Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

It won't be long until most television series have their season finales. By the end of May, most of you will suddenly find some free time on your hands.

With that free time, consider reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, by Robert P. Murphy.

I did my best to spread the word, Bob, but the truth is that my mom isn't likely to pick it up and BAR will probably just borrow my own copy.

Then again, maybe Golf Guy will emerge from the abyss, and Surrealist is more than likely to take up the challenge.

That's about it for my regular readers. There used to be this guy who called himself "Howling Mad" Murdock, but he spends most of his time now stuffing his face with fish sticks. Man, he loves fish sticks. Actually, he's not all that discriminating. He loves stuffing his face with sticks from any and all species.

Obama v. Pirates

Obama struggles to deal with the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia. He is reluctant to use force.

That's irony, considering his domestic policies involve the threat of force against any who decline to submit to his tyranny.

So Obama will aim guns at Rick Wagoner and force him to step down (yes, any dictation from the federal government means the involvement of guns--just think about it: that's why we follow their BS), but Obama will step back and wait for the pirates in Somalia to make their next move.

That's leadership?

At least Lincoln didn't hesitate to kill several hundred-thousand opponents. He was a tyrant, yes, but he was a tyrant with a sack, at least.

Just look at the recent ado over North Korea. Obama said that North Korea had better not launch that rocket.

North Korea launched that rocket.

Obama did nothing.

This guy has all of his guns aimed at American taxpayers, and none of the guns are aimed at Americans' enemies.

When we hoped for a change from G. W. Bush, I doubt that this is what people expected. However, they should have remembered Aesop's fable about the frogs who wished for a king.

TSA--KSA--KSB--KGB

I received this email from the Campaign for Liberty

April 6, 2009


Dear Friend of Liberty,

Campaign for Liberty’s very own Steve Bierfeldt has become an unexpected Internet sensation -- and the latest target of over-reaching federal government agents.

You see, Steve was detained by Airport Police and TSA officials shortly after the Campaign for Liberty regional conference in St. Louis.

The officials rudely berated and harassed Steve for 30 minutes in a secluded room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Fortunately, Steve was able to record nearly all of the interrogation with his cell phone.

Steve’s alleged “crime”? Carrying $4,700 in checks and cash from Campaign for Liberty, along with various other materials from our conference.

The local and Federal agents harassed Steve. They were belligerent, cursing and using insulting language. They threatened to turn Steve over to the DEA and the FBI, all the while refusing to inform him of his legal rights or explain how cash and checks threatened airplane or airport security.

Throughout the interrogation, Steve remained polite but resolute and declined to answer the invasive questions without an adequate explanation from these federal and local agents as to why they needed to be answered. Without telling Steve what law he was accused of breaking, they continued their harassment.

Although they grew increasingly frustrated that he remained committed to exercising his rights, intervention from another officer eventually led the police to reluctantly release Steve.

Last Wednesday, Steve appeared on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch to discuss the flagrant violation of his rights and to promote the importance of each of us defending our civil liberties.

Now, Steve’s appearance on Freedom Watch – which features several minutes of the audio tape – has gone viral.

Click here to watch the segment, which has become one of the most viewed videos on YouTube.

Steve’s ordeal is a reminder to all patriots that liberty is constantly under fire, and we must remain vigilant and prepared to stand up for our rights.

The real question is how a man carrying a few thousand dollars in cash is a threat to airline safety.

24--A Change? Naw

It is plausible that Jack Bauer dies, and Tony Almeda carries the show.

Plausible, but not likely.

Jack Bauer is irreplaceable. He's the epitome of the good-government-agent myth.

Hell, I'll say it. Bauer is awesome.

Someone will get Jack's (hot) daughter in, and her stem-cells will make Michael J. Fox proud by doing the job and jumping the shark--er, saving Jack Bauer...

Talk the Talk, but No Walk the Walk

The United States said to North Korea, "You'd better not launch that rocket!" (at least in words of the same spirit).

Japan said to North Korea, "We will shoot down any rockets that fly over Japanese territory."

Well, North Korea launched the rocket, and it flew over Japanese territory.

The United States's response? "You are very bad, North Korea. Shame on you."

Did Japan shoot down the rocket? No.

So what did North Korea learn from all of this?

It learned that the U.S. and Japan are full of hot air.

Man, for the days of George W. Bush! Had he been president, we would have shot down that rocket and invaded Uruguay.

A Swiftly Cooling Climate?

Every time the weather is unseasonable warm, some dimwit shows up beside me to comment on how obviously the climate is warming, and we need to work together as one people to fix it.

However, when it's unseasonably cold, I'm considered daft if I comment on how obviously the climate must be cooling, and we need to work together as one people to fix it.

I say this because they are forecasting up to six inches of snow for tonight and tomorrow.

Let me make this clear. I do not advocate violence now. But, contrary to what some of my friends say, there is a time and place for violence.

If ever we are faced with the situation presently playing out in Venezuela, then I am of the persuasion who are unwilling to take it.

I'm not saying that it will happen, but I'm warning that history shows that it could happen.

And if it does happen, then we should not sit idly by and allow us to be abused. There comes a time when we must stand up and say, "No more!"

That time is not yet, but it's not impossible.

Death to those who would deprive others of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sic semper tyrannis.

For Those in Times of Trouble

The video is not high-quality, but the songs lyrics come through.

Retards of the World Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Bicycle Helmets!

The push is on to abolish the term "retard." To those with mental disabilities, it is apparently hurtful.

To retard something is to slow it down (e.g. this medication will retard your heart rate).

It's a good word, and versions of it are used every day in schools. Late students are tardy (which brings the question: if they are tardy a second time, are they re-tardy?)

Seriously, what is so hurtful about this? Mentally disabled people are, as the term "retarded" suggests, "slow." If "retarded" is hurtful, then so should be the term "mentally disabled."

I'll grant you that "retarded" is a common pejorative for people who do stupid things or for people who are just plain stupid.

So shouldn't any term that identifies a person as mentally impaired be "hurtful" to those who are medically retarded?

Suppose a guy cuts me off of the highway, and I yell that he's an idiot.

An idiot is someone who either doesn't think, doesn't think properly, or who thinks not quite enough.

A retarded person is the same thing. His mental disability prevents him from thinking well.

What's the difference?

The answer is that there is no real difference. This is just another example of Americans seeking the heroic glory of victimhood. In this country, we hate our business leaders, but we love our victims.

This whole move to abolish the word--it's retarded.

Don't play games with words. If people suddenly start using the term "retarded" to describe a silly or stupid thing, this will not make those with mental disabilities suddenly more cognitive.

This is much the same as the movement to end the use of the N-bomb (i.e. nig*er). As if the word itself was the cause of racism. In fact, the word is a variation of the Spanish word negra, which means nothing more than "black." In German, the word is negerin.

It's just a word. The current preference is "African-Americans;" but what if a black/colored man is an Australian Aborigine? He's not African. What about Egyptians? They live in Africa, but we don't refer to them as "African-Americans."

Sure, I don't use the N-bomb because of its hostile connotation, but, if suddenly no one knew the meaning of the word, racism would still exist.

Similarly, if nobody used the word retard or retarded, it's not as if we wouldn't notice that some people are cognitively impaired.

Let's put this into perspective.

In American history, the term "secessionist" has been made connotative to treasonist.

Since I think that the South should have been allowed to secede, I take offense to the connotation of "secessionist."

Does this make Southerners of the time any less secessionist? No, it doesn't; so it's a stupid argument.

Mark's Thoughts On John Wilkes Booth

Sometimes my son Mark takes things in the strangest ways. To him, everything is black and white, good or evil.

Mark (age 5): "Dad? Is Barack Obama the worst president ever?"

Aristos (age 32): "That's hard to say. He's on the right track, but he hasn't killed anyone like Lincoln did."

Mark: "Lincoln killed people?"

Aristos: "Well, technically he didn't kill anyone personally, but he abused his powers to see that hundreds of thousands who disagreed with him died."

Mark: "Geez, why didn't anyone kill Lincoln?"

Aristos: "Actually, somebody did kill Lincoln. An actor named John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the back of the head."

Mark: "Well then that makes John Wilkes Booth a hero, like Spiderman."

Aristos: "Not really."

Mark: "Oh yeah! Spiderman kills bad guys who try to hurt other people, and he's a hero. So if John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, then he's a hero because Lincoln hurt other people!"

Aristos: "No, Mark, you're missing the big picture."

Mark: "Are you going to start explaining things to me now like the other times? Because if you are, then I'm just going to go to my room and play my playstation."


About ten minutes later.

Mark: "Dad?"

Aristos: "I thought that you were playing Playstation."

Mark: "I was. I was playing Spiderman, and I was killing lots of bad guys."

Aristos: "That's not the same as shooting the president in the back of the head."

Mark: "That's not what I'm talking about. I wanted to know if maybe John Wilkes Booth thought that he was in a movie when he shot Lincoln."

Aristos: "What?"

Mark: "You said that John Wilkes Booth was an actor, so maybe he just thought that he was pretending to shoot the president for a good movie about a hero who kills bad guys, but the gun was real and it killed Lincoln. So maybe he shouldn't go to jail because it was just an accident."


I desperately want to know what goes through this kid's head as he reasons things out. He has his peculiar way of thinking, but there is an elegance (however flawed) to it that goes well beyond his age.

I'm Just Plain Pissed/Depressed

As the United States government betrayed treaties and encroached upon American Indians' lands, I imagine that the Indians on the periphery must have thought something like, "The end is near."

Of course I just finished reading several articles about how Obama plans to "save" the economy with socialism.

Socialism as the solution? That's like medicine going back to bloodletting.

Will the government subsidize the up-and-coming leach industry?

This government does not represent me. I did not vote for it, and I do not accept it. I pay taxes to it only because it threatens me with violence if I resist, and my negligible arsenal of shotguns, rifles, and one pistol--all for hunting--will not protect me.

I live in a tyranny.

Obamanomics=Ridiculous

Obama and others who have no mind at all for business have questioned why the Big 3 focused, for the past 15 years or so, on the manufacturing of SUV's.

Any half-wit who's studied economics for one day will tell you that they built SUV's because people were demanding and buying SUV's.

The kind of crap that Obama wants us to buy needs tax incentives to encourage people to buy them.

Well, if it's so great to buy electric cars and that kind of shizzle, then why do you have to offer an incentive?

Great Article From Bob

Bob wrote this article for the Daily Reckoning, which I discovered from his blog, Free Advice.

It makes me think of an old George Strait song:

Give me a bottle of your very best
'Cause I've got a problem I'm gonna drink off my chest.

The biggest problem is that, if Bob's right, then the best that I'll be able to afford is Five O'Clock Vodka. Like many bad products, it sells itself by promising great quality for a great price, but it really just gives me a massive hangover.

A Dumb Thought (That I Had)

I'm so jazzed about the upcoming Rock Band: Beatles game that is scheduled for release on 09/09/09. It might be enough to get Bob to pick up an XBox 360 so that we can jam to the Fab Four's best (after all, he was the one who got me to buy my first copy of the White Album).

That said, I had a rather absurd thought today.

I was in the Men's Room, just finishing a little after-too-many-fluids chore, when I thought to myself:

How awful would it be if something happened to me, and I died before the Beatles's game comes out?

Sure, that's the real tragedy, Aristos. You died in your early thirties and left behind a wife and three kids. But that kind of crap is old hat--happens every day. But to die before being able to press buttons in synch with Paul's bass on "We Can Work It Out," now that's a freaking catastrophe!

If I Can Dream

I can see Obama trying to hijack this song and suggesting that its message echos his agenda.

Ironically, I listen to this song for comfort from Obama's agenda.

I dream of an America without pandering socialists and closet fascists.

Maybe one day my dream will come true. If it does, then I promise you all that I will not support a bailout of the idiot industry (i.e. Congress).

This is Elvis at the peak of his abilities. Note the control, the pitch, the raw power. It's from his 1968 Comeback Special--one of the highest rated airings in television history.

Try to forgive the senseless 20 seconds of nothing before it gets underway.

Drugs Are Bad, but the Drug War is Worse

The New York Times suggests that Obama's next foreign policy crisis is with Mexico.

It looks, to me, as if the whole issue hinges upon the Drug War.

So end the drug war, and end the crisis. This would save money and lives at home and abroad.

Drugs are bad. They can harm drug users. The Drug War, however, is worse because it leads to violence that harms non-drug users.

Besides, those who want to use drugs do so regardless of the law. They will harm themselves no matter what.

But making drugs illegal invites gangs and cartels to control the industry, and they cause violence that leads to extreme collateral damage.

We can't get rid of drugs, but we can get rid of the Drug War.

Hell, Obama, that's so freaking logical that I deserve a position in your cabinet.

The best part? I've paid my taxes.

The End Is Near!

Has anyone else noticed that as money-to-spare becomes more scarce for more people, the environmentalists have upped their "fear factor"?

The latest studies say that global warming is proceeding faster than previously thought.

That's an interesting assertion, since it comes at the exact time that people can't afford all of this "green" crap (e.g. light bulbs that say that they produce as much light with less energy but really produce just less light for more money).

This increase of urgency is merely the last stand of those who knew that they had nothing upon which to stand in the first place.



Tomorrow, I'm going to buy an incandescent light bulb that gives off sixty watts because it burns at sixty watts.

Al Gore can burn in Hell. If not now, then I'll settle for later.

Voting

My greatest worry in this post will be coming off as offensive. I am often condescending towards others, but this time it's less about drama/hyperbole and more about being reasonable.

In my previous post, I suggested that there is something wrong with allowing mentally impaired people the right to vote. I did not give much reason behind it because I thought that the logic behind said position was fairly concrete.

However, my dear friend "Howling Mad" Murdock commented

How about 'All men are created equal'?
Equal representation? The constitution?

First, let me deal with "All men are created equal."

Of course the mentally impaired have an equal right to life.

However, they depending upon the level of their impairments, they do not necessarily enjoy liberty--some may need full time care that comes with restrictions--or property.

Some people are so impaired that they can be declared non compos mentis (i.e. "not of sound mind"). Such cases would permit caregivers from restricting where their patients can go and what they can do (e.g. You wouldn't allow them to drive a car--even if they could pass the licensing exam--, handle knives, walk to the park alone, etc.).

Similarly, some might be so unimpaired that they cannot legally sign a contract, so out with the right to own property such as a car or a home.

Remember that the quote is "All men are created equal," and not "All men are created equally."

As to Murdock's second point: "Equal representation."

I'm not sure what he means by this. Is he suggesting that there should be members of the House and Senate who have Down Syndrome? Or is he alluding to that old, "One man, one vote" thing?

This is somewhat to my point: not every man (or woman) should be voting. Certainly no one whose primary source of income is the government, and persons with DS and other impairments are considered disabled and receive benefits from Social Security.

The cost of entitlements should be disenfranchisement. This will ultimately curb what Bastiat called "legal plunder." We need to reform (or do away completely with) Social Security, but any candidate who even makes the suggestion dooms himself to failure because the elderly--who reap most of Social Security's benefits--vote en bloc to protect their grasp on your and my wallet.

Let's just consider that mentally impaired people are simply not that bright. Their education and reasoning are limited. There was once a time when white men assumed that white women (who were denied most educational and professional opportunities) and minorities (especially Black-Americans, Indians, and Chinese) were similarly limited. This was the primary reason for keeping them from the polls.

However, it is now abundantly clear that race and gender do not render a person mentally impaired.

However, people who are impaired enough to be labled "disabled" and receive money from the government for their support are not competent to vote.

I've heard it said how tragic or pathetic it is that so few Americans actually vote.

I hold that it is tragic how many Americans vote, for many--if not most--of them shouldn't.

I have the gall to make such an assertion because I see voting as casting a lot in favor of committing (or at least threatening) violence to those in opposition, and should, therefore, not be taken lightly by some ignoramus whose entire source of insight into the candidates and issues is the media, be it Fox News or MSNBC.

Think about it.

Government's exist and carry out their policies because they can legally deprive people of their lives (cops kill people; capital punishment), liberties (prisons; tethers; don't leave the state), and properties (fines; confiscations). Why else do you pull over when the cop hits the lights? Why else do you pay your taxes? Normally, if some guy in a suit told me to pay up or else, I'd tell him to kiss my butt. But an IRS agent in a suit has the backing of men with guns, big guns, guns bigger and better than I am (conveniently--for the Feds) allowed to own. If I tell that thug in a suit to kiss my butt, then he sends his goons after me and my property. What happens if I try to defend myself and my property? I end up injured and in prison or just plain dead.

That said, voting should never be taken lightly. If it's to be considered a "right," then proper education and ability should be considered a responsibility; and those unable to acquire an education or maintain said ability should not vote.

Of course, Murdock is correct about the Constitution. According to the 15th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Since the 26th Amendment, any citizen over the age of 18 can vote. This means that, constitutionally, a mentally impaired person can vote.

My objection was that although such people currently can vote, they still should not vote.

I decline to accept that when the 15th and 26th Amendments were ratified, it was so that people who cannot sufficiently think for themselves could vote. The 15th Amendment was enacted so that African-American men in the South could vote for Republicans who had no other source of support in that region (savor the irony). The 26th Amendment was ratified in order to justify sending 18 year-old boys to kill and die in Vietnam (if you're going to force/draft young men to fight, then they should be able to vote for those who send them).


What we have is a complicated situation. We might abolish government completely, which would render moot the question of who should vote; or we might set certain but specific criterion to ascertain who should be allowed to vote and who should not be allowed.

The danger of the latter is that the state will almost certainly stack the cards in its failure. The danger of the previous is that we try what hasn't been tried before.

Let's talk about real change. That's right, Mr. Obama. I'm not just talking about less government (though you are talking about vastly more goverment).

What if government itself was the cause of so many of our woes?

Governments wage war.

Governments who interfere with the economy cause, in the very least, the business cycle. In the very worst, government causes famine (see the consequences of Stalin's and Mao's policies).

If the Constitution allows people reasonably declared as mentally impaired to vote, then the Constitution needs to be amended. This statement isn't very revolutionary. In fact, it makes sense. For nearly 100 years, the Constitution not only allowed but protected slavery. The 13th Amendment ended slavery. Now it's time for the 28th Amendment.

Daniel v. Barack

On the Tonight Show, Obama made a joke at the expense of Americans with physical and mental disabilities (his bread and butter, come election year if you ask me--oops, I just did it too!).

Here's the exchange.

LENO: Now, are they going to put a basketball -- I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. I have been practicing all -- (laughter.)

LENO: Really? Really?

THE PRESIDENT: I bowled a 129. (Laughter and applause.)

LENO: No, that's very good. Yes. That's very good, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something. (Laughter.)

LENO: No, that's very good.

THE PRESIDENT: No, listen, I'm making progress on the bowling, yes.

While many are complaining that it was insensitive, almost everyone seems to be letting Obama off the hook in a way that they would not have dared had the words come from Bush or even Vice-President Biden.

According to the Associated Press:
"Maria Shriver says President Barack Obama's joke comparing his poor bowling score to that of a Special Olympics athlete was hurtful, although she is sure he didn't mean it that way."

Has anyone noticed yet? Look at him, Thomas.

See his hands? No holes.

See his feet? No holes.

See his side? No hole.



I'll tell you what the real insult is.

It's suggesting that Obama's game was at Special Olympics standards, when this article clearly demonstrates that even Special Olympians bowl better.

And I suppose that it was inevitable, so here it comes.

A man with down syndrome has challenged the president to a bowling match!

Go Daniel!

AIG and Congress

I'm quite certain that I'm not the first person to voice this opinion, but I don't read extensively in the blogosphere. Therefore, I will proceed.

I understand why people are upset to learn of AIG's plan to give over $165 million in bonuses to certain executives. However, Congress unjustly hassled AIG's CEO, Edward Liddy, for these bonuses. Several congressmen have demanded Liddy hand in his resignation.

First of all, Liddy did not design nor approve these bonuses. They were established by contract before he became CEO. Perhaps congressmen need to learn what a contract means. Liddy hasn't the power to nullify the contracts, so giving him grief over what he didn't create and cannot end amounts to ridiculous grandstanding.

Secondly, Liddy has no reason--as far as I can see--to resign. He did not lead the company into the abyss. He became CEO after AIG fell apart. He's clearly not to blame.

Thirdly, Liddy's salary is $1; even though he doesn't own the company.

According to congress, this $1 salary is, converted into hours, well below the minimum wage.

But fine, Liddy has other benefits.

And to my point.

Congress has done jack-shit for years. Its members don't deserve a salary beyond what CEO's make. So, before the next SOB who managed to get elected on the basis of his BS rips on a man making a $1 salary, let Congress vote to reduce their own salaries to $1. Like Liddy, they'll still receive residual benefits.

But Congress won't do this, and why not? Because they are a bunch of hypocritical, grandstanding, POS POSes.

Somehow, these people in Congress think that they have done something to earn their wages.

In fact, they've done nothing more than to earn our contempt.

But the mass of men are too stupid to make this clear.

Alas.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
--T.S. Eliot

Just a Rant

Kiefer Sutherland is to modern drama what John Wayne was to our grandparents.

The sad truth is that no man such as Jack Bauer or Rooster Cogburn has ever existed (at least as an employee of the state).

Seriously, I love watching 24, but it doesn't escape me that this guy was trained by and works for the same government that engineered the actions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Sure, you might argue that these operations had merit (and you might also argue on weak ground--except for, perhaps, Afghanistan), but clearly there are no Bauers on this country's payroll.

However, there are plenty of Obama's--men who spent nary a moment in defense of the constitution, but instead have plans to render it more worthless than double-ply Charmin (try wiping your butt with the Constitution, and you'll know what I mean).

Or you can just ask President Obama what it feels like, for he's been wiping his butt with the Constitution since he took office.

When will we realize that, if we truly adore the founding fathers, this government that we have is the very kind which they declared independence from and fought against?

The answer, of course, is probably never. While we enjoy much more technology than the people of the late 18th century, we are--beyond a doubt--far dumber.

We neither know the function of a constitution, nor do we appreciate the function. If I were not a part of the masses beneath the federal monstrosity, I would say that the people deserve what they've wrought.


I love America and all that it is supposed to represent; however, I feel like the parent of a meth-addicted child. I still love it/him/her, but I know that its future is down the drain.

Do you wish to know the definition of a co-dependent? It's those of you who continue to vote for republicans or democrats.

Don't you see that these are the very people who have led us to this?

And yet those of us who support "third parties" are ridiculed for being unrealistic and absurd.

Well, you have your reality. How absurd is it that you approve of it?

Anything You Want, You've Got It

Perhaps if Congress wasn't in the business of "bailing out" companies who made bad investments, AIG wouldn't have acted so unwisely.

Just watch. Now that the public has paid for Octomom (just look at where her money came from--interviews and such because you would watch) to have a nice big home with full-time care for her superfluous household, we're destined to have more Octomoms.

You get what you pay for.

Pay for an unemployed woman to have more children? You've got it.

Pay for a company that foolishly invests its assets in bad deals? You've got it.

A bad economy? You've got it.

I Love My Kids

For most of us, it will be our children who determine our ultimate place in the hierarchy of humanity.

Given this, I feel assured that I have made my mark.

One of the coolest things about being a parent is when you see one of your kids and its as if you're looking at yourself.

One of the strangest things about being a parent is when you have multiple children and each one shows a different shade of yourself.

That Damn Lincoln Myth (again)

When opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Lincoln spoke rightly of slavery--calling it despotism because it violated the doctrine of self-government (having slaves beholden to owners):

"If the Negro is a man,why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

He continues with "What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent."

Lincoln next invokes the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."

He explains,

"I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is, pro tanto, a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself."

This all sounds well and good. In fact, I agree with the man. However, notice this curious excerpt that directly follows the above two quotes:

"Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary."

I ask this:

If, Mr. Lincoln, your "ancient faith" dictates that all men are created equal, then what must I make of your statement that you oppose "the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks"?

The answer, of course, is that Lincoln was full of crap--and the above contradiction reeks of it.

Here's the real reason, in Lincoln's own words, why slavery should be barred from the territories:

"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. "

Basically, only white people should live in the territories. I suppose because they are, as Orwell imagined in Animal Farm, "more equal" than non-whites.

In his adult life, Lincoln was from Illinois, a free-state--due to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. However, not having slavery--even disliking slavery--does not make a people civil-rights minded.

Here's an example of racism in a free-state (the kind of racism that resolves Lincoln's previous contradiction):

"Legislators in the first General Assembly passed measures designed to discourage African-Americans from coming to Illinois. Blacks were denied suffrage, and other laws deprived them of most rights accorded free white men. African-Americans were prohibited from immigrating without a certificate of freedom. Moreover, they had to register that certificate, along with the certificates of any children, immediately upon entering the state. Among other things, the state legislature intended to discourage Illinois from becoming a haven for runaway slaves. Any runaway found in the state could be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty-five lashes. African-Americans assembling in groups of three or more could be jailed and flogged. Additionally, they could not testify in court nor serve in the militia.

"The state's newspapers were filled with advertisements from neighboring states offering rewards for the capture and return of runaway slaves. John Crain, sheriff of Washington County, advertised that he had taken two runaway slaves into custody. Unless their owners called for them, paid the charges and removed them from the state, they "will be hired out as the law directs." Slave hunters such as William Rose of Nashville, Tennessee, advertised their services as agents to find runaways in Illinois.

"Not only did Illinois newspapers carry advertisements for runaways, the state attempted to further discourage black immigration by raising new barriers. The 1829 law required any free black to register in the county seat and post a $1,000 bond to cover costs should they become indigent or violate state or local laws. Since few black men or women had such sums available, they usually had to find a friendly white man to act as surety for them. At the same time, blacks also had to register their certificates of freedom from the state from which they immigrated."

The problem was that free blacks kept moving into Illinois:

"Still, pressure continued to mount to do more to maintain Illinois as a "white man's state." One way to do that, believed some, was to promote the colonization of blacks in the Caribbean or in Liberia. The state had an active colonization society that included such luminaries as Stephen A. Douglas, John Mason Peck, and others."

Who else might be listed among the "others"? None other than Mr. Five Dollar Bill, Abraham Lincoln.

That's right. He believed so much in the equality of blacks that he was a member of an organization that wanted to ship all free blacks "back" to Africa--even though the majority of black Americans at the time had been born in the United States.

In 1847, Illinois even re-wrote their constitution to "prohibit the emigration of free African-Americans into the state."

A few years later,

"the General Assembly adopted the draconian "Black Law" of 1853. For the most part, the law simply brought together in one place several existing laws. Under this law, no black from another state could remain within the Illinois borders for more than ten days. Beyond ten days and he or she was subject to arrest, confinement in jail, and a $50 fine and removal from the state. If unable to pay the fine, the law directed the sheriff to auction the offending African-American to the bidder willing to pay the costs and the tine and to work the "guilty" party the fewest number of days. If the convicted man or woman did not leave within ten days after completing the required service, the process resumed, but the fine was increased $50 for each additional infraction."

But surely this attitude must have changed sometime before the Civil War?

"The Illinois Black Laws continued in force until the end of the Civil War. Indeed, in the midst of the Civil War, Illinois held a constitutional convention and a new constitution was submitted to the people of the state for ratification. One of the most remarkable features of that document were three provisions that wrote the Black Laws into the proposed constitution. Although Illinois voters rejected the constitution, they overwhelmingly approved the anti-black provisions."



So what's with Lincoln's reputation for being The Great Emancipator?

Mostly, it's the mythology established firmly by the sympathy that surrounded his death. It also helped that, as the country realized that racism is not only absurd but evil, the "Lincoln freed the slaves" / "Lincoln cared about civil rights" myth made most people feel all warm and cozy.

How warm and cozy would the truth be? Try this:

Abraham Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he wanted only white men in the territories (this is by his own words), but also because he knew that slave states would oppose his whig/republican agenda, which included high, protective tariffs, a powerful national bank, and federal funding of "internal improvements" (e.g. the "earmarks" that make up so much of today's stimulus package).

Lincoln said time after time that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states, that he only wanted to prevent it from spreading.

He would not have said such things if he truly opposed slavery for moral reasons. Instead, his reasons were racist and political.

Slavery in a state means black people in a state. Lincoln was from Illinois, and Illinois clearly didn't want black people around.

Slavery in a state means that the state will take up the political and economic ideology of the southern states, which would make passing protective tariffs, managing a national bank, and funding internal improvements difficult.

The Republican Party (Lincoln's party) had five main planks:

No slavery in the territories.
High protective tariffs.
A powerful national bank.
Federal funding of state projects (i.e. "internal improvements")
A "Homestead Act" to make it easier for poor whites to settle the western territories.



Still think that Lincoln was a civil rights icon?

With the exception of his assassination, the Civil War was a blessing for Lincoln. It led to the South being itself enslaved to the North. Republicans got their tariffs, their banking scheme, their "internal improvements", their Homestead Act.

Yes, Lincoln and the Republican Party were responsible for the end of slavery, but for all the wrong reasons.

Insanity

"Congress may need to fund another stimulus, Pelosi says" reads the headline.

Why? Because the other ones haven't worked.

Of course, the other likely answer is that congressional spending packages do not rescue an economy.

As Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Pelosi: "Sure that stimulus didn't work that time or that other time, but it is sure to work this time..."

Gee, shooting that guy in the chest three times with a shotgun did not bring him out of cardiac arrest...

It may be that we need to shoot him a fourth, maybe even a fifth time in the chest.

Chimps Plan

I'd do the same damn thing.

Chimps are awesome.

Screw DST

So, Mr. Obama, in your first one hundred days you manage to drag us further into serfdom, but you do nothing about this Daylight Savings crap.

Mark my words, I will use some time tomorrow to degrade you, Mr. President. You have assumed an unnatural amount of executive power, but you decided to allow this to pass?

Is it because the losers who elected you don't have to worry about getting up in the morning for a productive job?

I'll answer my own question here: of course that's why. You were elected by unskilled workers and the elites in Hollywood and the media. The millions of others who voted for you did so because they were not smart enough to have a.) studied history; b.) read the constitution; of c,) ever dared think for themselves.

Think on this, Obama, before your reelection bid:

If you get rid of DST, then the recipients of my hard work (i.e. those standing in welfare lines) will have an extra hour of rest--if you get rid of DST.

Seriously, you plan on sodomizing the blueprint set by the founding fathers, so why not take care of this B.S. while you're at it?

Kiss My Arse, Franklin

This whole, "You lose an hour because we're too freekin' dumb to figure out time" crap really pisses me off.

Sure, I enjoy the day when we "gain" an hour," but it's not worth this crap.

Seriously, why is this necessary?

(Ironically, I ask this question when so many other questions are being answered wrongly).

If you reply to this promptly, then screw you.

It won't be eight at my house. It will be seven.

(And yes, I do pretend that someone who is not the victim of Daylight Savings Time will weigh in on this).

The Real Emancipation Proclamation

Bob asked if it was really true that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory. Here is the proof.
___________________


Emancipation Proclamation; January 1, 1863

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free [1]; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. [2]

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; [3] and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." [3]

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, [4] do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God. [5]

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of
January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

[1] There it is, Bob.
[2] Meaning that Lincoln encourages an armed slave revolt--but only in areas not loyal to him.
[3] Lincoln himself will decide which states or parts of states are loyal and exempted from the emancipation.
[4] The emancipation is a "war measure" to put down the rebellion. It has nothing to do with being the right thing.
[5] This power doesn't exist in Article II (the president's part of the Constitution) or any other part.

Where's My Money? ('cause it's not in my wallet)

Perhaps in better times, the Obama administration's decision to resume funding abortions in other countries might be the issue.

However, when the United States is faced with an almost unfathomable budget deficit and economic depression, the issue is really nothing more than this:

Why in the hell is the Obama administration funding ANYTHING in other countries?

Seriously, if my best friends knew that I owed more money than I made, then they would be real d-bags to come to me for a handout.

If I faced having to default on my mortgage to fund some stranger's medical procedure (how's that for a nice euphemism for killing babies?), would you accuse me of anything wrong for choosing to pay my own damn mortgage?

Bless You, Ron Paul

Listen to Ron Paul and know who you passed over in favor of Barabas (who didn't even win!).

Note that Bernanke states that he will concede the point to free market thinkers if the result is inflated prices.

Note also that Barney Frank cuts Rep. Paul off just before the good doctor goes for the jugular.

Note: I discovered this clip on Robert Murphy's blog, Free Advice.

My Optimistic Wife and My Pessimistic Self

I upset my wife today, when I noted that one of my retirement investments lost over 10% of its value in only the last two weeks and that we have put a few thousand more into it than we currently have on the ledger.

She replied with a charming, "Well, on the bright side, our current contributions are getting more for their money, so when things get better we'll see a rapid increase!"

Sometimes she's such the Pollyanna, and while that's one of the reasons that I love her so much, this time it annoyed me.

I responded to her "silver lining" approach with a scathing analysis of how much worse things could and probably will get--that even if we break even or beyond, the devaluation of the dollar will mean that we end up behind nonetheless.

She asked me why I'm always so down on things.

I asked her what about trends and the history of the matter suggests that I should be optimistic.

She had no answer, so her mood turned sour.

It'll be sleep on the couch for me, tonight.




Business hours are over, baby!

Jaywalker Hero II

Yesterday, I posted about the bus driver who saved three lives by pushing them away from a speeding vehicle only to be hit himself and to suffer severe internal injuries.

The Colorado State Patrol rewarded his heroics by citing him for jaywalking (he was, of course, helping the old ladies across a busy road, during a snowstorm, and he apparently wasn't at a crosswalk--so I guess he should have let them cross alone and die?).

New developments:

The State Patrol said in a statement that it withdrew the citation "after examining the ... circumstances" and consulting with prosecutors. A patrol spokesman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

The patrol initially said that despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.

Give me a break! The State Patrol withdrew the citation because of the public backlash. It took all of two nanoseconds for them to realize that they'd pulled a real dick-ish move.

However, look at the last sentence. They still try to save face by noting that the hero had indeed jaywalked and that if he hadn't jaywalked, then he wouldn't have been in an accident.

True, very true. Had he sat in his bus and watched the old ladies cross, then he would not have been injured at all.

The old ladies would have been killed, of course, but, hell, they were frickin' jaywalking!

The most recent adjective attached to Obama's plans are "ambitious."

Be forewarned that in history and literature, "ambitious" is attached to many things unsavory: MacBeth, Lebensraum, Communism, NBC's "Joey," etc.

What the liberal press defines as "ambitious," a more prudent definition should be "foolish."

I would say "unprecedented," but, unfortunately, it's not unprecedented.

History proves, however, that similar "ambitions" have led to disasters...

So newspapers across the country are closing shop. According to John Morton of Morton Research Inc.. "This is not a good time to try to sell a newspaper. This deep recession for newspapers doesn’t make these particularly compelling properties to buyers.”

Newsflash for newspapers:

It's not a recession for newspapers. It is the end.

Like the telegraph, you have been replaced by something faster and, ultimately, less expensive.

So help me God, if you ask for a "bailout," then my reader (yes, that's singular--alas) on the west coast will scream as loud as I, in which case the vibrations will carry from Renton, WA, to Issaquah, WA , and Metro Detroit, MI, to Hillsdale, MI.

Sure, there's quite some space in between, but I doubt that the corn and the cattle (or the Bears's fans) are cognizant enough to notice.

How's that for magnitude?




Oh, just shut up, BAR. We know that your voice might carry farther than Warren, but be serious. In the absence of JD's 9:08 A.M. brew, what are the chances of you making a difference?

Seriously, why bailout an industry that is no longer useful enough to remain solvent?

It doesn't matter how many jobs are lost in the wake. What matters is if someone resolves to move on to something that is actually solvent.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Insolvency comes from insolvency.

Seriously, the talk nowadays is about growing cotton in the Arctic.

"Damn, this business sucks. We've lost our socks in it!"

"Better invest more, then!"


If I'm not mistaken, this is the kind of logic that defines a compulsive gambler...

My greatest fear is that Obama and the other socialists in congress will stay in office long enough for things to turn around (as they tend to do so, historically, following economic panics).

This is my fear because people are stupid enough to think that Obama and socialists will be responsible for the turn around.

Why do I fear this?

Obama practically plagiarizes F.D.R., and F.D.R. is the second worst-president (if you use the oath of office specifically and the constitution generally as a standard) next to Lincoln.

What's so bad about Lincoln?

If you didn't support his line, and you opposed it vocally, you were dead (e.g. Confederates) or in jail (e.g. those imprisoned by Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus).

I decline to submit to the demagoguery that suggests that Obama can spin gold from lead or any other element.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Crappy ideas lead to crappy results.

So you thought that the last 8 years were bad?

Fasten your seatbelts.

It didn't work in the Weimar Republic after World War I, and it won't work in the United States now.

Be prepared to wallpaper your home with dollars because it will be cheaper than buying wallpaper.

That's what happened in Germany when the government decided to print money for its way out of economic turmoil, and that's exactly where we're headed.

You people turned away Ron Paul because

1) He wasn't "flashy"

2) He didn't comfort you with B.S.

3) He dared to suggest that YOU should be responsible for YOURSELF.



Now we're in quite a mess.

We have "flashy" president.

He comforts us with B.S.

And he dares to suggest that you are not responsible for yourself, but the federal government is--and the feds will come to your rescue (since they've done so well in Iraq).

Thank God that Ron Paul didn't win.

Obama has declared "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise."

How so?

By proposing the largest budget in the United States history at the same time that you admit that the United States is in its greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Mr. Obama, you are not change. You are more of the same, but perhaps worse because the proles believe that you have answers.

(Another) Cure for AIDS

I couldn't help but notice that Obama recently appointed a new head for the White House AIDS Policy Office.

I assume that this is a paid position, so I'm left wondering why, in these hard times (in any times, really), we should pay for such a thing.

Seriously, AIDS policy shouldn't cost a dime and shouldn't require an office or officers.

I would be glad to donate the following policy to the president, to be used in lieu of having to waste resources.

First, here's the position: AIDS is bad, as is the HIV that causes AIDS.

Now here's the policy: Every so often, mention in speeches that people should avoid unprotected sex with strangers and/or sharing hypodermic needles.

Here's what's awesome: if the people listen, then the number of new AIDS cases will decrease dramatically!

But what if people don't listen?

Then it's their own freaking fault!

Law and Order in Colorado

So let me get this straight. A 58 year-old bus driver stops, and two elderly ladies step off.

The driver decides not to let them cross the street alone during a snowstorm, so he and another passenger jump out to assist them.

As they approach the other side of the street, the driver notices a pickup truck speeding recklessly toward them.

He pushes the two ladies and the other man to safety but is himself struck by the careening pickup.

He wakes up in intensive care, having suffered head trauma, multiple fractures, a dislocated shoulder, and a damaged spleen. [1]

Shortly after learning of his injuries and being told that he had probably saved the lives of the two elderly women, he also learns that the Colorado State Patrol had issued him a ticket for jaywalking.



Let me be the first--or at least the first of whom I am aware--to issue the following statement to the Colorado State Patrol.

F*** YOU! WYOMING IS SO MUCH THE COOLER RECTANGLE.

Al Sharpton Is a Loser Who Makes His Living By Complaining About Everything

The Rev. Al Sharpton refuses to accept the apologies of the New York Post for its portrayal of Obama as a Chimp.

Of course he doesn't accept the apologies. Sharpton's entire career is based upon being grossly offended by virtually everything.

I wonder how pissed-off he'd be if he knew that, just yesterday, I ordered steak fajitas with no BLACK beans.

Seriously, this guy is such a whining A-hole that he probably blames white people every time that he gets diarrhea.

Quite the Ramble Based on My Previous Post

In my previous post, I advocated secession and even suggested the possibility of violence being necessary to establish a just government.

My purpose was to get someone up in arms against me, but since no one took me to task, I will attack my own argument.

First off, I do not disavow the possible necessity of secession, but I have much more hope (i.e. the opiate of the desperate) than I let on that secession may be unnecessary. I don't rule it out, it's just that secession will mean violence, and lots of it.

Now on to violence. Bob has pointed out--and I think that it's a great point--that a violent revolution will only spawn a violent resolution. One we take up arms, then we begin to do things contrary to our principles, and once we assume power we use the very violence that got us there to keep us there. This is blatantly true in a seemingly endless supply of examples, including

1) Cromwell's overthrow of Charles I. He had the king beheaded, declared England a free republic, and appointed himself "Lord Protector of England" (a euphemism for military dictator). His disdain for hereditary monarchy was so great that, as he grew ill and approached death, he arranged for his nearly limitless powers--he ruled via his control of the army--to be transferred to his son).

2.) Napoleon Bonaparte gained fame fighting for the "Liberty, equality, and fraternity" promised by the French revolutionaries. As his powers grew, he eventually crowned himself emperor (at his coronation, he took the crown from the Pope and placed it upon his own head!).

3.) Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin proved that no matter how terrible were the Tsar's powers, a violent revolution could (and did) result in something much worse.


The bottom line is that every time that men have organized and taken up arms to fight for freedom and won, they end up using their new powers to destroy the very freedoms for which they fought.

This is true even in the case of the United States.

At first things were good. The British signed the Treaty of Paris (1783) and recognized the United States as sovereign.

The thirteen states were themselves largely sovereign, held together by "a firm league of friendship with each other" (quoted from The Articles of Confederation--the first Constitution for the United States. According to the Articles, the national government had very few powers--none of the powers that had so tyrannized the colonies in decades past (how's that for learning from history?).

However, there were forces at work, well organized forces, led by Alexander Hamilton, who sought to establish an American Empire in the likeness of the British Empire (which we had so recently fought).

Hamilton and his allies exploited the economic turmoil of the time, which could only be expected given the costs of the war and whatnot, in order to convene a convention supposedly to "revise" the Articles.

Instead, the Articles were thrown out and a new Constitution was born.

Unfortunately, while the vast bulk of this Constitution was good and within the guidelines of the Revolution, the Constitution included a few relatively ambiguous clauses.

These clauses, when interpreted "loosely," greatly expanded the national government's powers--to the extent that the Federal government today is exponentially more tyrannical than the Parliament was in the 1770s.

Among the Constitution's drawbacks is in Article I, Section 8 (the part that grants powers to Congress).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 says that Congress has the right to regulate trade between the states, with foreign countries and the various Indian nations.

Under a loose construction, this clause is the reason why the government is involved in every aspect of economic activity.

California's legislature now has before it a bill that would legalize marijuana production, distribution, and consumption--to be taxed, of course. However, since Congress has assumed the power to regulate trade (under I.8.3), it will be a meaningless gesture to pass the bill.

This is accepted as fact even though the Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate trade between the states. Nowhere in California's bill does it mention exporting marijuana to other states or importing it from other states, foreign countries, or the various Indian Nations.

This should mean that the Federal government cannot stop California.

But it doesn't because a leviathan was created in Philadelphia, and the patriot Patrick Henry knew it from the start when he refused to be a delegate for Virginia, stating "I smell a rat in Philadelphia that reeks of monarchy."

The men who fought the Revolution learned that, if you want to accomplish something, then you needed violence for it.

Therefore, they turned to a Constitution that established a strong federal government capable of exerting vast quantities of violence.

In the early 1830s, South Carolina nullified a ridiculously high protective tariff designed to benefit Northern manufacturers at the expense of everyone else. The President responded by threatening to invade South Carolina in order to collect the tax by force.

So much for the Boston Tea Party.


And this is why we cannot shoot our way into freedom. I said earlier that secession means violence, but it must not be from us. We must be willing to suffer the violence, like Gandhi, like Martin Luther King, Jr. in order to show the justness of our cause.

This is, of course, why I would rather not secede. I have no desire to stick my hand into the fire.

However, what if we all did so? Or what if enough of us did so?

Henry David Thoreau may have been right when he wrote, in "Civil Disobedience," that the only thing necessary to accomplish the revolution is for every man to withhold his loyalty to the state. Once the soldier refuses to fire and the taxman declines to collect, the tyrant will be on his knees.

We need no fire any shots.

We must not fire any shots, even in self-defense.

We must suffer, and we must be strong.

This is not my nature--my typical reaction to insult and injury is to insult and injure my assailant--but it is the best way.

It is the only way.

Pax tecum.

FYI: I.8.18 is also particularly odious, especially under a loose construction. "Necessary and proper"--could you be more ambiguous? Then again, it was Napoleon who said "A Constitution should be short and obscure."

Ours is both.

Secede!

Q: Why don't we secede?

A: 1) Lincoln made it cool and "patriotic" to kill secessionists by the hundreds of thousands.

A: 2) The mass of people are too ignorant/stupid to realize what they are supporting.



Give me a viable secessionist movement, and I will don the stars and bars, for this is no longer the country established by the founding fathers. It reeks of Marx, and I fear it will soon be polluted with Stalin and Mao.

Simon and Garfunkel should have written and sang, "Where have you gone, Thomas Jefferson / Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."



This is not treason. It is patriotism of the utmost. Our founding fathers were proud Englishmen of the British Empire--until the government in London turned into a leviathan.

Ask yourself, what would Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, James Madison, et al. say?

Look only to what they did and supported.



My friend, Bob, says that we can accomplish this without arms, but even God Himself has seen the right time to use force against evil.

Hell, even Alexander Hamilton would be horrified by the current trends.


My greatest wish is for a peaceful return to constitutional/limited government. This is an absolutely necessary change.

What must happen if an absolutely necessary change becomes impossible to accomplish by peaceful means?

I tremble at the thought, but I know the meaning of necessary.

Screw the Weak 2

I will never again purchase a car manufactured by GM or Chrysler. They've already stuck their hands in my pockets without my permission (and given me nothing for it), and now they want to do it again.

No business has a natural right to exist. Businesses exist because they are solvent, because they supply what is in demand at a reasonable price and with reasonable quality. If GM and/or Chrysler cannot do so, then they should go out of business.

Thus far, Ford has not asked for any of my money (i.e. federal "bailout" money). This makes me a Ford man.

In the mid 1800s, the demand for beaver pelts decreased, leaving mountain men (e.g. trappers) without a source of income.

There was no bailout.

What did they do? They changed businesses. They took their skills, their knowledge of the terrain and indigenous peoples, to change industries. They became guides to the wagon trains that followed the various trails across the prairies and over the Rocky Mountains.

When an industry dies, it is not necessarily a bad thing. People will have to make important decisions and change their lifestyles/ways of making a living. However, history shows that people will do this when they have to do so.

Let them do so.

Always the Naysayer?

I recently chatted with my next-door neighbor and a friend of his. Naturally, the conversation shifted to politics, and my neighbor gently warned his friend, "Don't get this guy started!"

Of course, this led to his friend asking me, sarcastically, if I was one of those guys who rips on Obama's ideas before we even have time to see if the ideas work or not.

I thought that my counter was rather good, so I now present it to you.

Let's say that the case isn't politics or economics, but medicine; and the person in question is not Obama, but a doctor.

So you go to the doctor because you've been feeling quite ill. After a battery of tests and a thorough survey, it becomes clear that your problems stem from consuming far too much alcohol on a regular basis.

Now suppose the doctor suggested, for treatment, that I try increasing my consumption of alcohol.

Better yet, let's say that the doctor pulled out a scalpel and a large bowl because he planned on bleeding me.

Honestly, I know that neither of these treatments will cure me of my ills. Should I just go along and either a.) drink more or b.) have the "bad blood" drained from my system? Should I wait to see if his destined-for-failure plans will fail before I criticize both the treatments and the doctor?

Of course I shouldn't, and that's why I rant against Obama's economic stimulus package.


My neighbor's friend just kind of chuckled and said, "Well, can't you at least hope that you're wrong?"


I let it drop.

Education Stimulus Package

By all accounts of those with a vested interest in there being a "crisis" in American education, there is, indeed, a "crisis" (surprise!).

However, I have a better solution than the traditional "pump money through bureaucratic channels," and that is to enact an education stimulus package.

Billy's grades suck because he doesn't turn in his homework?

Under the stipulation of my stimulus package, Billy will receive credit for the work that he didn't do.

Jessica's grades suck because she doesn't study for tests?

No problem. My stimulus package will award her a passing grade.

Unlike Obama's economic stimulus package--which he very publicly has stated will not be a "quick fix" for the economy, if it even helps the economy at all (which Obama does imply between the lines; he just says that doing nothing is a worse alternative than trying anything)--my education stimulus package promises real results, really fast.

As soon as next week, students who were previously failing will either be passing or on the road to passing.

Critics say that my plan is ridiculous, that I'm merely increasing grades without actual learning. What they don't understand is that these increased grades are backed by increased learning.

You see, some students have really high grades, like 98% or even better. I don't think that it's too much to ask for them to give, say 5-10% to a more deserving, underprivileged student.

And if that's not enough, my plan allows us to borrow grades from future students. Among the current kindergartners, there are many who will eventually earn 98% and such on grades. If we can use their future points toward scores today, we can boost today's scores even higher. This will result in more students having good grades, which means more students in college, which means better jobs for everyone.

Effectively, my education stimulus package will accomplish all of its goals AND save the economy.

So, how about it, Obama? Make me the offer, and I promise not to decline an appointment to your cabinet.

The Onion News Network

Warning: the following video clip contains gratuitous--however hilariously--profanity.

The Onion News Network: FDA Approves Depressant Drug for the Annoyingly Cheerful

Backtracking Clips

I enjoyed listening to the "backtracking" on some famous tunes.

"Backtracking" is when musicians place backwards messages on their recordings. When played in reverse, there's some kind of message.

I'm Tired of Junk Mail

After so many messages in my junk folder how could I ignore it anymore?

Yes, if I don't post for awhile then it must be because my penis is greatly enhanced.

Recent Event

Just yesterday, I found myself driving home from work. The clock was on, for I had to pick up my two eldest kids from school.

I was driving about 58 MPH down a 50 MPH stretch of road..

Whoa, if you're from the law-enforcement community, then I wish to amend my statement.

I was traveling at about 48 MPH down a 50 MPH stretch of road--and I had my seat belt on too, damn you, and I was NOT listening to NWA's "F*** the Police."

Nonetheless, the story proceeds as follows:

I'm tooling down the street (in my six-fo), when all of a sudden my wheel jerks and things get really bumpy.

My first thought was that I blew a tire.

My second thought was that Al Quaida had fired an RPG at men and missed only narrowly.

I used Occam's razor to conclude that I indeed had a blown-out tire, so I flipped on my hazards, slowed down, and made my way to the right hand shoulder.

However, there is no shoulder on the street--at least where I was--, so I drove a few dozen yards to where the street had a turn onto a perpendicular street, and there I stopped.

I emerged from the car, and it took less than a glance to see that, indeed, my tire had blown.

It was at this moment that I said several words that I chose not to repeat on this blog. If you wish to hear them, then go to Youtube and look up George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

The main problem (at this point) was that the blown tire was on the driver's side.

This meant that, in order to change the tire, I would have to be positioned in harm's way.

I mulled it over, considering how much I was worth to my family in terms of insurance, but finally decided that I could not bear to miss the series finale of The Office, so I called the cops.

I told them that I had a flat tire and that I was on a busy road, so I would appreciate an officer behind me with his lights on so that I could change my tire with less fear of death.

10 minutes later, the officer arrived.

When I showed him my tire, he said, "Jesus Christ!"

That is enough to say how screwed up was my tire.

So I changed the tire, said, "Thank you," to the officer, and drove away--a mere six miles from home.

However, about three miles later, I felt a jerk/shimmy that reminded me of thirty-minutes before.

I said some un-utterable words and phrases as I pulled over to the shoulder (thank God, this road had a shoulder!).

I stepped out of my car and took a look at the spare that I had put on no more than 8 minutes earlier.

It was blown. Kaput. Demolished.

It's at this point that I shouldn't even imply that I said some bad words.

That's how bad those words were.

They said things about you, your mother, and your infant child.

I was pissed!

I ended up having to call AAA (since I didn't have anymore freakin' spares), and they arranged for a tow truck to take me to a tire dealer (it only took 90 minutes!).

At any rate, I got a new tire and made it home a full three hours late.

Michael Phelps

Of Michael Phelps' recent marijuana fiasco, the Richland County sheriff's office has said,

"We're not releasing any additional information. We are investigating, and if we determine that illegal activity has occurred, we will bring charges."

Before you bring charges, answer me this: Who in the "F" was hurt? No one? Nobody was deprived of life, liberty, or property?

Really?

Then don't press charges, assholes. I don't care what the law says, it's wrong if it punishes victimless acts.

If you disagree with my position, then you must also disagree with the men and women of the underground railroad who violated federal laws in order to rescue men, women, and children from the horrors of slavery.

Seriously, look at the freaking law. If you assisted in the escape of a slave, then you were in violation of federal law. The penalty became even more severe after Henry Clay's Compromise of 1850.

Just enforce the law blindly, is that what you dare to advocate?

Hell, then if der furer declares this evening Kristalnacht, then let us all grab stones and do our civic duty.

By the way, Seth Meyers of Saturday Night Live had by far the best rant on this topic. See at

A Breath of Cool Air

In today's prime-time press conference, reporters hurled many questions at president Obama, including--according to msnbc.com:

— Afghanistan: He said it was too early to give a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country.

— Iran: He is "looking for openings" in the coming months to start face-to-face talks.

— Bank bailout: He was not sure if the government would need more than the remaining $350 billion of bank bailout funds to restore the ailing U.S. financial system. He said his first task would be making sure those funds were spent wisely and with transparency.

— Alex Rodriguez: Obama described the baseball star's admission that he used a banned substance "depressing news on top of what’s been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to major league baseball."

All I can say is thank God. Obama has expressed his views on A-Rod.

Tonight I will sleep like a baby, but tomorrow Obama must speak to the inexplicable fame of David Archuleta.

Mia Culpa?

Why aren't you alarmed that President Obama has appointed, as his Secretary of the Treasury, a man who has failed to pay his taxes?

This SOB is now in charge of the people who will bust YOU if you fail to give them every cent to which they (wrongfully) feel entitled.

He dismisses his "crime" (hell yes, it's in quotations. Since when has handing your money over to a well-armed and aggressive mugger for the sake of your own safety been considered anything else?") as something akin to a mere oversight.

Should I be audited and incur "unfortunate" results, can I claim a mere oversight?

Of course I can't.

I would be nailed to the wall and then some.

The moral of this story: The federal government of today is not manned by the men who fought the revolution.

When you pledge allegiance, you make a grave mistake.

If you disagree, then every German should have been prosecuted at Nuremberg.

How Many Jobs Lost?

Listen to the Speaker of the House claim the 500,000,000 Americans have lost their jobs.



This statement fascinates me, since in 2009 the U.S. population was estimated at just over 300,000.

Unless this figure includes the fact that I have (or would have)been rejected as a model for Speedos, a weight-loss guru, or spokesman for more government (i.e Pelosi is counting more than one job per person in the United States), it must mean that Pelosi and the like have no damn clue what their talking about, or that they wish to make the problem seem worse than it actually is.

Whichever is true, the implications are alarming.

By the way, there is a good reason for the Speedo company's rejection of my sponsorship...

Thanks to Robert Murphy for leading me to this clip.

Did You Just Recommend a Revolution?

Hell yes, the previous post is a call to revolution. Damn mortality for robbing us o Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the like.

The only reason that I am not on the lines right now is that I am not, alone, equal to the task.

Give me a Washington, and I'll fight for a nation.

Malorem Est Cupiditas

Can we at least agree on this point?

Men and women elected to high offices do so more upon their political connections and willingness to make empty promises (i.e. say what people want to hear) than their qualities and actual ability to execute their promises.

If you are a thinking person, then I will assume that you agree with my cynical (but nonetheless valid) assessment.

Assuming that I am correct, then consider that the men and women appointed to carry out the federal government's "oversights" are appointed and approved by men and women who were elected more upon their political connections and willingness to make empty promises.

If you are a thinking person, then I will assume that you follow this line of logic.

All of this said, why in the hell do so many Americans think that the economy will by saved by men and women who owe their status more to political connections and willingness to make empty promises?

There is an old saying that liars, even when they tell the truth, are not believed. (This is the lesson of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf").

And yet, voters consistently vote for liars.

This means that democracy is corrupt and destined for failure--inasmuch as we define failure as the inability to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

However, history shows that monarchy and oligarchy also fail.

While to many this might seem like a winless situation (hence Churchill's famous quip that democracy is the worst form of government--except for all of the others), the truth is that the lesson is one perhaps too obvious for commoners to grasp.

Government itself, with its powers to regulate human action, is the culprit.

For centuries it has been said that greed is the root of all evil. Look at your tax returns, and tell me that your government is not the epitome of greed.

You want to buy a cola? Pay the government.

You want to own property? Pay the government.

You want to make a living for yourself by being gainfully employed? Pay the government.

You want to be left alone to your own wits? Become part of the government.

Why else have so many of Obama's appointees been recently nailed for tax evasion?

The United States government is sick and should be allowed to die. In fact, I recommend euthanasia.

The United States' Constitution is still good, however. So let the government die and let us bring forth an order for the ages that was new in the late 18th Century but has not been conceived of since mid-1865.

I would have respected Obama more if he had refused to take the constitutional oath of office because he has no intention of being bound by or bound to protect the Constitution.

Where are the Sons of Liberty today? Tell me, and I'll likely join their ranks.

Nonsense

From The Boston Globe

As a rebuke to congressmen who stand in the way of Obama's economic stimulus plan, the still Christ-figure Obama said, "We can't delay and we can't go back to the same worn-out ideas that led us here in the first place," Obama said. "Let me be clear: those ideas have been tested, and they have failed."

"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," Obama added, challenging lawmakers in both parties to "rise to this moment."

The joke is that what Obama plans is simply more of the same on steroids. What hasn't been tried in a long damn time is straightforward laissez-faire stlye economics coupled with sound hard-money policy.

Bob's analogy in the article below still hold's solid. Obama wants to take blood from our legs to inject into our arms. This will not stop the allergic reaction/infection that so plagues us.

Where are you, Jim Beam? Only you seem to listen--at only six bucks a pint...

The more that Obama talks, the more that I endeavor to stimulate the sour-mash whisky industry in Kentucky.

A Good Plan

Thank goodness for the breath of fresh air. Well done, Bob.

While the mindless masses say to the ridiculous, "Yes we can!" they will look upon these suggestions and, just as mindlessly, say, "No we won't!"

This is why God established the natural law of fermentation...

The Love of a Child

I'm pretty certain that my youngest just said, "I love you," to me--though it came out "ohaihe wowou!" He followed the comment with the offer of a hug and kiss, further cementing my certainty that he indeed said what I thought he said.

However, after the hug, he pointed to his crotch and said, "Poo-poo."

Bleak Horizon

According to most articles that I read these days, the U.S. economy will take quite some time to recover its losses--up to a decade.

Of course, nitwits. Congress and King Obama I plan on pulling the same crap that kept the U.S. in a prolonged depression throughout the 1930s, so what else should we expect?

Obama: "Hey let's try this because last time we tried it it didn't work at all and things were bad for a long time."

Congress: "Brilliant!"

The general public: "Yes we can!"

Black is In!

I stole this from Murdock's post. Forgive me, but I nearly pissed my pants while watching it.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Black Is In

Daily Show Full Episodes
Funny Political Videos

Important Things With Demetri Martin
More Funny Videos

May Such Men Burn

I cannot feel badly for a man who kills his wife and kids because he has lost his job.

Of course, I feel badly for the victims.

However, to try to let this guy off because of how "hard" these days are (economically) is to say something awful.

Times were hard in Germany in the early-mid 1930s. Hitler seemed to be the answer. Do we accept this?

Do we excuse cold-blooded murder due to economic desperation?

I think not.

Therefore, do not sit back and think "How tragic, if only the government could have done more to prevent this" when you hear such stories.

Think, "What a worthless piece of crap to think that his whole family should die just because he is an unemployable asshole."

And what if he's a good man who just can't find employment?

Well, a good man wouldn't freaking kill his family.

Enough said?