By Patrick J. Buchanan
Reposted from Lew Rockwell.com
Alerting the press that he would deal with the birther issue at the opening of his new hotel, the Donald, after treating them to an hour of tributes to himself from Medal of Honor recipients, delivered.
“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. … President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”
The press went orbital.
“Trump Gives Up a Lie But Refuses to Repent” howled the headline over the lead story in The New York Times.
Its editorial called Donald Trump a “reckless, cynical bully” spreading political poison in an “absurdist presidential campaign,” adding that Trump is the “ultimate mountebank” using a “Big Lie” that “made him the darling of the wingnuts and racists” and “nativist hallucinators.”
You get the drift.
While Trump’s depiction of the birther controversy was … inexact … there was truth in it. Obama’s campaign did charge the Clinton campaign withdrawing press attention to that photo of Obama in traditional Somali garb. Apparently, Sid Blumenthal did push a McClatchy bureau chief to search for Obama’s birth records in Kenya.
Tim Kaine was wailing on Sunday about how “painful” Trump’s birtherism has been to African-Americans. And Democrats and the media are pledging not to let it go, but to exploit Trump’s attempt to “delegitimize” Obama’s presidency.
These are crocodile tears. Obama gave the game away Saturday night. At the Black Caucus’s annual gala, says The Washington Post, a “beaming” Obama “gleefully” had the attendees rolling in “laughter” over Trump’s concession. “With just 124 days to go,” mocked Obama, “we got that thing resolved.”
Many news organizations will go along with the game. For many appear to be all in on Clinton’s depiction of half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … haters.”
Yet one wonders. Do the major media understand that in their determination, bordering on desperation, to kill Trump, they are killing their credibility? And as they are losing credibility they are losing the country.
According to a new Gallup poll, distrust of the press has hit an all-time high. Half the nation’s Democrats still trust the media, but only one-in-three independents and one-in-seven Republicans, 14 percent, believe the media are truthful, honest and fair.
When, early in his presidency, Obama jokingly referred to the White House Correspondents Association dinner as his political base, Americans now believe he was not exaggerating the case.
And the more the media vent their detestation of Trump, the more Trump’s supporters revel in their discomfort. “We love him most of all for the enemies he has made,” said backers of Grover Cleveland in 1884. Trump’s folks feel that way about the national press.
America’s media seem utterly lacking in introspection. Do they understand why so many people hate them so? Do they care? Are they so smugly self-righteous and self-regarding they cannot see?
Take the birther issue again. According to a January HuffPost/YouGov poll, an astonishing 53 percent of all Republicans, 30 percent of all independents, and even 10 percent of Democrats still believe Barack Obama was born outside the USA.
What does this say about the persuasiveness of the press?
Indeed, what does it say about the idea that universal suffrage is the best way to determine the leadership of a republic?
In 2016, America faces serious issues — a rising deficit and escalating debt, the explosion of entitlements, the resurgence of Russian power, Chinese military expansionism in the South and East China seas, North Korea’s development of nuclear missiles, and Afghanistan.
Now consider the issues that have transfixed the media this election season:
The birther issue, David Duke, the KKK, a Mexican-American judge, Black Lives Matter, white cops, the “Muslim ban,” the Battle Flag, the “alt-right,” the national anthem, Trump’s refusals to recant his blasphemies against the dogmas of political correctness, or to “apologize.”
What does the continual elevation of such issues, and the acrimony attendant to them, tell us?
America is bitterly and irreparably divided over race, ideology faith, history and culture, and Trump’s half of the nation rejects the modernist gospel that America’s diversity and multiculturalism are her greatest treasures.
To the contrary, Trump’s half wants secure borders, “extreme vetting” of immigrants, especially from the Mideast, and foreign and trade policies marked by an “Americanism” that seems to be an antonym for globalism.
They want America to be “great again,” and they believe she was once and is not now.
No matter who wins in November, America is going to face a divide unseen in decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront a resident media more hateful than that which confronted Richard Nixon in 1968.
If Hillary Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half of whom she has maligned either as “deplorables” or pitiful souls in need of empathy.
Not for half a century has the idea of “one nation under God, indivisible,” seemed so distant.
By Antonius Aquinas
On May 19, the House of Reprehensibles passed a proposal that would essentially ban the display of Confederate flags from national cemeteries. The amendment was added to a Veteran Affairs spending bill.
Not surprisingly, House Speaker Paul Ryan allowed the measure to be voted upon in hopes of not disrupting the appropriations process. Yes, by all means Paul, the redistribution of taxpayers’ confiscated wealth should take precedent over a draconian attempt to eradicate a heroic symbol of the country’s past. Hopefully, Ryan will be ousted this November as both Speaker and Congressman for not only his consistent sell out to Obummer and the Democrats on the budget, but his lack of understanding and appreciation of what is arguably the most important period of American history.
In a certain sense, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in national cemeteries or for that matter flown alongside those of the Union. The two are representations of dramatically opposed political ideologies. Liberals and political opportunists of all sorts have deliberately smeared the South’s attempt at secession as being entirely over the issue of slavery. The “Civil War” (which that struggle has become known by) is now seen through Politically Correct hindsight.
A civil war, in the truest sense, is a conflict between factions attempting to gain control of a government typically for their own aggrandizement. The bloody conflict between the North and South was not that, nor was it solely over slavery although the institution played a role in it.
The Confederacy wanted no part of the Washington establishment at the time, which it believed had become too tyrannical, and attempted to secede from it. The remaining states of the North, under the “leadership” of Abraham Lincoln, prevented this at the cost of more than 600,000 lives, the vast destruction of property, and the impoverishment of a people who simply sought to rule themselves.
The South’s action was nearly identical to what the colonies, North and
South, did some 80 years previously in breaking away from the British Empire and becoming free and independent states under the benign rule of the Articles of Confederation.
As America’s Founding Fathers saw their liberties violated by King and Parliament, Southerners witnessed similar tyrannies and wisely anticipated more federal oppression with the election of Lincoln.
This interpretation has been ably supported by scholarship, though the view is rarely acknowledged in academia or in the mainstream media. In an essay from an insightful collection titled Secession, State and Liberty
, Donald Livingston persuasively describes the ideological content of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution it inspired, and its influence on the South’s leadership.
He writes: “Overall, the Declaration is an argument designed to justify the secession of the new self-proclaimed American states from the British state. . . [It] is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government.”*
The South, imbued with such logic and the example of the Revolutionary generation’s break with Great Britain, attempted to separate from the Union on similar grounds and, in Livingston’s view, had a much stronger claim than the Founding Fathers had for independence:
[T]he colonies were not and never had been recognized as sovereign states, either by others or even by themselves. At the time of the Civil War, however, the southern states had been and still were sovereign states, and so they could mount not only a moral argument but a legal one as well. And it was the legal argument they primarily insisted upon. Each state used the same legal form to secede from the Union that it has used to enter, namely, ratification in a convention of people.**
Although slavery was a part of the South’s final break with the North, the Confederacy could never have been built on such a narrow foundation. Those who seek to paint Southern secession as a movement solely designed to protect their “peculiar institution” have either misunderstood the genesis of that struggle or do so for political gain.
While Southern secession is mercilessly condemned by the Establishment, scholars like Professor Livingston see it and the War for Southern Independence in a much different and far nobler light: “With the orderly, legal secession of the southern states, the American genius for self-government reached its highest moral expression.”***
The Northern and Southern flags which fly in national cemeteries across the land are indeed representative of different traditions, but not what the Politically Correct crowd would have everyone to believe.
The defenders of Dixie and the flags that commemorate their courageous actions have long since been morally justified. The Union flag, on the other hand, has been one of aggression and domination, at first, brutally directed at its fellow countrymen who simply sought self-determination, and afterwards against millions of peoples from Vietnam to Iraq.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future as economic conditions worsen and American hegemony can no longer be maintained, the Union flag and the empire in which it represents will receive greater vitriol than the Confederate flag has gotten for its innumerable mass murders, destruction, crimes, and chaos which it has wantonly brought to every corner of the planet.
*David Gordon, ed., Secession, State & Liberty
. Donald W. Livingston, “The Secession Tradition in America.” New Brunswick (U.S.A.), Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 7
by Al Benson Jr.
Ahhh, yet another “unilateral” action by our beloved ruler! Those people that were ignorant enough to vote for him apparently did not grasp the salient fact that they were electing a dictator who was going to do whatever he wanted to do in the face of a do-nothing Congress. On the other hand maybe some of them (especially those at the top) did and that’s why they voted for him and promoted him.
I recently red an article on http://freedomoutpost.com
that stated: “The Veterans Affairs Department quietly moved this month to ban the flying of Confederate flags from fixed flagpoles at the cemeteries it runs, striking yet another blow against the controversial emblem. Congress had debated and rejected that change, but the Obama administration decided to move forward anyway, saying that it was unilaterally imposing the restrictions.”
We are more and more being confronted with a leftist rogue administration that, if Congress votes against what it wants, it goes ahead and does it anyway–and the Congress sits there like a bunch of dumb dogs and does nothing, says nothing, hears nothing and sees nothing–like the proverbial brass monkey.
It’s long past the time when we should have awakened and realized that what we have in Washington is one single political bird with two wings, a real left(ist) wing and a phony right wing so that when the bird flies he can only turn to the left. You would think that if Congress voted against something and our beloved ruler decided he’d just go ahead and do it anyway that they would call him on it, but no, if he decides he’s going to spit in their faces they will spend all their time before the next election telling their constituents back home that they’d try to spend more time at local town hall meetings if they weren’t so busy in Washington wiping all that dew off their faces!
But our beloved ruler is not only spitting in the faces of our erstwhile elected representatives, he is also spitting in the face of every genuine Southern patriot and everyone who had an ancestor who fought under that flag in the War of Northern Aggression, myself included.
And the political spittle isn’t only flowing from Washington. In the last year it has emanated from many state capitols, too many of them in the South, and from many city and town councils in the South that are presently peopled by individuals that came either from somewhere up north, or worse yet, from foreign countries and have not the vaguest concept of our faith, history and heritage and hence they have no trouble trashing it on a regular basis because they have realized that most Southern folks are just not going to say all that much.
Why good Southern people continue to elect such creatures to rule over them is beyond me. Maybe it’s the fluoride they are pumping into most of our water supplies now, or the government (public) schools that have taught generations of Southern folks so now they have gotten to where they can’t tell upside down from inside out!
However you slice the bread or cut the mustard, Southern and Confederate heritage is being routinely denigrated on a daily basis and most Southern folks couldn’t seem to care less anymore.
Rep. Jared Huffman, a “progressive” (socialist) from California posing as a Democrat (there really isn’t a dimes worth of difference) had pushed for this. He calls those of us who revere Confederate flags and symbols “racists” and he labels the flag an “anachronistic symbol of hatred.” It’s quite clear that Mr. Huffman has not bothered to do the history homework,. He doesn’t really need to. As long as he can brand all those that dare to oppose his opinions as “racists” that’s all he needs. No history, no documentation, no proof for his position, just an epithet thrown at those who dare to disagree with his exalted views. Problem is, most of us just sit back and take it.
The Freedom Outpost article makes a telling statement, one that should sting most of us. It says: “Rep. Huffman is right about one thing: the Battle Flag is out of time. It is dated and out of place. Not because of what he thinks it stands for, but because the cause that it stood for has long left the memory of the people it was fought for–America.
Your heritage is like anything else–if you don’t cherish it and rightly use and promote it–you lose it. Enough said.
Marxist Revolution of 1848
By Martin ArmstrongArmstrong Economics
The very core tenet of Marxism and its two versions called socialism and communism is to actually replace the family structure. In Russian communism, Stalin was paranoid about any possible resistance. Children were taught that the state was their parent instead of their biological parents, and if those creatures spoke anything against the state then the children should report them. Karl Marx’s view on religion also explains his view of family. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The lofty idea of socialism is appealing to many, but they never talk about what lies below the slogan and surface. The reason I say socialism is collapsing, not capitalism, is rather simple. We do not live under capitalism for that is what existed before socialism’s introduction with, actually, the Republican, Teddy Roosevelt using the label “progressive.” What enraged Marx so much was the British system of Long Lease keeping the property in the family for generations. This is why so many people fled to America after hearing that it was the American Dream to own your own home and leave it to your children. Marx was against the ownership of property outright under communism, whereas under socialism you could own your own property but you were taxed and regulated at every step of the way.
Under Canon Law of the Catholic Church, there was a substantial difference compared to English Common Law, which was manipulated for the benefit of the king. The stark difference between the two strikes very deep into the heart of the family structure. Once upon a time, a spouse could not be compelled to testify against their partner. Over the years, the government cannot stop pursuing its own self-interest so the “right” not to be compelled to testify against your spouse has been watered down to only a “privilege,”
which then allows the government to create exceptions.
It is Federal Rule of Evidence 501
that governs these “privileges” that are not rights and they apply ONLY
in a criminal case. Therefore, Rule 501 on Privilege, in General, is limited to the English common law “as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience”
and that covers “specific non-constitutional privileges which the federal courts must recognize (i.e. required reports, lawyer-client, psychotherapist-patient, husband-wife, communications to clergymen, political vote, trade secrets, secrets of state and other official information, and identity of informer).”
Note that there is no “privilege” for children who can be imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to testify against a parent in any matter. Child abuse is a special exception where one spouse can be compelled to testify against the other.
In 1983, American Bar Association-Criminal Justice Section created a draft a model to argue for the establishment of a parent-child privilege statute in hopes of protecting the immediate family unit. This decision was based on the concern that prosecutors were forcing children to testify against their parents before grand juries and at trials. This is very fundamental that if your children can be compelled to testify against you, then this keeps a separation between members of a family. Can you imagine forcing a child to testify where their father hid his gold? There is still no child privilege in American law illustrating there is still no respect for the core family structure, which classifies the United States in the same class as a totalitarian state with some of the worse dictators in history. The American Bar Association failed to move Congress to protect the American family. The state must ALWAYS
come before the family as in Stalin’s communist world.
Article 248 of the French Civil Code states boldly: “No one can be summoned as a witness if he is a blood relation, or a relative by marriage in a direct line, or husband and wife of one of the parties, even although divorced.”
(C. PR. civ. art. 248, § 336 (G. Koch trans. 1963)). The relations included under Article 248: father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brothers, sisters, brothers- and sisters-in-law, and the husband or wife of the accused, even if divorced. The law of West Germany has a similar provision that prevents what the Germans call unbefugt
, or unauthorized disclosure (See ZPO § 52(3) (H. Niebler trans. 1965)). Swedish law also embodies a parent-child privilege as well (SWED. CODE JUD. P. ch. 36, § 3 (A. Bruzelius & R. Ginsburg trans. 1967)). A divorced spouse has the privilege under American law, but only for the period of the marriage, not before or after. Now you might ask why this is important since it only involves criminals. Don’t forget, we all commit three felonies a day
and hiding your money, not paying taxes, and lying to any government officer is all “criminal” so we need not be concerned only with drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. A 13-year-old was arrested
for trying to buy lunch in school with a $2 bill that the school never saw and neither did the police. It was genuine. You can be arrested for buying something with a counterfeit bill you didn’t know was counterfeit.
The law of Continental Europe emerged from the Catholic Church and canon law. The English common law departed from the Catholic Church and became all about the king, not family or God. The prevailing legal view under the civil law countries of Western Europe has been that no person will ever be forced to testify on confidences between any member and another family member. This historical overview stems from a Roman law that the family unit was sacred. The very idea has complete immunity from compelled testimony existed for approximately 3,500 years and in Roman times included all household members including slaves.
Throughout history, such testimonial family immunity, including parent-child, are conspicuously absent in totalitarian regimes. Nazi Germany had no such privileges. Anyone could be compelled to testify against another family member. The Soviet Union had no parent-child or family type privilege. The mark of a totalitarian regime has always been the absence of any family immunity from compelled testimony about each other. The State has ALWAYS
come before individuals. No family relationships are deemed private and free from the state’s intense scrutiny — NONE!
This is the road down that the NSA has traveled, and under the American law there is no such family immunity from compelled testimony.
Without adoption of even a family privilege, the United States possesses the same totalitarian power to tear down the privacy of the family and turn brother against brother, child against parent, or sister against sister.
Every society has a segment of its population that obsesses over totalitarian control of others. They are called “politicians” or “political activists.” (There are one or two exceptions, every now and then, such as former Congressman Ron Paul). These are people who just cannot stand the fact that many others prefer to live their own lives, abiding by the basic laws protecting life, liberty and property, and the moral codes that help to enforce such behavior. They just cannot stand the fact that so many others prefer to plan their own lives instead of having the political authorities plan their lives for them. They are often more than willing to use the coercive forces of government – including deadly force, including war – to get their way. They think of themselves as Our Superiors, God’s chosen people, or just plain smarter and more moral than everyone else. Or they are con-men and con-women out to plunder their fellow citizens to enrich themselves under the phony guise of “public service,” “democracy,” and myriad other grandiose-sounding scams.
In a lecture on institutionalized lying by government delivered at the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano introduced his audience to the Latin phrase “libido dominande” that describes such attitudes. In Latin, it means “lust to dominate.” Now along comes Clyde Wilson with his new book, The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma
, that describes in great detail the peculiar American version of “libido dominande” that has plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.
Wilson describes “Yankees” as “that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around
” (emphasis added). This, of course, does not include all New Englanders and their descendants, but a rather small but dominant (and domineering) subset. “Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing,” writes Wilson.
Before American history was completely rewritten from a New England perspective and taught to generations of schoolchildren, this fact was widely known. The novelists Washington Irving, James Finemore Cooper, James Kirke Paulding, and Herman Melville, among others, wrote novels that ridiculed the “Yankee” mentality that they all abhorred. (In Irving’s story of “The Headless Horseman” Ichabod Crane was a Yankee who had come from Connecticut to New York and “made himself a nuisance” so a young New Yorker played a trick on him to send him packing back to “Yankeeland”). Thomas Jefferson himself once complained that “It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.” This was long before anyone began debating the issue of slavery. The Yankees said Jefferson, “were marked with such a perversity of character” that America was bound to be forever divided between Yankees and non-Yankees.
Wilson describes how New England writers have falsified the history of America by emphasizing the Mayflower Pilgrims while ignoring or downplaying the earlier, Jamestown Pilgrims; by pretending that New Englanders alone won the American Revolution and ignoring the efforts of Francis Marion and other Southern revolutionary heroes; by ludicrously portraying the Virginia planter George Washington as a New England “prig” in their books and movies; and of course reserving their biggest lies in their discussions of the causes and consequences of the “Civil War.” As if to prove Jefferson’s point, Daniel Webster wrote in his diary: “O New England! How superior are thy inhabitantsin morals, literature, civility, and industry!”
The Yankees’ “quest for power grew into a frenzy” as soon as George Washington left the scene, writes Wilson, by passing the Sedition Act during the Adams administration, which made it a crime to criticize Adams and the government. Their rewriting of history began very early and has never stopped. Although the settlement of the American West was “predominantly the work of Southerners and not of New Englanders at all,” silly books like The Oregon Trail, “written by a Boston tourist” became popular, as did “the phony cavortings of the Eastern sissy Teddy Roosevelt in the cattle country opened by Southerners.” “The great America outdoors” are now symbolized by “Henry David Thoreau and a little frog pond . . . in the sight of the Boston smokestacks.”
Thanks to the Yankee rewriting of history few Americans know that John Hancock, John Adams, and the majority of the Northern delegates to the constitutional convention were slave owners; that at the time, ten percent of the New York City population consisted of slaves; that New England shippers were major players in the international slave trade well into the 1860s; that numerous wealthy New Englanders, such as the founder of Brown University, invested in the international slave trade business; that many New Englanders continued to own slave plantations in Cuba even after slavery was ended in the U.S.; and that in 1860 there were more free black people in the South than in the North.
There is a 300-year history of Yankees demonizing anyone who stands in their way of political domination, and of course, no one has been more demonized than Southerners – the only group of Americans to ever seriously challenge their dominance. Moreover, the identification of God with America and the United States with infallible righteousness is Yankee stuff through and trough,” writes Wilson. Here he is describing “American exceptionalism,”the excuse for myriad imperialistic wars over the past 150 years, always glorified by our Yankee rulers as “righteous crusades.” Just listen to the words of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which refers to the death of as many as 850,000 Americans as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.” Not to mention the slaughter of 200,000 Filipinos and senseless American entry into World War I, which were also “glorified” in song and words.
The “Yankee way of war,” commenced during the “Civil War” and perfected during the subsequent twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians (1865 – 1890), the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and World War I, involves “marshaling overwhelming material to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards commanders appropriately.” This does sound an awful lot like contemporary wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
The statist indoctrination academies known as “the public schools” was also a Yankee invention, as Wilson shows, and originated as “a program of ideological and ethnic cleansing.” It was the post “Civil War” presidents Grant and Hayes who imposed the Yankee government school monopoly on the South, modeled after “the statist, militarized models of Europe.” Higher education was first politicized by the Lincoln administration’s Morrill Act that funded “land grant universities,” and by the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which quickly politicized agricultural education by sending “extension agents” into the public schools.
Wilson wastes no time on the self-serving Yankee fairy tale about how righteous and super-ethical Yankees supposedly marched South in the 1860s to heroically die by the hundreds of thousands for the benefit of black strangers – the basic history of the “Civil War” that Yours Truly was taught in Pennsylvania public schools. Reminding his readers that secession is not the same thing as war, and that the causes of secession were different from the cause of the war, Wilson lucidly states that “the war was caused by the determination of Lincoln and his party to conquer the Southern states and destroy their legal governments” and put themselves in charge – forever. “The war, after all, consisted of the invasion and conquest of the South by the U.S. government. A very simple fact that most Americans, it would seem are unable to process, along with the plain fact that the Northern soldiers did not make war for the purpose of freeing black people.”
In 1860 antislavery arguments were hardly sufficient to win an election, let alone to inaugurate a war of conquest, says Wilson. Other more realistic causes of the war were “an impulse toward national greatness”; “the rise of an aggressive class of industrial and banking moguls” in the North; the “arrival in the Midwest of radical, power-worshipping Germans fleeing the failed revolutions of 1848” in Europe; and “Lincoln’s clever manipulation of a phony but powerful issue: the ‘extension of slavery.’”
Crony capitalism run amok has been the end game of the Yankee way of government ever since 1865. This involves not only the millions of secret (and not-so-secret) corrupt political deals that enrich the politically-connected at the expense of everyone else (i.e., protectionist tariffs, bailouts of billionaire investment bankers, etc.) but also aggressive, imperialistic wars that have the exact same purpose and effect. This all began with the Lincoln administration’s introduction of corporate welfare for railroad corporations, and is of course many orders of magnitude larger today with bankster bailouts, the never-ending explosion of spending on the military/industrial complex, and myriad other examples of government of the crony capitalists, by the crony capitalists, for the crony capitalists. There is no better example of this today than that “museum-quality” specimen of a Yankee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her pay-to-play Clinton Foundation. Read Clyde Wilson’s new book if you wish to learn the real problem with government in America today.
by Al Benson Jr.
Awhile back I talked to a man that lives just down the street from us. He has bought some property out on the bayou and when he retires he'd like to move out there, put up a little house, and do some fishing. I wish him well, but if the United Nations, our federal government, and their economic "planners" have their way (and unfortunately they usually do) it will never happen.
Their plan for this man, and for the rest of us, is not that any of us own any private property anywhere out in the country or anywhere else no matter how much we might like to. The glorious plan for all of us, unless we wake up, is a little two-by-twice apartment in some big city mega-complex along with everybody else where we are limited to traveling within the confines of the city we have been assigned to. No automobiles or pickup trucks any further than the city they assign us to because if we do anymore than that it strains the "economic sustainability" of our state, the country, and the entire world--and so we must be severely limited in everything we do (and say and think) for the environmental "good" of the entire world. If you are tempted to do a little reading (before it becomes outlawed) check out some of the sources where you see this term "economic sustainability" on the Internet or in the "news" media and you will be looking at sources, people, articles, that have been strongly influenced by the United Nations Agenda 21 program.
You say you've never heard of that? I'm not surprised. It's not exactly a priority for the "news" people unless they are encouraging different states, cities, etc. to sign up and become part of it. Other than that they seem to "know nothing" about it. In an article this size there is no way I can give you everything. The best I can do is to try to hit a few high spots for you that will, hopefully, encourage you to start checking out just what Agenda 21 is on your own.
I started assembling a file of articles on this United Nations aberration awhile back. Anything having to do with the United Nations concerns me because this is the group that is supposed to lead the way into the glories of One World Government for the planet. If you want to find out where the United Nations is going check out the background of a man named Alger Hiss on the Internet.
I found a very informative article on http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com from back on March 24, 2014 which said, in part, that: "Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set up, to save the planet from humans, which are destroying it with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living. The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all the resources in the world, in order to implement 'sustainable' or 'smart' growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction of their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals...To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that needs to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities..." Any of this sound familiar to any of you? It's little more than an updated version of the "workers paradise" they had in the Soviet Union before Communism supposedly fell--and it's all a pile of bovine fertilizer!
No private property, no land, especially no guns, (you won't need them in the city anyway) and no freedom to travel. Your car or pickup truck will have been "confiscated" for the public good because you will have no freedom to travel, actually no freedom for much of anything. Oh yes, you will be totally free to obey all the UN and federal edicts--or else! What a Kountry!!!
The article quoted above is not the only sources for this information. Writer Henry Lamb says inAgenda 21--What Is It? How Did It Get Here that: "(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection,social equity, and what is called 'sustainable' economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles." Doesn't that sound warm and fuzzy?
Even an article in The Blaze, which I don't always agree with by any means, got this one right. It noted that support for Agenda 21 didn't come only from the United Nations. It also came from "wealthy donors like billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society gave ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) a $2.1 million grant in 1997 to support its local Agenda 21 Project. The financing was used to promote the project in the United States." You have to wonder how much of the UN propaganda is promoted in public schools in this country. Well, actually you don't. Just look up UNESCO on the Internet and see what they do regarding public schools in this country. You won't be pleased. I can recall seeing tons of pro-Un stuff in public school when I went, and that is a long, long time ago. I have no sane reason to suppose the volume of it has slowed given the Marxist predilections of our federal government.
So what does this mean for the South (and for the country as a whole for that matter)? It means that if this monstrosity ever gets enacted my friend up the street can kiss his retirement home out on the bayou goodbye. He will be informed by some federal commissar that he will be much better off living in a miniature apartment in the local ghetto with the rest of the proles. His pickup truck? He won't need it, he won't be going much of anyplace anymore. His guns? Forget those! The entire country will be one huge "gun free zone" except for the feds and their friends in the underworld. Fishing? Don't make me laugh! Where will he fish--in the gutters of the streets in his ghetto after we've had a toad strangler? His private property out on the bayou will have been "awarded" to some apparatchik from the UN as a reward for keeping ordinary folks away from it.
Folks, maybe you ought to consider checking out some of the stuff on the Internet regarding Agenda 21. A couple good sites to start off with are www.whatisagenda21.net and www.thenewamerican.com especially an article by Alex Newman back in May, 2013. Oh you will find some sites out there that will "laud and magnify" the United Nations and all it seeks to do,but if you are discerning you will be able to come up with some of those that tell you the real truth. And as for your Confederate flags and your "Don't Tread on Me" flags--forget those. There will be no place in the local ghetto for such things. In fact if people sit around long enough and work hard at doing nothing, there won't even be a faint memory of such things anymore--and everyone will learn to love Big Brother, whether he lives in Washington or New York, or both.
by Al Benson Jr.
Just read an "interesting" article on http://anongalactic.com about comments made by the former header of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabazz, where he told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina that it was time to "finish the mission of killing 'slave masters' and their families.' He made these comments at a Save the Black Church rally there. Shabazz was referring to an 1822 slave revolt started by Denmark Vessey where it was planned to kill all the whites in their beds, regardless of age or sex. Shabazz said, quite plainly that it was time to "finish" Vessey's crusade to kill whites.
I thought, as I read his inflammatory comments that, if some KKK leader in this country had advocated the killing of all blacks it would be portrayed in the media nationwide and worldwide as the hate crime of the century. Whether they actually got to do it or not would not have made any difference. The mere suggestion of it would constitute a hate crime that Washington and their prostitute press would never let us forget.
But here is this black Marxist advocating the killing of whites and the media hardly has a whimper about it. It would appear that, instead of being charged with a hate crime, Comrade Shabazz will end up getting a copy of Hillary's "Get out of jail free" card. With a Marxist administration in control of the White (Red) House does that really surprise anyone. It's all part of the Marxist class struggle program now being implemented in this country and when Hillary assumes the royal throne next year it will continue in spades!
If Sabazz said this at a Save the Black Church rally, one has to wonder exactly what kind of black churches he is endeavoring to "save." Black Liberation churches no doubt, churches that already preach Marxist dogma as Sunday morning sermons.
But the Marxists, cultural and otherwise, are nothing if not tenacious and consistent. In Baton Rouge this past weekend New Black Panther Party leader Babu Omowale was busy urging blacks to all migrate south so they could "form their own country away from racist whitey." From the context of his remarks one would almost get the idea that "racism" existed in the North. Now wherever would he have come up with that idea? He'd better be careful he doesn't deviate from the approved script too far because we've been told for years that all the "racism" existed in the South and now here's Omowale telling his devoted followers to come south to escape from "racist whitey."
And Omowale said his followers should claim five states that should belong to the "black nation" which states are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. He figures that if enough blacks move in then whites will start to move out. He says "the end game is land ownership." Only problem there is that when a country is Marxist, ordinary folks are not able to own private property, only the powers that be are allowed that, and they own their property in the name of "the people." He never said who would end up owning the land, but then he probably doesn't want to deal too much with that part of it. That conversation might get a bit sticky for him so just leave it a vague generality.
I said the Marxists were consistent, and they are. This idea of a black nation in our Deep South is one that was floated by the Marxists around forty or fifty years ago now. It didn't go anywhere then, but with national conditions seeming moving to the left maybe they figure it's a good time to try again. No doubt Hillary would love it! Keep your eyes open because in today's volatile situation you just never know what's going to happen. All you can be sure of at this point is that most of it won't be real good.
By Fred Reed
Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata
, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it. Russia once made large numbers of second-rate tanks. That worm has turned. This thing is way advanced and outguns the American M1A2, having a 125mm smoothbore firing APFSDS long rods to the Abrams 120mm. (As Hillary would know, that’s Armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot. You did
know, didn’t you, Hill?) This isn’t the place for a disquisition on armor, but the above beast is a ver advanced design with unmanned turret and, well, a T34 it isn’t.
A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia.
Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.
Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.
A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really
stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf, and Kursk.
Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitz’s has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?
A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.
When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat, and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….
Is there a pattern here?
The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.
Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.
What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people’s lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?
And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.
The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from a war with China?
What has any
normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.
It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.
I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America’s recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?
There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them.
1848 Socialist Revolution
By Robert Wenzel
Repinted from Lew Rockwell.com
There has been something of a renaissance for socialist support in America.
Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, while seeking the Democratic nomination for president this year accumulated 13 million votes in the primaries, 43.0% of the votes cast.
The high-profile political figure Kshama Sawant is a member of the Socialist Alternative and also sits on the Seattle City Council. Her following is growing.
In his new book, The Problem With Socialism
, Thomas DiLorenzo reports that a YouGov.com poll reveals that 43% of those between the ages of 18 and 25 have a “favorable” opinion of socialism and that they have a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism.
Many more in America advocate interventionist policies that are steps on the way to full blown socialism.
How could this be? Anyone who is familiar with the history of socialism knows of the millions that have died under socialist rule. They know the horrific economic conditions that have developed under socialism.
It is as though Americans, the millennial generation, in particular, have no inkling of the history of socialism in practice nor the writings that have cut the theoretical foundations of socialist ideas to shreds.
Given that the college educational environment is infiltrated with leftist professors as is mainstream media, it should probably not be a surprise that students aren’t taught an accurate story about socialism and that the general public’s understanding is just as bad.
It is obvious that something must be done to change this situation. DiLorenzo has taken a giant step in countering the trend in his new book.The Problem With Socialism
is quite simply a total and complete smashing of socialism. Any socialist belief that a socialist holds dear has for certain been totally destroyed in this book.
The horrific history of socialism and weak theoretical structure are laid bare.
From the early colonists experiments with socialism in America to the expansive socialist adventures in the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, DiLorenzo reports on the deaths and destruction.
He attacks the theoretical construct of egalitarianism and contrasts it with reality.
He examines and informs on the follies of government enterprises.
He exposes the idea that socialism has been a success in Scandinavia,
He explains how government welfare increases poverty.
He explains how socialism causes pollution.
He links the ideas of a central bank and progressive income taxes back to Karl Marx and explains why they cause weak economies.
He explains how socialist regulations create monopolies.
He explains the ways that capital is being socialized.
In short, this book provides a rebuttal to every modern day claim made by socialists. Be it full out socialists or those who may want to advance socialism in only certain ways and only in certain sectors of the economy.
This is the book millennials need to read. It is the book socialists of all ages need to read.
It is also the book that must be read by all those who favor free markets and a free society so that they understand how to counter the arguments of socialists and general interventionists.
DiLorenzo’s book is an intellectual nuclear attack on socialist thinking. Books like this matter.
Dr. Walter Block tells the story that when he was a young socialist he approached Nathaniel Branden at a luncheon where Ayn Rand had spoken. He declared he was a socialist and would like to debate.
Branden agreed to talk with him, under conditions. Here
is Block explaining the exchange:
When I arrived at the luncheon, I found that the group was sitting in “pecking order”: Ayn Rand at the head of the table, Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff, first along the two sides of the table, and the lesser lights ranged alongside. I was of course relegated to the foot of this august assembly, whereupon I turned to my neighbor, a neophyte as it turned out, and tried to argue the socialist side of a debate against capitalism. He replied that he really wasn’t very knowledgeable about this issue, but that the people located at the other end of the table certainly were. At this point I betook myself there, stuck my head between Ayn’s and Nathan’s, and announced that there was a socialist here who wanted to debate someone on economic issues pertaining to capitalism. (I was a bit of a chutzpanick in those days). They politely asked, Who was this socialist, and I replied that it was me.
Nathan very graciously offered to come to the other end of the table with me for this purpose, but he imposed two preconditions: first, I would be honor bound not to allow this conversation to lapse with this one meeting, but would continue with it until we had achieved a resolution: either he would convince me of the error of my ways, or I would convince him of his. Second, I would read two books he would later recommend to me (Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand and Economics In One Lesson
by Henry Hazlitt). I agreed, and we spoke for an hour or so upon that occasion, followed up four or five times more for a similar duration at his apartment, where some of the other Randians took part, including Ayn, Leonard Piekoff, Barbara Branden and Alan Greenspan.
At the end of this process I was converted to libertarianism. I devoured both books and became a strong adherent of what I now know as the limited government libertarian position or minarchism.
While Atlas Shrugged
and Economics In One Lesson
are two extremely valuable books, today’s socialist require a direct attack hit to shake them of their poor thinking since they are inundated by socialist type ideas in school, on television and just about everywhere else. Their erroneous views are supported day and night.
The direct hit attack is The Problem With Socialism
I plan to take the Nathaniel Branden model and ask any socialist who wants to debate me to read DiLorenzo’s book and advance any objections he can find to what is written in the book. The book is that powerful and important.
If you are a free market advocate, read the book so that you learn how to rebut all the socialists claims.
If you are a socialist, I challenge you to read the book and email me after, if you think there are any weaknesses in it.
, I have a section titled, The Best Books to Read to Get a Solid Introductory Understanding of Economics
, it is a very select list of books. I have just added The Problem With Socialism
to that list.
This powerful book is well written and its paperback pulp fiction size, even in its hardback edition, will result in it not appearing daunting to the current new generation that absorbs things in bits and bytes.
They’ll read it. The smart ones will absorb it and their socialist views will be blown up inside their minds with extreme intellectual force.
by Al Benson Jr.
Last week the Democratic Party was supposedly in a shambles. The web sitehttp://thehornnews.com
had an article posted for August 2nd that said, in part, “The Democratic Party is in the middle of a leadership purge that could affect the landscape of the 2016 election. Three more top Democratic Party officials have resigned today in the wake of an embarrassing email hack.”
Ahh, but that was then and this is now.
The Democrats looked pathetically bad, with party officials being thrown under the bus with amazing regularity.
On the same say all this was happening there was also an article onhttp://www.1776coalition.com
by Gabrielle Levy which had Trump saying “I’m afraid the election’s going to be rigged, I have to be honest,…” In light of the Clintons’ reputation I didn’t think that was an outlandish statement, but apparently the Republican Establishment did because on the Horn News for August 3rd appeared an article which was headlined “Traitors! RNC pushing Trump to quit.” This article said, again in part, “The report, from an anonymous GOP source, stated that senior party insiders are so upset and baffled by Trump’s erratic behavior that they are preparing a back-up plan for replacing him on the ballot before the November general election.” Almost sounds like something they’ve had in play for awhile.
So, in two days, we have gone from a Democratic Party in shambles over all of Hillary’s leaded emails to the Republican Establishment planning to replace Trump because of “erratic” behavior. At least this is what the “news” media is telling up. Of course how much actual truth you ever get from them is always up for grabs, but looking at this entire scenario and taking it from Democratic ruin on Monday to Trump’s possible mental condition on Wednesday, it begins to smell to me like good old fashioned damage control
for Hillary. They needed something to take the spotlight off of her and to focus it somewhere else so people would, in a few days, forget all about her email indiscretions and have something else to chatter about. And in typical Marxist fashion, if they can pull this off, they will kill two birds with one stone–bury Hillary’s email problems and cut Trump’s political throat all in one fell swoop! And the prostitute press are more than willing accomplices.
Unfortunately, so is the Republican National Committee–but then, if the truth be known, they always have been. Trump was not
supposed to win the nomination. One of the other 16 political shills running against him was, and the Republicans weren’t too fussy which one, although they’d rather have had a Bush or a Romney than a Rand Paul, but they’d have lived with a Rand Paul if necessary. No way can they co-exist with Trump and they have been looking for some way, any way, to deep six him since long before the Republican convention. All you have to do to realize this is to have followed their actions and comments and you could have told that the real agenda has always been “anyone but Trump.”
Just because he won the nomination didn’t change their Marxist mindsets–and please, don’t try to tell me all the Republicans are conservatives. Some are, but not many. When you talk like a conservative but vote like a Marxist, then you’re a Marxist, possibly different from the Democratic Marxists only in degree and false rhetoric.
It’s like I have said so many times before–the same leftist Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission clique in Washington and New York controls both parties at the leadership levels. The only question we might ask, in light of recent articles I’ve done, is who controls the CFR and the Trilateralists? As high up as they are, they ain’t at the top of the totem pole.
So watch what goes on in the next few days. Hillary’s email problems will probably be ancient history and the Republican Establishment will
attempt to find a way to replace Trump with yet another political stooge who will make sure it’s business as usual–and that Hillary wins. That’s the real
name of the game.
So what will all the folks that voted for and supported Trump end up doing when they find they have no real voice at all as all this goes down? Probably not as much as we could hope for.