he's a self-identified heterosexual.  And the fact that he's married seems kind of irrelevant, doesn't it?  Obviously, if a person frequently performs homosexual acts, you'd just about have to consider him some kind of homosexual, right?  And saying that he's a self-identified heterosexual is like saying that a bank robber is a self-identified non-robber.  Of course a guy who likes raping little boys is going to say that he doesn't.  Life is easier that way.

Indeed, the most interesting thing about this story is that the media is contorting itself to somehow say, or imply, that guys who rape little boys aren't homosexuals, which is the height of idiocy.  Vox Populi has been blogging a lot about this, and makes wonderful sense of what the media is trying to confuse beyond recognition.  His original post is HERE.  To see his later posts on the subject, with some pretty amusing reactions to some of the daffy comments he got, go to his main site HERE.

Smearing J. Edgar Hoover

Back when J. Edgar Hoover was catching Nazi spies, he was a good guy.  In fact, anybody who opposed the Nazis was a good guy.  But after all that was over, he turned to catching communists, and automatically became a bad guy.  That goes for the armed forces too, of course.  When fighting Nazis, American troops are heroic, but when fighting communists, they become subhuman monsters.  But this is about J. Edgar Hoover.  The current movie out about him, J. Edgar, would appear to be another Hollywood smear.  I understand that it includes the canard that he was a homosexual, and that's enough for me to avoid seeing it.  The MAG (Media, Academia, Government) basically hates America and Americans, and especially hates American heroes, and Hoover certainly qualifies.

Guy Somerset has looked into this movie, and has THIS to say.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Football and Pederasty

It's interesting that you can read or listen to long stories about the Penn State scandal without once coming across the words "homosexual" or "gay."  It seems that homosexual child molestation is in a completely different category from homosexuality itself, which has become some sort of noble pursuit, with the participants all heroes.  But of course when homosexuals themselves are victims of abuse, the talking heads never fail to inform us of the vicious behavior of heterosexuals.  If you'll remember, this avoidance is also prevalent in the multitude of stories about Catholic priests who behave the same way.  They're always "child molesters," or "child abusers," which is accurate enough, but never homosexuals.
Indeed, the emphasis in the Penn State stories is on poor old Joe Paterno, who in failing to do whatever it was he failed to do is somehow a much worse person than Jerry Sandusky, who is mentioned only in passing.  If we can just punish this old Italian guy, we can forget all the other regrettable stuff.

Well, it looks like this is just going to get worse.  Now we have reports that not only was the pederasty taking place with Sandusky, but he may have been pimping the boys out to rich donors.  ElvisNixon relates all this to the homosexul agenda and the NAMBLA phenomenon HERE.

Obama's Ten Big Lies

Received in E-mail:

Obama has asked to be judged on results. As dutiful citizens, we owe it to him to hold him
to that standard."I won't lie to you. I expect to be judged by results" 
— President Barack Obama, February 10, 2009.

From its germinal days, the presidency of Barack Obama has been an inchoate affair. As a
candidate, the junior senator from Illinois was prone to stirring but intangible rhetoric.

When Obama spoke of "the audacity of hope" or triumphantly pronounced "we are the ones
we've been waiting for," he inspired without informing. No one knew what his phrases
 meant; they were simply empty vessels in which the American people could place their
 hopes and aspirations. The president-in-waiting was less a candidate than a totem for a
 poorly-defined idealism about American politics. 


Tea Party Must Stop The Obama Regime!

As president, however, Obama has had no such luxury. As the cliché goes, politicians
campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. On the stump, Obama was lyrical. In the
 Oval Office, he borders on illiterate.

Obama has asked to be judged on results. As dutiful citizens, we owe it to him to hold
 him to that standard. Consider these 10 statements, all of which proved to be untrue:

1. Claim: "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public
 will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it."
— June 22, 2007

Reality: Frequently broken, this pledge was ignored in a particularly egregious
 fashion with ObamaCare. There, Congress passed a massive, 2,000 plus-page
 piece of legislation late in the evening on Sunday, March 21, 2010. The bill
was signed into law on the morning of Tuesday, March 23, 2010.

2. Claim: "We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States
of America." — October 30, 2008.

Reality: All that changed on Election Day 2008 was the leadership in Washington.
Now, after two and half years, it's become clear that the United States of America
is the same way it's always been — good-natured, freedom-loving and skeptical
of too much power in Washington. Politicians don't fundamentally change
 democracies, Mr. Obama. The voters who elect them do. But you'll probably
 discover that soon enough.

3. Claim: "Today, I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end
 of my first term in office." — February 23, 2009

Reality: Average annual budget deficits during Obama's first term have been about
four times larger than the annual deficits "inherited" from George W. Bush, usually
running between 1.2 and 1.4 trillion dollars annually.

Your .99 cents will empower the Tea Party making it possible for teams to travel
to Washington, meet with decision makers and do the job millions of Tea Partiers
can't do....99 cents per day is 29.11 per month!

America Needs The 29.11 Plan Now!

4. Claim: "We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly,
and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health
care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people
don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it."
— February 21, 2008

Reality: Obama signed health care reform into law on March 23, 2010. The bill
included a provision for an "individual mandate" in health care insurance — in
other words, a design to "force everybody to purchase it."

5. Claim: "Yesterday, Jim [Owens], the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress
passes our [stimulus] plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who
were just laid off, and that's a story I'm confident will be repeated at companies across
the country." — February 12, 2009

Reality: "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before
we start hiring again" — Jim Owens, later in the day on February 12, 2009

6. Claim: "I'm going to have all the [health care] negotiations around a big table.
We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies,
drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy
every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on
C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their
constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies
or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to
allow people to stay involved in this process." — August 21, 2008

Reality: Not only did the health care horse-trading never make it to C-SPAN, the
entire process was notable for its lack of transparency, a criticism that almost sank
the health care bill's prospects for passage when sweetheart deals like the so-called
"Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" were revealed.

7. Claim: [On illegal immigration] — "They wanted a fence. Well, that fence now
is basically complete" — May 10, 2011

Reality: According to the Department of Homeland Security, the double-layer fencing
on the U.S.-Mexico border is only five percent complete.

8. Claim: " Between 2001 and 2009 [...] a very specific philosophy reigned in
Washington: You cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires; you cut
regulations for special interests; you cut back on investments in education and
clean energy, in research and technology." — September 22, 2010

Reality: During the Bush years, high-cost federal regulations increased by 70
percent, while federal expenditures on education increased by 58 percent in
inflation-adjusted dollars.

9. Claim: "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation
by any other." — June 4, 2009

Reality: While the 'should' question is a different matter, the 'can' is historically
illiterate. Systems of government have been imposed on foreign nations throughout
recorded human civilization. Perhaps Obama would like to spend some time on
the history of Germany and Japan after World War II?

10. Claim: "Muammar Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave;
those who perpetrate violence against the Libyan people will be held accountable;
and the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy and dignity
must be met." — March 3, 2011

Reality: Nearly eight months later no hope for the Libyan people - in sight,
ex-terrorist once jailed by the Central Intelligence Agency now runs the country's
foremost military organization, and new political leaders speak openly of enacting
Sharia, the ultra-harsh code of Islamic law.……KEEP READING — TEA PARTY 


Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising
 the debt ceiling?

He threatened to not pay: Social Security Retirees, Military Retirees, Social Security
disability and Federal Retirees.

— Now... Let this sink in really good —

He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens

He did not threatened to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates

He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired

He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife's frivolous gallivanting around

He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff

He did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients

He did not threaten the food stamp programs

He did not threaten to not pay foreign aid

He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters

The list could go on and on. He is in full political re-election mode!

Why are we allowing this person to destroy this wonderful country with his selfishness and his lies?

His type of change is killing our country. He needs to be stopped and only our votes can stop him.

Do not forget about his tactics when it's election time. Vote Obama out of the Presidency in 2012.




It is your turn to save America. The Tea Party needs your help.  Give today, because
tomorrow may be the day after we lost America. 

Support the continued work of the Tea Party on behalf of our beloved nation.