FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE

Monday, May 31, 2010

World outraged by Israeli attacks, but weak, Jewish-lobby owned Obama shrinks from condemnation

From:
Obama withholds condemnation of Gaza flotilla clashes, calls for clarification of 'facts'

U.S. President Obama says he deeply regrets loss of life, plans to reschedule meeting with Netanyahu.
(Haaretz) --

U.S. President Barack Obama told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he deeply regretted the loss of life in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla on Monday and urged him to quickly get to the bottom of the incident.

The White House's cautious response, which contrasted with an outcry against Israel's actions in Europe and the Muslim world, reflected a difficult balancing act for Obama.

He will face international pressure to join condemnation of Israel but must also be mindful that the close U.S. ally is popular with American lawmakers and voters. At the same time, fledgling U.S.-led Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts are at risk of collapse.

"The president expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded," the White House said in a summary of Obama's phone call with Netanyahu hours Israeli marines stormed a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza and at least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed.

"The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible," it said.

Obama, ending a long holiday weekend in Chicago, also told Netanyahu he understood his decision to cancel their White House talks set for Tuesday and return home from a visit to Canada, to deal with the incident.

They agreed to reschedule a meeting soon, the White House said.

Israel's storming of the aid ship unleashed international outrage over the bloody end to a bid by human rights campaigners to break an Israeli blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The UN Security Council called an emergency session for later on Monday...MORE...LINK

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Statist-authoritarian Republican who wants to license journalists could be a Democrats' best friend

From:
Michigan To License Journalists?

(Canada Free Press) -- By Warner Todd Huston --

This the face of tyranny. A Michigan State Senator has introduced an Orwellian bill that would provide for the licensing of journalists. There is no doubt that this thing is aimed squarely at delegitimizing the New Media, silencing bloggers, and creating a protected class of state approved “journalists.”

State Senator Bruce Patterson is the braintrust behind this flouting of the U.S. Constitution and outrageously enough, this Patterson fellow claims to be a “constitutional lawyer.” Pair him with the “constitutional scholar” we have as president and we have a matched set of revisionists out to steal as much power for themselves as one can find in any tinpot dictatorship! Even more ridiculously, this mustachioed villain is a Michigan Republican, proving that this sort of megalomania infests both sides of the aisle.

So what is this licensing deal supposed to do for we, the stupid people not able to figure out what end is up with current events, anyway? According to Patterson we can’t get “good information” any more because of the proliferation of new sources of info. But not to worry, granny Patterson is here to save the day and he’ll selflessly take it upon himself to determine what news source is a “legitimate media source.” What could possibly go wrong, eh?

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he told Fox News. “We have to be able to get good information. We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.” Big Brother Patterson is trying on those iron boots and he thinks he looks good in them apparently.

Prospectively approved “journalists” — read news folks that will say kind things about Patterson — will have to provide our caring and concerned Wolverine State government with the following:

* “Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.” * Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent. * Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information. * Awards or recognition related to being a reporter. * Three or more writing samples.

This bill makes perfect sense, of course. If you’re Fidel Castro.

Fortunately, the rest of the Michigan Senate thinks Patterson is an idiot because not one other Senator of either party is willing to co-sponsor Fidel Patterson’s un-American attempt at state control of the media.

Even if the tubby retiring Senator was sane, nice as pie, and completely trustworthy to be the sole adjudicator of just what constitutes a “legitimate media source,” we as a free people could never trust the next political hack that might step into Patterson’s iron booties in order to decide what sort of journalism will be “allowed” by the state.

Imagine if Bill Clinton, he of laments about the “great right wing conspiracy,” was the man responsible to decide what is “legitimate” under a Patterson-like media licensing law? Do you think Drudge would have ever been able to break the Monica Lewinski story in such a climate? Or do you think, rather, that Drudge would currently be sitting next to some al Qaieda terrorists in some dark hole in the foreign camp he was “rendered” to by Mr. “I fell your pain”? In fact, one rather imagines that Drudge would be in a Democrat provided for cell right next to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity even as William F. Buckley had become a long ago forgotten victim of the “journalist licensing” gulag!

In any case, we will be seeing this sort of nonsense more and more as the new media gets stronger and more vital. Government thugs like Bruce Patterson will continue to try and find ways to destroy the new media and will continue to dream of the day when they can control every word that we hear from the media, new or old...MORE...LINK

Why did the White House prefer Arlen Specter to Joe Sestak, and risk corruption charges to aid him?

From:
Was Sestak Bribed?

(The American Conservaitve) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

...Which brings us to Rep. Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered an administration job if he would abandon his race against Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania. Reportedly, the job offered to the retired admiral was secretary of the navy.
On May 18, Sestak won that primary, and his charge that he was proffered a White House bribe, or deal, went viral.

So, today, Joe has a problem. And so does the White House.

For if Sestak was offered a high post in the administration to abandon his challenge to a U.S. senator endorsed by Obama, this would seem on its face a criminal violation of federal law.

All seven Senate Republicans on the judiciary committee have written Attorney General Eric Holder calling for an independent counsel to investigate the alleged bribe. They cite 18 U.S. Code Section 600, which forbids the offer of any government job “as consideration, favor or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”

If Sestak was offered a high government post to get out of the Pennsylvania race, it would appear an open-and-shut case that a felony was committed by someone high in the White House.

When CNN’s John King suggested that such an offer “marches up into the gray area, perhaps the red area of a felony, it is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job,” White House adviser David Axelrod did not disagree with King: “If such things happened, they would constitute a serious breach of the law.”

However, Axelrod assured King, “when the allegations were looked into, there is no evidence of such a thing.”
And who looked into the allegation that a bribe was offered to Sestak and found “no evidence” of White House wrongdoing?

The White House counsel’s office.

Sorry, but this will not do. For when White House Counsel John Dean investigated the staff role in Watergate for President Nixon, he, too, found them all innocent.

Nor is this a trivial matter. For if the offer was made by a White House staffer and involved the post of secretary of the navy, serious questions arise for all involved.

Why did not Sestak, a congressman and admiral, report it? Has he not taken an oath to uphold the law?

Second, who made the offer? For any offer of secretary of the navy cannot credibly be made without the complicity or approval of the president, Barack Obama, who alone can nominate to that position.

Third, who in the White House counsel’s office conducted this investigation? And, as it does not involve confidential legal advice to the president, but the determination of a possible felony, we have a right to know what the White House counsel’s office was told, and by whom. Was President Obama interviewed?...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Here's a hint to the question I asked in the headline, (from an article in Commentary by Jonathan Tobin):
Despite his many other failings as a veteran political weather vane devoid of an ounce of principle, Pennsylvania’s senior senator has been a fairly reliable supporter of the Jewish state during his three decades in office. As such, he has been able to command the support of the mainstream pro-Israel community, in all of his re-election battles. Indeed, in 1992, when, in the aftermath of his tough questioning of Anita Hill, Specter had his toughest general-election challenge, his victory over Democrat Lynn Yeakel could well be credited to the Israel factor. Yeakel, a liberal Democrat whose prime motivation for running was to get revenge for Specter’s rough cross-examination of Clarence Thomas’s accuser, was defeated in no small measure because of her membership in a Presbyterian church that was a hotbed of anti-Israel incitement. Yeakel refused to disavow her pastor or the church (a lesson that Barack Obama might well have profited from when he eventually disavowed Jeremiah Wright), and Specter, with the active assistance of local pro-Israel activists, clobbered her for it and was returned to Washington.

Since then the bond between pro-Israel activists and Specter has stood the test of time...

Specter also could count on his Democratic challenger Joe Sestak’s far from sterling record on Israel. In 2007, Sestak spoke at a fundraiser for CAIR – the pro-Hamas front group that was implicated in the Holy Land Foundation federal terror prosecution. And he has signed on to congressional letters criticizing Israel’s measures of self-defense against terrorists and refused to back those bipartisan letters backing the Jewish state on the issue of Jerusalem...

If the general-election match-up turns out to be a race between Sestak and the conservative but impeccably pro-Israel Pat Toomey, Jewish Democrats who care about Israel will then be forced to choose between their party loyalty and the need to keep a Senate seat in the hands of a friend of the Jewish state. A full-page ad that appeared in Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent last week lambasted Sestak for his record on Israel and asked voters to “not allow Joe Sestak to represent you in the U.S. Senate.”...
Gee, I wonder if Rahm Israel Emanuel had anything to do with offering Sestak the bribe...

Is Rupert Murdoch attempting to start yet another U.S. war for Israel?

From:
How Disinformation Works

(The American Conservative blog) -- by Philip Giraldi --

There is a piece in today’s Sunday Times of London entitled “Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran.” The article states that Israel is sending one of its three Dolphin class submarines to the Persian Gulf “near the Iranian coastline” to permit retaliation if Iran or its allies in Syria and Lebanon attempt a missile strike against Israel. The presumption is that Israel would be prepared to retaliate using nuclear armed cruise missiles.

If the story is true it is alarming because it considerably increases the tension level in the Middle East due to the threat of a nuclear strike. But the story is suspicious because it appears in the Rupert Murdoch owned Times, which has often been a conduit for stories places by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad. The submarines in question have a range of 2700 miles. The distance from the Israeli naval port in Eilat on the Red Sea to the Gulf of Oman is slightly more than that one way. The Israeli vessels would not be able to refuel at any neutral port in the Indian Ocean making the logistics somewhat complicated, requiring refueling at sea by a support ship sent out from Israel. As the Israeli naval is designed for coastal defense, it does not have such a vessel, though I suppose something could be improvised.

There is also a subplot. The Times story additionally relates that Israeli defense minister Ehud Barack allegedly showed President Obama “classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.” The fact is that US intelligence, which has far better capabilities than the Israelis, cannot verify the missile story that the Israelis have been peddling for several months. The Israelis clearly want the US to buy into the scud threat, but CIA analysts have so far found the evidence unconvincing.

So we have a suspicious story with phony supporting details. Floating the story might be intended to scare the Iranians into doing something stupid or to pressure the White House into doing something equally dumb by rolling over for Bibi Netanyahu when he visits Washington on Tuesday. It might also be an attempt to heighten the threat from Hezbollah and Syria, such as it is. Or it might have multiple objectives. Disinformation involves creating a false story and distributing it widely in an attempt to shift the narrative in a way favorable to your own interests. The Times story was picked up immediately by the media in Israel and Iran and also by the UPI, giving it credibility, which is exactly how disinformation is supposed to work...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The implication of this is that Rupert Murdoch and his media apparatus are working for or with the Israeli government, and international Zionism.

I suspect this is true, and I think it’s important to know. It would certainly put much of the propaganda product of Fox News during the Bush years in a new context.

No wonder the tea party movement is so suspicious and resentful of the establishment wing of the GOP, which is who Fox News speaks for. Repeatedly attempting (sometimes successfully) to put America into wars for Israel is a kind of treason, no?

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

How government-enforced tribalism is destroying America, and how libertarian nationalism can save the Republic

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- In an Occidental Observer Blog post on the recent contretemps revolving around Rand Paul's position that one of the Titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 conflicts with property rights, White-identity advocate Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University Long Beach takes "libertarian" neocon Jonah Goldberg to task for dodging the issue of free association in an opinion piece Goldberg wrote for the L.A. Times.

First, Goldberg makes the excellent point that the Statist-liberals currently throwing fits over Rand Paul's limited government position today are the same types who praised libertarians to the high heavens for opposing government overreach during the administration of George W. Bush:
During the Bush years, liberals elevated libertarianism as the "good" right-wing ideology, sanctifying Barry Goldwater as the betrayed founding father of a more noble anti-statist tradition than the one presided over by the crazed apostate George W. Bush (whose racial views happened to be more benign than Goldwater's)...And yet, when a very clearly nonracist libertarian politician merely raises the possibility that Goldwater might have been a teensy-weensy bit right to vote against the 1964 bill (Goldwater had voted consistently for civil rights laws before then), it's an outrage.
But then Goldberg goes into cop-out mode, and rather than addressing Paul's argument about the conflict between government mandates and private property rights (Paul: "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?") Goldberg instead changes the subject and issues a directive about what the correct libertarian talking points should be on the issue of Jim Crow that ignores the larger issue of free association:
For the record, Paul and [Barry] Goldwater were both wrong. The libertarian position is not to defend Jim Crow but to condemn it, and not just because of its unjust bigotry but because of its economic folly that served to entrench that bigotry...Jim Crow wasn’t merely some “Southern tradition” undone by heroic good government. Jim Crow laws were imposed by government. And they banned white businessmen from serving blacks.
MacDonald counters:
Based on his interview with Rachel Maddow, Rand is well aware of the distinction between private discrimination and government laws that would force people to discriminate. Paul stated quite clearly that he supports the aspects of the Civil Rights bill that struck down government laws that enforced segregation, but he opposed the parts of the law that made it illegal for private individuals or companies to discriminate on the basis of race.

So Goldberg is managing to go along with the liberals in bashing Paul, without really confronting the intellectual issue of whether the rights of individuals should include the right to personal discrimination. (Incidentally, one wonders whether Israel apologist Goldberg would condemn Israeli apartheid. I assume he would rationalize or ignore all the official and unofficial ways that Israel discriminates against Palestinians in Israel and especially in the occupied territories, doubtless citing the “Israel is our democratic ally” mantra.)
Then MacDonald tackles the larger question of the conflict between the White tradition of individualism, and the preservation of the White race and White-collective interests in an America that "has now become a cauldron of competing ethnic interests."
So it’s not surprising that Goldberg as a Jewish neocon presents himself as true to libertarianism — while ignoring the more difficult issue of personal discrimination. But for us White advocates, the problem is even deeper. On the one hand, there is good reason to think that we Whites have a natural tendency to want to live free from intrusive governments and not have to march in lock step with others. That’s not to say that we can’t organize as a collective, it’s just that it’s harder for us to do.

Indeed, White advocacy is essentially a plea that Whites have collective interests and a right and an interest in organizing in order to achieve their interests in what has now become a cauldron of competing ethnic interests. Ethnic competition is always the death knell of individualism, as people organize themselves into competing groups. (That’s the real point of the Arizona ethnic studies law: The last gasp of American individualism.) Any putative White homeland would necessarily discriminate on the basis of race, if only to secure its borders against the sort of invasion that we are now undergoing. Are Whites really so principled that that they would fail to see a moral imperative in preserving themselves, their culture, and their institutions, even if it meant that they had to discriminate on the basis of race.

It seems clear to me that libertarian individualism is indeed a culture of White suicide given the current political landscape. As Whites become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, libertarianism will become an “okay” ideology for Whites — an officially approved harmless palliative to make them think they are intellectually honest while they sink into the sunset.
In the reader comments section of the article, MacDonald adds:
There are a whole lot of White people who have identifications that are not at all compatible with their genetic interests–Christian Zionists, for example. They have an explicitly religious, not a racial identity, and that leads them to advocate all sorts of things that are against their real interests.
I would argue Christian Zionists DO have a racialist identity: Judeo. Which is to say, they see themselves as on some kind of religo-racial Judeo-Christian continuum with Zionist Jewry and biblical Jewry. Myths propound, for example, that certain European peoples were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. And how many times since the inception of the "War on Terror" have polemicists invoked the idea that we're in a clash of civilizations between "the Judeo-Christian West" and Islam? This all gets mixed in with Christian Zionist Dispensationalist eschatology and the American Promised Land-Manifest Destiny mythology of U.S. history, and turned into crusades like the Iraq war, which unquestionably had a Judeo-Christian racial supremacist component. Furthermore, by identifying with Zionist Jewry (probably the most cohesive and enduring racialist orientation on the planet), and allying with apartheid/Jim Crow/institutionally racist Israel, White Judeo-Christian Zionists are implicitly racialist.

However, unlike MacDonald's preferred brand of White nationalism, these Judeo-Christian racialists include White Ashkenazi Jews in their "race," and have essentially swallowed any White nationalist impulses that have arisen in America in favor of the concept of Judeo-Christianity, and channeled them into Middle Eastern crusades for Israel (that not coincidentally have also enriched the war profiteering elements of the Judeo-Christian, Statist-Corporatist power structure).

As a long time critic of organized Jewry and it nefarious influence upon Western society, clearly this disturbs MacDonald, who it seems would like to see Whites break with Jewry in particular, but even Christianity if it comes to that, in favor of creating a White nationalist homeland.

Given that there are explicitly Jewish nations (Israel) that receive nearly unrestricted U.S. funding and political support, and all other manner of explicitly racial or religious states around the world that enjoy American aid and security, and given that there are calls for an explicitly Hispanic nationalist country (Aztlan) to be carved out of the American Southwest that receive little critical attention from the Establishment, then it's an unfair double standard to oppose the concept of MacDonald's brand of White nationalism ipso-facto.

Thus, I don’t oppose White nationalism in principle for other countries, and I don’t oppose the White consciousness movement in America, which among other attributes, is necessary to help counter Israel-first Jewish nationalism, and Mexico-first Hispanic nationalism (as epitomized by La Raza). Plus, Whites in America most certainly are just as entitled to a White identity consciousness and movement as Jews, Hispanics and Blacks are entitled to their identity movements.

But I oppose an American conversion to White nationalism, in part, for the same reasons I oppose the fashionable concept of America as a Judeo-Christian nation: because it requires the evisceration of the Constitution, and of the American Constitutional Republic that has been on the cutting edge in the advancement of human rights, liberty, freedom, and economic prosperity for over 200 years.

I DO, however, advocate libertarian nationalism for America, which would NOT allow for racial spoils or government favoritism of any racial or religious group (including reverse-discrimination affirmative action, nor violation of private property rights per Rand Paul’s argument against Title 10), nor allow the government to artificially suppress any group’s racial aspirations with taxpayer money (as is being done to Whites today through government harassment of White "militia" but not the treasonous Aztlan movement or Israel-first lobby). It also wouldn't allow, for example, all manner of never-ending government programs designed to promote less qualified non-Whites over Whites as a remedy to "historical discrimination," nor the left-liberal public school curriculum that singles out White history as particularly loathsome and glosses over or completely ignores loathsome non-White history, and positive White history -- all of which serves as racist indoctrination.

Rather than mirror ethnic-nationalist rackets that have become too powerful, (ie the Israel lobby) as White nationalists seem to advocate as a means to eventually carving out their own nation, libertarian nationalism would break these ethnic rackets up in the very American (though currently dormant) tradition of monopolistic trust-busting, on the grounds that they are a threat to the concept of an American melting pot, and the concept of America as a country where all men (and tribes) are created equal, and treated equally. For how can all men be seen as equal if the agenda and interests of one tribe are promoted above that of another? How can an out-group individual engage in the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if the federal government is requisitioning his tax money (labor) to, for example, fight wars for Jewish supremacism on behalf of Israel, or enforce anti-White "affirmative action" discrimination on behalf of the interests of Hispanic and Black nationalists in America, which essentially turns his own government and tax dollars against his interests and values, and the values professed by the U.S. Constitution itself?

It seems the main reason MacDonald believes that "libertarian individualism is indeed a culture of White suicide given the current political landscape," is because Statist liberalism, cultural Marxism, neoconservatism, Corporatist Bush-conservatism, and most importantly, the federal government getting its strings pulled by these, have essentially opened up the borders, and declared war on the White identity/advocacy movement (not to mention on the anti-Zionist Christian identity movement, and the libertarian nationalist movement) and are using Big Government to harass and artificially suppress them all. Enforcing the borders and getting the federal government and its oppressive programs off ALL Americans' backs would do wonders for the blossoming of all of these in the same way that removing root-bound plants from their pots and planting them in free soil allows them to reach their potential -- which is exactly what those utilizing Big Government to suppress these groups DON'T want. Why? Because they are control freaks who subscribe to the spirit of Pharisaic authoritarianism, and to the concept of Big Government social engineering, be it domestic (the Democrats) or foreign (the neocons and Judeo-Christian Bushcons).

Statist authoritarianism that applies selective group favoritism is their common creed, and it's a creed that has taken on a life of its own, resulting in the negation of the Constitution and the break up of society into tribes.

Libertarian nationalism may be the last, best chance for saving the Constitutional Republic as envisioned, cultivated and actualized by America's libertarian-Christian Founders into a country that has been the greatest force in history towards freedom, liberty, and mass economic prosperity for all -- but a country that is now under threat since the Constitutional concepts underlying America's success have been sabotaged and reversed by ideological elitist design, and America is today regressing back towards the kind of political, racial and religious tribalism that has destroyed so many nations in the past.

Libertarian nationalism can get us back on track by returning us to and enforcing the fundamental American founding doctrine of "All Men Are Created Equal."

*Chris Moore is publisher of LibertarianToday.com

-------------------------

Comments from Liberty News Forum:
Shooterman: Sorry, Chris, but exactly what makes you a nationalist? Why would you want to be one?

Read my entire article and it will answer both questions.

I do concede there is a conflict between some of Ron Paul's positions and libertarian nationalism, particularly where Paul aligns with the internationalist, money-worshipping Friedman strain of libertarianism, which is all for open borders under the auspices of trade, and loves the concept of Capitalist "creative destruction" even at the expense of tradition and localism. (To Paul's credit, he is not an open borders libertarian.)

My support for both Pauls is partially ideological, and largely strategic. BTW, I think both Pauls are far more conservative, Christian, and nationalistic than they let on. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

But think of libertarian nationalism as the ideology of the highly patriotic, yet "isolationist" strain of the American Founders who jealously cultivated, guarded and protected their Republic from foreign interlopers, and weren't interested in getting drawn into permanent "entangling alliances" with corrupt European money powers; but at the same time were willing to take an epic, post-tribalism leap within their own borders in social human evolution by writing and implementing what have become two of the greatest human rights document of all time, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Unlike the Internationalists, libertarian nationalism puts the interests of the majority of Americans first, which is the opposite of what the Globalizationists/Internationalists of both Left and Right do, in favor of elitism. The problem with the latter is that they want to be all things to all people, and end up losing all principles in the process. Most of the Internationalist elites also seem to suffer from deep character flaws revolving around greed and delusions of grandeur that put them in spiritual alignment with some of the most scurrilous and opportunistic human beings on the planet.

-----
Shooterman: I guess what I'm asking, Chris, is what exactly makes a nationalist? Why would one even care to be a nationalist? In my opinion, nationalists are the antithesis of being Federalists, or actually Anti-federalists, unlike the Whigs and that sorry crowd.
-----
In my usage, “nationalism” is the antithesis of modern Internationalism -- the kind of futile, destructive and delusional international crusades advocated by the Bushcons and neocons, and the internationalist, open borders globalizationist agenda embraced by the Establishment, and the international Marxism embraced by the Left.

Pat Buchanan calls the types who go in for all of this “bloodless” elites, which is a pretty good shorthand for the heady, ungrounded political and corporate class who see themselves as Masters of the Universe, too “evolved” for anything so quant as America-first.

They’ve essentially taken this country over a cliff, and financially insulated themselves from the consequences by selling out the real Americans they’ve led astray -- pure incompetence born of hubris, and just plain lack of intellectual character.

In other words, they’re greedy and arrogant idiots.

-----
Shooterman: Please understand, Chris, I'm not trying to be difficult, but trying to understand exactly where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to see you as a kindred spirit, in that the nationalism you espouse ( much along the lines of Jefferson and George Mason, and the Lees ) is a far cry from the nationalism of Hamilton, the WHIGS, and Dishonest Abe, who believed the Nation State was the all encompassing entity it has become.
-----
Towards Liberty: Am I too assume your against free trade and free market capitalism? How does that square with the emphasis most libertarians put on individual liberty?
-----
I can see the confusion. Hamilton was a nationalists who supported a strong central government. But the libertarian position on central government is pretty clear: keep it to a minimum. And I think a lot of libertarians would agree that preserving the balance of power between the States and the federal government as one means to keeping Washington in check is desirable.

So what’s the difference between a libertarian nationalist and a libertarian internationalist? Guarding sovereignty by patrolling the borders as opposed to end-of-history utopian fantasies about open-borders free markets being the be all and end all; putting the interests of the American people before the interests of the of multi-national corporations, which means guarding jobs and industry, and seeing to it that access to American markets by America’s competitors isn’t just given away for free; rewarding American companies that employ Americans, and giving them an advantage over foreign companies that don’t employ Americans, as opposed to letting the “international marketplace” direct us towards what amounts to a dystopian, slave-labor future directed by a self-serving, international Statist-Corporatist elite…But all of this in the context of standard libertarianism applied within the nation’s borders, but a libertarianism with a respectable social safety net.

The overall program, as I personally envision it, is a combination of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

Hermetically sealed libertarianism? If that's what it takes. Our primary job should be to protect liberty and the American people, and lead by example. Hopefully, others will follow. But if they don't, it's not our job to make them.

Unlike the Left, Rand Paul believes Americans are owned by themselves, not by the State

From:
Paul and the Private Parts
Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.
(Reason Magazine) -- by Jacob Sullum --

Last week James Clyburn, a former civil rights activist who is now a Democratic congressman from South Carolina, warned that if Rand Paul is elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate, "it will be the first step…to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s." The comment, provoked by the Republican candidate's criticism of the federal ban on racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," was not just hyperbolic but radically misguided, because Paul's position is based on the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and the long struggle for equality that followed it: the principle of self-ownership.

If we own ourselves, it follows that no one else can own us—the most obvious way in which slavery violates human rights. It also follows that we own our labor, which means we decide who benefits from it and under what terms, and the fruits of our labor, which means we control access to our property. All these rights were flagrantly violated not only by slavery but by the racist Jim Crow regime that succeeded it, which forced businesses to discriminate against blacks as customers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to eliminate state-imposed segregation and all other forms of official discrimination against blacks. While wholeheartedly supporting that goal, which belatedly implemented the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, Paul expressed qualms about the provisions banning private discrimination, which impinged on the same liberties—freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights—that were routinely disregarded under Jim Crow.

Paul noted that liberty would not mean much if it did not include the ability to say and do "abhorrent things." Just as freedom of speech and freedom of association benefit the Ku Klux Klan along with the NAACP, the right to control one's property and to choose one's customers benefits the bigot along with former slaves and their descendants.

Paul's more sophisticated critics argued not that he was racist but that he was unrealistic. Given the social environment created by centuries of government-backed slavery and oppression, they said, segregation in the South would not have been eliminated simply by withdrawing state support for it. Even if every racist law and government policy were abolished, racist business practices would have lingered as long as there was a demand for them or as long as owners were willing to pay an economic price for their own bigotry.

But before concluding that new infringements on liberty were necessary to remove the stain left by past infringements, consider some unforeseen consequences of the federal ban on private discrimination. The precedent has encouraged an assault on freedom of association, as illustrated by demands that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Christian student groups, and online dating services adopt gay-friendly policies.

The blurring of the distinction between public and private property has invited a wide array of meddlesome regulations, ranging from bans on smoking in bars and restaurants to unfunded mandates requiring expensive renovations to accommodate customers in wheelchairs. As Paul noted, the "public accommodation" rationale even has been cited as a pretext for forcing business owners to allow guns on their property...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Americans re-visiting the false narrative of history written by the Left to restore the country's faith in itself

From:
The War Over America’s Past
(The Americans Conservative Blog) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

That was the slogan of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” where Winston Smith worked ceaselessly revising the past to conform to the latest party line of Big Brother.

And so we come to the battle over history books in the schools of Texas. Liberals are enraged that a Republican-dominated Board of Education is rewriting the texts. But is the rewrite being done to falsify history, or to undo a liberal bias embedded for decades?

Consider a few of the issues.

The new texts will emphasize that the separation of church and state was never written into the Constitution.

Is that not right? The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But, in 1776, nine of the 13 colonies had state religions established in their constitutions.

Thomas Jefferson’s words about a “separation of church and state” were not written until 1802, when he responded to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. Not until after World War II did the Supreme Court begin the systematic purge of Christianity from American public life.

Barack Obama may have declared, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” But Woodrow Wilson said, “America was born a Christian nation,” and Harry Truman wrote Pius XII to affirm, “This is a Christian nation.”

The Texas school board wants the U.S. economic system called “free enterprise” rather than the term Karl Marx used, “capitalism.”

Anything wrong with that?
The Christian Science Monitor cites one professor Phillip VanFossen as appalled the new history texts will put a “more positive spin on Sen. Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunt.”

Witch hunt?

The FDR and Truman administrations were shot through with treason. Alger Hiss, who was with FDR at Yalta and Truman in San Francisco when the U.N. was founded, was a Stalinist spy, exposed by Whittaker Chambers and Rep. Richard Nixon.

Harry Dexter White, Treasury’s No. 2, who pushed the infamous Morgenthau Plan to turn Germany into a pastureland, was a Soviet agent, as was White House aide Laughlin Currie and State’s Laurence Duggan, whose treason was confirmed by the VENONA decrypts of Soviet cables in 1995.

William Remington at Commerce was convicted of perjury for denying his ties to a spy ring. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for their role in betraying the secrets of the atom bomb.

The VENONA transcripts contained the names of scores of U.S. citizens assisting known Soviet agents during and after World War II.

By 1952, Truman, having been repudiated by his own party in New Hampshire, was down to 23 percent, and was the most unpopular president ever to leave office.

But Joe McCarthy’s approval, four years into this crusade in January 1954, stood at 50 percent, with only 29 percent disapproving.
And was that really a time of anti-communist hysteria?

Why, then, does not a single Gallup poll from 1950 to 1954 show even 1 percent of Americans giving anti-communist extremism or witch hunts or Joe McCarthy as an issue of concern?

Not only did Joe Kennedy Sr. admire and support Joe McCarthy, Jack Kennedy befriended him, Bobby worked for him, Teddy played touch football with him at Hyannis Port and the Kennedy girls dated him.

When, at a Harvard reunion, Jack heard a speaker say he was proud the college never produced an Alger Hiss or Joe McCarthy, JFK roared, “How dare you couple the name of a great patriot with that of a traitor?” and stormed out.

That 1954 was a year of disaster for Joe, with the Army-McCarthy hearings and censure by the Senate, is undeniable. But Joe is hated today not for what he got wrong, but for what he got right...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Interesting how culturally Marxist Hollywood and MSM have managed to essentually rewrite history to portray the tenacious anti-communists as the ones suffering from a pathology instead of the mass murderous Communists themselves.

Let’s be thankful for the Internet, which actually puts mass media in the hands of the People, and takes some of the power out of the hands of the history re-writing propagandists.

Absent the Internet, I don’t think I’d even want to know where the Statist liberals and neocons would have taken this country by now.

-----

Pons Seclorum [in article comments]: “Why is it that, for leftists, the West is a singular evil but the Mongols et al are exonerated of any wrongdoing?”

Because Leftism was essentially authored by those who believed whites in general and white Christians in particular were singularly evil, and this belief was internalized by the extended Left.

Never mind that its authors themselves suffered from a persecution complex, huge egos with attendant exaggerated notions of their own self-importance, and a tradition of story-telling that turned molehills into mountains and slights into assaults. In their narrative, every white Christian was pure evil, hence mass murderous Communism was justified.

And look what they wrought.


Mad Doc MacRae [in article comments]: "...should we hope that if we never teach kids that Americans owned slaves that it will all go away? I think that’s what the Texas board certainly wants."

The Left obsessively dwells on America's past sins under the pretext of bettering the country, but its actual goal is self-enrichment with power and government largesse by fashioning tribal constituencies with an anti-traditionalist chip on their shoulder and promising them it will use taxpayer money and government policy to make things "right." It then proceeds to cultivate perpetual dependence, grievance and resentment, throwing whites under the bus at every opportunity to do so (that is, except for limousine liberal whites forever congratulating each other on how "progressive" they are being by ridiculing Christianity and conservatives and inciting a climate of hate).

This can only end in a massive, crumbling, Soviet-like welfare state, and a race war. Yet the Left remains filled with all the righteous piss and vinegar of a Bolshevik attending an orgy at the Winter Palace.

These people are dangerous, power and money-mad nihilists, and a threat to the Republic.

Are the lefties and neocons attempting to use Rand Paul's faux pas to strangle paleocons in the cradle?

From:
Rand Paul and the Paleos
(The American Consrvative Blog) -- by Daniel McCarthy --

During the Bush years, disciples of Leo Strauss often complained that they were unfairly typecast as neoconservatives. There are many kinds of Straussian, including the antiwar French conservative Pierre Manent, the libertarian Paul Cantor, and even a few Front Porcher traditionalists. Many neoconservatives likewise insisted that they were not now, nor had they ever been, Straussians. The two categories had some significant overlap — especially in Kristols pere et fils — but adherents of each thought it unfair to assume the two were coterminous.

Ross Douthat has now done for Rand Paul and the paleoconservatives what Straussians and neocons claimed had been done to them: Douthat has blended together some overlapping but distinct non-neo varieties of the Right to pronounce Rand Paul a paleoconservative. And by the commutative principle, whatever objectionable things one paleo has said may now be applied to Rand Paul. Thus, the Kentucky Republican’s reservations about the Civil Rights Act can be traced not only to libertarianism but to racially minded thinkers like Sam Francis.

Several points of clarification are in order. First, paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives formed an alliance in the 1990s, but they stem from separate origins and have branched out in different ways since then. Murray Rothbard, the original paleolibertarian, was also the original libertarian simpliciter, a co-founder of the non-paleo Cato Institute and at various times an ally of Dixiecrats, National Review, the League of Stevensonian Democrats, the New Left, and the Libertarian Party before joining forces with paleoconservatives in the 1990s. The other leading paleolibertarians, Ron Paul and his former staffer Lew Rockwell, don’t have backgrounds quite so eclectic — Rockwell was an editor for the conservative publisher Arlington House and Hillsdale College back in the day and edited a medical-industry newsletter, Paul got involved in Austrian economics and Republican politics long before the term paleoconservative had been coined in its present meaning. Rand Paul is most closely connected, of course, to his father’s views. But if that makes Rand a paleolibertarian, it doesn’t mean that he subscribes to some strict body of dogma. One cannot use the commutative principle even to ascribe Rothbard’s views to Rand Paul...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

This whole episode is just a little bump in the road for Rand Paul, and may actually end up helping him. In his writing’s of late, Pat Buchanan has correctly detected a white backlash against the tenets of political correctness and against anti-white racism, of which aspects (such as affirmative action) of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act are a cornerstone. The liberal and neocon media are gnashing their teeth and going ape about Paul’s faux pas right now, but it will all blow over soon enough, and most white voters will be left with the question: He went on and on about how he opposed institutional racism, so why the hell did they try to crucify the guy for speaking up for property rights?

These politically correct authoritarians have become like the boy who cried wolf, and people are sick to death of their Bolshevik hypocrisy and contrived hysteria.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Rand Paul is right, Rachel Maddow is wrong: anti-discrimination laws discriminate

From:
Rand Paul is right, Rachel Maddow is wrong: anti-discrimination laws discriminate
(newjerseynewsroom.com) -- BY MURRAY SABRIM --

As I predicted Wednesday, the demonization of Rand Paul has begun. On Wednesday evening Paul was a guest on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show and was asked about his support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation that bans discrimination in so-called public accommodations (i.e., private businesses) and government facilities on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin.

Paul gave a reasoned, thoughtful response, namely that anti-discrimination statutes have worthy goals, but the means used to ban racism, sexism, etc., in private businesses violate the property rights of individuals. He also pointed out that the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning governmental discrimination was a monumental achievement.

The New York Times "smells blood" and on today's front page carries an article, "Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar On Civil Rights." Quoting both Republican and Democrat politicians the article asserts that Rand Paul's views on civil rights are ‘extreme' and ‘out of the mainstream."

Why is it "extreme" to question the best way to end racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc., in our society? Why is it "out of the mainstream" to discuss whether the federal government can abridge the property rights of individuals to achieve a noble goal?

As Rand Paul stated in his interview with Maddow he is opposed to any form of racism. You would think that would satisfy Maddow who was unwilling and apparently unable to grasp Dr. Paul's response, namely, that once the federal government creates a "right' to enter a private premise and demand service, then you should be careful what you wish for.

Dr. Paul calmly explained to Ms. Maddow the "logic' of the Civil Rights Act; gun owners will demand that they have the right to carry a firearm in restaurants, bars and other private facilities. If they are denied that right, as Paul made clear, gun owners would assert that their Second Amendment rights are being violated. And he would be right. But Maddow would not have any of this. She kept pestering Paul about black people being refused to be served at lunch counters.

There are numerous flaws in the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act. There is no constitutional right to enter someone else's property, even if it is a business. Just because a business is "open to the public" it does not mean that the federal government may force owners to welcome anyone who wants to be a customer. Moreover, as a youngster when I watched the news about the civil rights movement on television during the 1950s and 1960s I wondered why black people wanted to patronize racist business owners.

The last thing a victim of private discrimination should want to do is increase the profits of racists, sexist, homophobes or anti-Semites. On a personal level, as a son of Holocaust survivors, I would not patronize a business owned by a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.

But how would I know that if the Civil Rights Act forbids that information to be known? In other words, I would welcome a sign in a store or business that states clearly and unequivocally, "No Jews allowed," or "The Holocaust didn't happen." (The last sign would be allowed under the First Amendment.) In short, the first sign is banned under the Civil Rights Act, but it is important for Jews to know if a business owner is an anti-Semite in order to not patronize or work for a business I and my fellow Jews would not want to enrich.

The Civil Rights Act discriminates against minority groups because they lack the information needed so they could withhold their dollars and labor services from discriminators. The best way to "punish" discriminators is in the pocketbook, not to pass a law. But the Civil Rights Act does not do that, instead it enriches boorish behavior and thoughts. Racist business owners are forced to sell to black people and make profits, and in the "shadows" they may be funding the local Ku Klux Klan chapter. Racists in America are getting rich and perpetuating racism because of the Civil Rights Act. How ironic!

There are other flaws in the Civil Rights Act. The right of association used to be a cherished right in America, except now when it comes to business owners. There are numerous groups that are based on race, sex, national origin, religion, etc. Should the Congressional Black Caucus be desegregated? If not, why is it OK for the CBC to use tax money to discriminate against white members of Congress, apparently in violation of the Civil Rights Act?...MORE...LINK
-----

Chris Moore comments:

Additionally, racists turning away business would open up financial opportunities for non-racists to step into the niche. Imagine, for example, a white restaurant in a town with a large black population turning away African Americans. If a black wanted to make a killing in business, he'd open up a restaurant that serves African Americans right next door.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Bigoted Rachel Maddow and her institutionally racist Statist-liberalism are in no position to point fingers at Rand Paul

(By Chris Moore) -- In this interview currently sweeping the Internet (video and transcript here), MSNBC's Rachel Maddow grills Rand Paul on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of which he supports nine out of 10 of its Title provisions, stating time and again that he is opposed to all forms of institutional racism. Maddow self-righteously shakes her head in feigned disgust and contempt when Paul stands up for private property rights that conflict with a tenth provision, and implicitly accuses him of supporting violence against those who advocated desegregation:
PAUL: Well, there's 10 -- there's 10 different -- there's 10 different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10 deal with public institutions. And I'm absolutely in favor of; one deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation -- and this is why it's a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult situation...

MADDOW: The reason that this is something that I'm not letting go even though I now realize it would make the conversation more comfortable to move on to other things and I think this is going to be a focus for national attention on you, I guess until there's at least clarity on it, is that issue of the tenth, not the nine, but the tenth out of the 10 portions -- proportions of the -- the tenth of the Civil Rights Act that you would want to have discussions about. As I understand it, what you`re saying, that's the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can't actually have segregated lunch counters here at your private business.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, is that there's nothing right now to prevent a lot of re-segregating. We had a lot of it over the last 30 or 40 years.

What I would say is that we did some very important things in the '60s that I'm all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools, desegregating public transportation, use public roads and public monopolies, desegregating public water fountains.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters. Walgreen's lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because the government got involved?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Right. Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don't want to have guns in here.

The bar says we don't want to have guns in here, because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?

These are important philosophical debates but not very practical discussion. And I think we can make something out of this --

MADDOW: Well, it's pretty practical to people who were -- had their life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about gun ownership. This is not a hypothetical, Dr. Paul.
But this is pure hypocrisy on the part of Maddow and the corrupt institutional racism she herself unquestioningly rubber stamps.

First of all, the Democrat Party, whose political perspective and interests Maddow and MSNBC essentially represent, is institutionally racist itself. Here is what I've written (in comment) on a previous post about this problem:
In the 111th Congress, there are a total of 257 Democrats in the House. Thirty-one of them are Jewish (all Congressional Jews are Democrats except for Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican). That's nearly 12%. (Again, Jews comprise less than 2% of the country).

And the ratio is even more out of balance in the Senate, where there are a total 57 Democrats, plus two "Independents" that caucus with the Democrats. Of that total of 59 Senators, 13 are Jewish -- an astounding 22%.

How many black U.S. Senators are there? Only one: Roland Burris, the only black in the entire Senate, even though African-Americans comprise over 12% of the country (and a lot higher percentage than that of loyal Democratic Party voters).

So it seems the Jewish supremacist Democrats have pulled a bait-and-switch on the "people of color" who routinely provide a big chunk of their votes, running as the party of diversity, equality and racial justice, yet promoting Jews (every one of which in Congress is a Zionist) in hugely disproportionate numbers to the highest levels of national office, and limiting blacks and Hispanics to the Capitol's service entrances.
So clearly, by the standard of equal representation according to race that the Statists profess to subscribe to in their blanket support for the Civil Rights Act regiment, Maddow's team has constructed some institutional barriers to black and Hispanic advancement in the Democrat Party leadership in favor of a Jewish leadership that can only be described as racist.

Secondly, the Democrat Party itself routinely votes billions in essentially unconditional financial and military aid to Israel, and provides it nearly unconditional political support at the UN and elsewhere around the world. Israel, by nearly all objective accounts is an institutionally racist, segregationist, Jewish supremacists state that viciously discriminates against non-Jews in general and Palestinians in particular in ways that make the Jim Crow South look like a walk in the park, and often enforces this discrimination by carrying out State-organized murder, both in Israel proper and in the occupied territories.

Thirdly, what is Rachel Maddow's position on Israel's institutional discrimination and mass murder? She's all for it. Here is a snippet from another post I wrote specifically on Maddow, documenting the revelation of her Jewish supremacist bigotry as epitomized by her support for Israel's ruthless attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008/09:
...recall Maddow's reaction at the height of Israel's atrocities, when it was carrying out the butchering of defenseless women and children in what the United Nations would later find to be war crimes, the phony "humanitarian" Maddow set up her whitewash of the atrocities with standard hasbara (Zionist "explanation" propaganda) that Israel is "a tiny country, a Jewish state, right smack dab in the middle of the Arab world, surrounded on all sides by Arab nations, many of whom do not recognize Israel's right to exist."

What any of this had to do with the Jewish state's butchering of Palestinian women and children is totally irrelevant, other than as means to, again, justify the Zionist ideology and its abuses by presenting what are clear bullying, police state offensives as mere defensive measures taken to "protect" a "vulnerable" population of historical "victims."

Watch Maddow and her Zionist-ideology hasbara here (and keep in mind that as she spoke, Palestinians women and children were being massacred in Gaza by the Israeli authoritarians) and decide for yourself whether this despicable, saccharin-sweet, "politically correct police state" shrew is an ideological Zionist or not:
So Maddow supports both the de-facto institutional racism in the Democrat Party, and the de-jure institutional racism of Israel (backed by mass murder), but has the chutzpah to pass judgement on Rand Paul for raising questions about how one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act conflicts with private property rights? Not only that, but she's getting away with her hypocrisy virtually unchallenged? The Statist masters of agitprop and public manipulation clearly have an increasingly totalitarian grip on the political dialogue in this country.
-----

Comment [from Liberty's Flame]: #1. To: Chris Moore (#0)

While there is no denying MSNBC's hypocrisy (note there are no people of color on air anchoring, or holding significant positions reporting) this type of 'defense' of Rand Paul does far more harm than good.

To be blunt, this is the only way Rand Paul WON'T WIN a landslide in November.

Screeching 'da joooooooos' sheesh....is this actually a defense of Paul or designed to get him put into the 'kook's kook' catagory held by his father?

Badeye
-----

#2. To: Badeye (#1)

"Screeching 'da joooooooos' sheesh....is this actually a defense of Paul or designed to get him put into the 'kook's kook' catagory held by his father?"

If it was that easy to defeat Paul and his ideas, Leftist and/or neocon operatives and agent provocateurs would have done it by now.

This is about the Jewish supremacist double standards of Statist liberalism (and its right-wing twin, neoconservatism).

The days of screeching "anti-Semitism" every time issues like this are raised are as anachronistic as accusing opponents of Barack Obama of being ipso-facto racists for opposing his agenda.

Welcome to the wild, wild West of the Internet. The politically correct MSM gatekeepers/censors are dying out. Don't bother trying to step into their shoes. It won't work.

-----
#3. To: Chris Moore (#2)
Get over yourself, newbie....(laughing).

I suggest you make such grand statements to somebody that hasn't been involved in internet political forums for the past decade. They might be impressed. I'm not.

The views stated above in your article are the only way Rand Paul loses in November. Its my hope he doesn't hold those views, because if he does he's going to be defined by his opposition as even more of a kook than his father.

I don't have any investment in him, beyond wanting that seat caucusing with the GOP to block this administration. That stated, if he comes out with the above LUNACY he deserves to lose, and I hope he does.

We saw enough of that shit in the last century.

Badeye
-----
#4. To: Badeye (#3)

"We saw enough of that shit in the last century."

Are you referring to Jewish Bolshevism, which murdered millions, or Nazism, its antithesis, which also murdered millions? Either way, libertarianism has nothing to do with either, unlike neoconservatism and Zionism.

Which of those do you subscribe to?

-----

Badeye: "This kind of crap hurts Rand Paul. If you don't see this, you aren't very astute politically. If you do see this, then you just don't want him to win the election come November."

Do I think the Rand Paul camp should go after the Statist liberals and neocons currently self-righteously attacking him over his supposed social racism when they themselves are tenacious supporters of the most vicious institutional racism both domestically and abroad with their unconditional support for Zionism? No, because most Americans aren't ready yet to divorce themselves from Jewish supremacism, so the issue can be easily demagogued (just like the racial issue, but even more so). Thus now isn't the time. But that doesn't mean others outside of the Rand Paul camp can't attack Statist liberals and neocons for their rank hypocrisy, undermine their self-righteous poses, and discredit their moral authority to pass judgment on anyone.

I’m not part of Rand Paul’s campaign; I’m just engaging in free speech -- which anti-American neocons and Statist liberals despise, hence their plans for “hate” laws, which pseudo-conservatives like the Bushcons will probably roll over for.

Would liberals dictate who private citizens must include in invitations to their homes under threat of legal sanction?

From:
Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

(Campaign For Libert) -- By Jacob Hornberger --

...This week, thanks to Rand Paul's win in the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, we are treated to another grand spectacle of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to race. The liberal community has gone into emotional hyper-drive over Paul's opposition to the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned racial discrimination by private businesses. The liberals are just shocked and outraged that anyone would honestly suggest that private businesses should be free to discriminate. And, of course, underlying all this is the suggestion that anyone who advocates such a position must be a secret bigot.

To examine into this latest instance of liberal hypocrisy on race, let's delve into a few basics.

Suppose a certain white homeowner in a community publicly announces that he is holding a weekly TGIF cocktail party at his home every Friday night. He publicly invites everyone who lives within a one-mile radius of his home to his parties, but with a big exception. He says: Blacks and Jews are not invited and will not be permitted into his home.

How would libertarians respond? We would say that that man has every right in the world to take that position. We might criticize him, we might condemn him, we might ignore him, we might boycott his parties. But we would defend his right to discriminate against anyone he wants, as a matter of principle. After all, we would argue, it's his home — his private property. To paraphrase Voltaire, we might not agree with how he uses his property, but we would defend his right to use it any way he wants. That's what private ownership and a free society are all about.

How would liberals respond to that hypothetical? They would take the same position as libertarians! They would say that a man's home is his castle and that he has the right to keep anyone he wants, even on racial grounds, from his home. They would defend the homeowner's fundamental right to associate with anyone he wants, even if his choices are abhorrent and offensive to everyone else. They would not call on amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply it to private homeowners.

What? Could this actually be possible? Could liberals actually be defending the right of a bigot to be a bigot in his own home? Wouldn't this make a liberal himself a bigot? After all, isn't that what liberals claim about people who call for the right of discrimination in private businesses — that their support of such a right makes them a closet or overt bigot?

Liberals would respond, "No, we're not bigots simply because we support the right of homeowners to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, the poor, and anyone else. We simply believe in the principle of private ownership of one's home and we're willing to defend that principle, even when homeowners make racist choices."

Well, then why don't liberals extend that reasoning to people who support the right of private business owners to discriminate? Why are they so quick to claim that they're not bigots when they stand on principle when it comes to the right of homeowners to discriminate but so quick to label libertarians who call for the same principle to be applied to business owners as racists and bigots?...MORE...LINK

American people-hating, affirmative-action supporting racists vs. race-neutral libertarians like Rand Paul

From:
Rand Paul and the Zombies

(The American Conservative Blog) -- by Thomas E. Woods Jr --

The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)

As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

I've long consider affirmative action policies, which themselves presume racism in whites, or sexism in men, or ageism in the young, themselves bigoted, because they generalized about the predispositions of racial, sexual and demographic classes, and then presume to write their "remedies" into law based on bigoted presumptions -- all enforceable at Statist gunpoint.

Thus, those who support blanket social engineering initiatives that target wide swaths of populations for "re-programming" by their betters at the point of a gun (not unlike the neocons and neoliberals seek to "remake" the Islamic Middle East according to their own definitions of how a society should be run, also at gunpoint) are the most bigoted people on earth.

And the reality is, zealots in favor as these kinds of programs seek to divide society for their own power-grabbing purposes. Unification and harmony is the very last goal they have in mind, because their own power flows from keeping the domestic populace agitated and divided in the same way that the Washington oligarchy's power flows from war-profiteering, oil imperialism, and Jewish supremacism by keeping Islamic militants constantly agitated and under the gun via U.S. foreign policy.

Why wouldn't most Americans discriminate against minorities if there wasn't a law? Because most Americans are good people, and because discrimination is bad business.

Those attacking Rand Paul believe the opposite.


-----

Friday, May 21, 2010

Frightened to death of real change, racial demagogue Left, corrupt neocon Right both jump Rand Paul not 24 hours after resounding libertarian victory

SA@TAC - Rand Paul Revolution
(You Tube) -- By southernavenger

When Rand Paul won the Kentucky Republican Primary for US Senate in a landslide, he was immediately attacked by both the Left and Right--and for the same reason...LINK

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

A model for victory? Rand Paul manages to unite both wings of Tea Party movement in runaway win

From:
Landslide Rand

(The American Spectator) -- By W. James Antle, III --

On Tuesday, the Tea Party movement scored its first major statewide victory over the Republican establishment. Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul trounced Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson by 59 percent to 35 percent, winning the GOP nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

Grayson was the handpicked candidate of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In a normal year, that might have assured him the nomination. Instead such ties became a liability, one Grayson exacerbated by demonstrating a sense of entitlement to a Senate seat last seen when Martha Coakley turned up her nose at shaking hands with voters outside Fenway Park.

Rand Paul tapped into the primary electorate's anger at Barack Obama, bipartisan bailouts of private industry, and the steady growth of the federal government. But the son of 11-term libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) won in large part because he knew when to follow in his father's footsteps and when to chart his own course.

"Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake?" conservative Christian broadcaster James Dobson asked. Dobson went on to say that he did when he initially endorsed Grayson. "Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent," Dobson said. "But now I've received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself."

Grayson tried to present Paul as a caricature of libertarianism. His campaign manager described Paul as a "pro-choice marijuana advocate." In fact, Paul was -- like his father -- more conservative on abortion, marriage, immigration, and other social issues. The younger Paul described himself as "100 percent pro-life" and even though he preferred to overturn Roe v. Wade through federal court jurisdiction stripping he pledged to support the mainstream pro-life movement on national legislation.

After misrepresenting Paul's views on social issues, few voters trusted Grayson when he shifted to foreign policy where he might have been on more solid ground. The Grayson campaign enlisted Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, and Rick Santorum, among other supporters of a neoconservative foreign policy. Yet their attacks did not move the polls -- and here Rand Paul did not completely follow his father's playbook.

Consider the question of whether 9/11 was blowback from American foreign policy. When the subject came up in the 2008 Republican presidential debates, Paul and Giuliani squared off. A day after the exchange, Paul triumphantly presented a reading list to educate the former New York City mayor on the theory that U.S. interventionism could make American less safe from terrorism. But he was perfunctory in addressing Giulani's direct charge: that the Texas congressman blamed America for the terrorist attacks.

When Rand Paul faced similar criticism, he wasted no time explaining blowback to Republican primary voters. Instead he energetically disassociated himself from "blame America first." He didn't distance himself from his father, who he noted lived near the Pentagon at the time of the 9/11 attacks. But he did strike a very different tone.

"We were attacked on 9/11 and fighting back was the right thing to do," the younger Paul said, looking straight into the television camera. "Trey Grayson, your shameful TV ad is a lie and it dishonors you." Rand continued to oppose the Iraq war, but emphasized he was "strong on defense," opposing civilian trials for terror detainees, and said he was not yet ready to pull out of Afghanistan or close Guantanamo Bay.

Paul united his father's national army of libertarian followers, who became his avid fundraising base, with a much larger group of rank-and-file conservatives who were ready for someone who would fight for limited government. It was a union of Ron Paul Republicans and Rush Limbaugh Republicans. In April, an exit poll taken at the Tea Party protest at the National Mall showed the demonstrators' favorite politicians were Sarah Palin and Ron Paul. Rand Paul, with his focus on the size of government, unified both wings of the Tea Party movement...MORE...LINK

Tea Party Rising: Corrupt establishment placeholders in both parties ejected; Rand Paul wins in a landslide

From:
Arlen Specter out, Rand Paul advances, Blanche Lincoln fights on
(Christian Science Monitor) -- By Linda Feldmann --

Washington
The defeat of Arlen Specter – Pennsylvania’s longest-serving senator in history – and the victory of “tea party”-backed Rand Paul in his Kentucky Senate primary Tuesday signal a restless electorate disinclined to follow the wishes of the Washington establishment of both parties.

In Pennsylvania, the storied political career of Senator Specter comes to an end despite the backing of the president and governor, the latest evidence that political coattails are a myth in this age of the independent political operator. Despite final polls showing a tight race, Specter lost to Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary 54 to 46 percent. Congressman Sestak will face former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania in November.

In Kentucky, novice politician Rand Paul – son of the libertarian former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas – decisively beat the GOP’s hand-picked candidate, state Secretary of State Trey Grayson, 59 to 35 percent. The Paul victory represents the largest win yet for the tea party movement, an antitax, small-government backlash that has energized conservatives across the country for more than a year. The Grayson defeat was also a defeat for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who had recruited Mr. Grayson to run. In November, Paul will face state Attorney General Jack Conway, who narrowly defeated the more conservative Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo in the Democratic primary...MORE...LINK

Monday, May 17, 2010

Never trust a Corporatist: Why is Murdoch's "conservative" Fox producing racist, anti-white film, and then trying to censor debate on its treachery?

Fox News Scrubs Article Criticizing Fox's Robert Rodriguez Film "Machete" As "Racist" & Declaring "War on Arizona"
(By TPM Reader Blog) --

This morning I watched an article that I thought was rather interesting on the Fox News site disappear like magic right before my eyes!

The article was dramatically titled:
Violent Movie Declares War on Arizona for Immigration Law
and it used to be here....

Looks like it was up for a good 21 hours before Fox thought better of it...

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to screenshot the original article, but I did notice the comments were leaning, in a big way, to the idea of boycotting Fox's Hollywood properties and stars. So does the fear-peddling stop when there's more money to be made?

Here's a taste:

"The racists who made that trailer, they are as racist as anything I have ever seen" from either side of the immigration debate, Tancredo said.

But, he added, "these guys are 'politically correct' racists, so you cannot heap indignities upon them."..

What's the matter Fox? Lost your outrage over this "racist" "cult" flick? You report, and your readers decide.

Well, at least until there is a corporate conflict of interest

...LINK
----------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Here's the scoop on the film referenced in this article, 'Machete'.

This all just goes to show that when it comes right down to it, supporters of international Corporatist-Statism like Fox and so many other multi-nationals couldn't care less about this country, or what happens to the people who live here (notwithstanding their contrived flag-waving, neocon "conservative" chest-thumping and opportunistic, situational "patriotism").

What kind of "patriots" undermine national sovereignty and incite racial violence for political and financial gain, anyway? That's right, the open-borders, globalization-pimping internationalist "elite" kind.

Wall Street Journal owner Rupert Murdoch, citizen of the world, can't be bothered by local-yokel rubes clamoring for policies so quaint as border control and preventing the price of labor from being artificially suppressed by wave after wave of illegal immigration. Why, such concerns are for the "little people," not masters of the universe like he and his money-worshipping, billionaire, jet-set oligarch cronies.

-----

Related: Rupert Murdoch, the world's #1 pimp

-----

Time running out for the bloodless and bullying transnational elite as their capital and credibility run dry [updated]

European Disunion
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

Among the mega-forces moving the tectonic plates and imperiling the nation-states of the world from above and below are these:

First, ethno-nationalism, which threatens nations with secession and break-up. We see it in the Uighurs of China, the Naga of India, the Baluch of Iran and Pakistan, the Kurds of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey, the Chechens of the Russian Caucasus and the Walloons of Belgium.

Second, transnationalism. This is the project of global elites who seek to reduce nations to ethno-cultural enclaves in a new world order run by these same bloodless bureaucrats whose loyalty is neither to the land nor people whence they came.

Their work in progress, the European Union, however, is imperiled.

For the EU just took a great leap forward to force Europe’s most indebted nations to surrender their economic independence or be expelled from the European Monetary Union. The PIGS — Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain — may rebel.

Indeed, we may see cascading rebellions across Europe recalling 1848, but with a different outcome.

What brought the EU to this day of reckoning is its decision to go for a trillion-dollar bailout of Greece, Portugal and Spain rather than let them default or restructure their debts. These nations are now being directed by the EU and International Monetary Fund to slash public spending and raise taxes, though all suffer from high unemployment, with Spain’s at 20 percent...

The plunging euro is a sure sign the markets are coming to see that the only way the bonds of indebted European nations are going to be paid off is with a huge infusion of euros, which may end that currency’s status as a reliable store of value.

However, “if the euro fails, it is not only the currency that fails,” says German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Then Europe fails. The idea of European unity fails.”

Especially enraged are the Germans. To show that they were good Europeans, they gave up their beloved mark. Now, in recent elections in North-Rhine Westphalia, the Christian Democratic Union of Merkel took a thrashing, falling 10 points below the CDU’s 2005 vote, and losing the upper chamber of the German parliament.

Germans may be ready to shed the sackcloth and ashes they have worn for 65 years and start looking out for Deutschland uber alles.

Given the strains on the European Monetary Union and EU, neither of which enjoys the love or loyalty that people render to the countries of their birth, the great unraveling may be about to begin. Why, after all, should the indebted nations of Europe impose suffering upon their peoples to pay off old debts now held by distant banks?

How does imposing austerity on Portugal, Spain and Greece enable them to grow their way out of indebtedness? How does it help the EU grow if a large slice of the union is forced into austerity?

And why should Germans who pay themselves modest pensions and hold off retirement put their savings at risk to bail out the Club Med?

Many have predicted that economic nationalism would one day tear apart the European Union. The hour may be at hand...MORE...LINK
------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The insane Marxist fantasy to displace Christianity with a trans-national Statist bureaucracy that tweaks, manipulates, engineers and coerces the various ethnicities from above, run by what Buchanan calls a “bloodless” elite (and a soulless one too, I might add), always was destined for history's scrap heap. Why? Because it either has to bully loyalty, as the totalitarian Soviet Union attempted to do before collapsing, or buy it, as the EU and Washington are trying to do on their way to collapse. But when the money runs out, the Christian folk (many of whom have been playing possum) and the common folk are going to spit in the face of those who presume to be their betters -- and rightfully so.

One can’t bully or buy loyalty, it has to be earned. And the genuine dedication to a people that it takes to earn loyalty can’t be taught or faked, it has to be from the heart -- another component these bloodless and soulless bureaucratic elite lack.

Detached alien sociopaths (which is what these types end up devolving into) hardly inspire affection.

-----
UPDATED
@ TomB [in article comments]: "Isn’t it just a little bit odd to be championing *European* ethno-nationalism at least given that it might be accused of being the tinder behind both World War I and World War II?...Moreover, isn’t it similarly odd to be bashing the EU at this point and celebrating still ethno-nationalistic Greece when it seems to be the latter that has conducted itself in an economically crazed fashion?"

Fear of mass-murderous, highly-centralized, Marxist Communism and its agents attempting to spread their black art of fiat politics throughout Europe played by far the largest role of any in bringing about World War II.

Greece’s problems originate with a variation of fiat politics — fiat money, which is used to orient any given society towards fiat politics by purchasing (taking ownership) of the people through a kind of leveraged buyout secured by their own productive capacity as the collateral, with an eye on ultimate enslavement.

Greece has been economically selfish and irresponsible, to be sure. But it's merely abusing a system designed and engineered by a bloodless, soulless trans-national elite that sought to enslave the Greeks and the rest of Europe to begin with.

Lefties and Big Government Statist authoritarians always screech that resistance to their elaborate, power-mad, centralizing swindles will result in harrowing consequences. Yet it’s their own evil designs that should be feared the most, as tens of millions of victims of Communism would be able to testify if they hadn’t been murdered by the centralized State.

-----
UPDATE
@ Philip Giraldi [in article comments]: "Am I sorry for [Greeks] because they are being “forced” to cut back if they want to stay part of the Eurozone? Hell no. Joining the Eurozone was voluntary and obliged the members to maintain economic stability. When you run up debts you have to pay them, eventually. I wish I had a job that paid me without me having to show up or a job that pays 14 months for every twelve worked. I wish I could retire at age 50 on a full pension, have complete medical care, free college education for my kids. Lots of stuff that their politicians knew damn well they couldn’t afford."

The Greek situation is no different than any other corrupt fiat system. The Left uses Keynesian economics, the welfare state, patronage, government unions, State-Corporatism (think the Fed and Goldman Sachs) etc. to essentially buy votes, power and support. It does this knowing full well that the masses will eventually have to pay the bills, but it and its cronies get rich and powerful in the process, and then use their power and wealth to insulate themselves from the fallout — financially, and sometimes politically, too — which is essentially a process of flouting democracy. It justifies itself politically by saying those who oppose its vast (self-serving) leviathan state are heartless.

The Right sees the game, thinks it can’t compete without adopting a similar M.O., and so begins playing the same game itself.

It’s the entire fiat system, which requires corrupt trans-national governments (or in the case of Washington, a corrupt Congress, a corrupt two party system, and a powerful and corrupt executive branch) that all agree to look the other way, pretend that they’re not mortgaging the future to pay for the free-spending present, to make the juggernaut work.

Giraldi says the Greeks have been particularly egregious in abusing the system. Well, so have the Californians. But in all cases, the only reason the corrupt system is possible is because the Left goes around telling everybody there IS such a thing as a free lunch, it and its cronies plunder and leverage to the hilt what were once sound economies to, for a time make it possible (again, think the Fed and Goldman Sachs), but when the bottom starts falling out, suddenly all those corrupt parties that all got together in a trans-national cabal and all agreed to play by a corrupt set of rules pretend to be shocked, shocked! by Greece’s dereliction of duty.

Greece only went first where all of the others were (and are) headed anyway. It’s a vast, corrupt, entrenched, centralized, and self-serving fiat system based on soulless, nihilistic Marxist free lunch doctrine that lives for today because God is dead and tomorrow doesn’t matter.

I think that’s what Buchan means when he talks about “bloodless” elites — those so aloof and removed from the People, who have formed a kind of elitist, internationalist, stateless clique, that they just don’t give a damn about the People’s future.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Unlike corrupt political class, large majority of Americans (and half of Dems) broadly support new Arizona immigration law enforcement provisions

Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law
Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions
(By The Pew Research Center) --

The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

After being asked about the law’s provisions, 59% say that, considering everything, they approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law while 32% disapprove.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 6-9 among 994 adults, finds that Democrats are evenly split over Arizona’s new immigration law: 45% approve of the law and 46% disapprove. However, majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%).

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the law and three provisions tested. Similarly, among independents there is little difference in opinions of the new Arizona law (64% approve) and its elements, which are viewed positively...MORE...LINK

Lieberman's citizenship-stripping Bill that targets Muslims will eventually be used against Left-Right dissidents as well

Joe Lieberman's Fascist agenda to strip Americans of their Constitutional Rights
(Nonpartisan Examiner) -- by Robert Stark --

Senator Joe Lieberman is sponsoring a Bill with Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown called the "Terrorist Expatriation Act" that would strip terrorist suspects on their citizenship. The bill applies to any American that supports a foreign terrorist organization or any organization that is deemed a supporter of terrorism by an ally of the United States. The bill gives the State Department the power to determine who is a terrorist and strip away their citizenship.

Lieberman introduced the Bill stating "The State Department will make an administrative determination… the State Department will now have the authority to revoke their citizenship… they will not enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship in the legal proceedings against them…. he could then be tried by military commission as the Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent that he is."

Even though Lieberman claims the Bill is to target Americans who have joined Islamic Terrorist Organizations such as Al Qaeda, it has implications affecting many American political dissidents not just those who one would usually think of as terrorist. Hypothetical scenario's that the bill might apply to are Americans such as former Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney who are helping out Palestinians in Gaza with food and medical aid. Since Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization and Israel is considered as ally by the US Government.

Another scenario is American Patriots who are helping out the Afrikaner Resistance Movement which is secessionist movement in South Africa. Lets say the ANC Government in South Africa declares the movement a terrorist organization and the US state department decides to go after Americans who are helping the organization...MORE...LINK