Monthly Archives: February 2008

Hate crimes everywhere you look

Everyone’s aware that you’re guilty of the most insensitive form of nativist racism if you accurately quote Mexican radicals’ statements about reclaiming the American Southwest.

And we all know that only a bad, bad racist would publish, or analyze, or even think about the differences in IQ between blacks and whites.

So it only makes sense that you’re committing a hate crime by announcing Barack [DELETED] Obama’s middle name.

Wow.  And everyone laughed when Marion Barry, the former (and most representative) mayor of the District of Corruption, proclaimed, “All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist.”

His Honor was right.  It looks like all facts are racist, too.

Baldwin’s Latest: The Money Changers are Destroying America – What Would Jesus Do?

Jesus resorted to violence.

Dr. Baldwin writes:

The moneychangers of Jesus’ day were the equivalent of the international bankers of our day.

He made a scourge (or whip) and drove the bankers out of the Temple by force and destroyed their tables, along with their records, receipts, etc.

It is modern moneychangers who bully and bribe our spineless and greedy politicians (from both parties) into passing so-called “free trade” deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and the FTAA, which have all but destroyed America’s manufacturing base and have put millions of American workers out of their jobs. It is the moneychangers who are the driving force behind the burgeoning North American Union, which sacrifices America’s national sovereignty and independence. Continue reading

Nader Will Not Run as a Green

This surprises me. Does he not think he can beat Cynthia McKinney?

I can’t decide which is better from my opening up the process standpoint. Two far left candidates, one Green (McKinney) and one independent (Nader), or one united far left. Is the far left and far right a rather fixed quantity that have to be competed for, or do more candidates increase the potential number of converts? I think probably some of both. Thoughts?

McCain Explains 100 Year Presence in Iraq

Associated Press writes:

Responding to a student who had criticized his 100-year remark, McCain added, “No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties.”

If no American argues against maintaining bases all over the world, then what are we – is this like “with us or against us“? Continue reading

Vote in Constitution Party Presidential Preference Poll

Go here to vote. The link to the poll is about half way down on the left.

The poll is being discussed here.

I just don’t get why some candidates who are most likely pro-war interventionists are being considered. (Keyes most certainly is. Smith and Corsi are until proven otherwise.) Is this ignorance? Is this cognitive dissonance? Is there an interventionist wing of the CP? Or are people so hungry for a big name they are willing to sacrifice principles?

See, I told you so

Yesterday John McCain apologized profusely when a Cincinnati talk show host, “Bouncing” Billy Cunningham (who’s show you can pick up on WLW 700 AM on a good clear winter’s night) kept referring to Barak Obama’s middle name “Hussein” during a warm-up speech before a McCain rally in Cincinnati. Here’s what happened:

Continue reading

If the NAU is a myth, then why was this agreement signed?

Jerome Corsi asks this question in an article for WND after an agreement was signed by the U.S. and Canada allowing troops from either nation, with the approval of their respective governments to be used to police “domestic disturbances”, “national emergencies” and other euphemisms across the northern border. In other words, if riots took place Seattle (WTO riots for example, remember those?) then Canadian troops could police Seattle streets.

William F. Buckley Has Passed Away

Details are trickling out, but the story is here.

We should resist the urge to write the always tacky polemical obituary. The legacy of William F. Buckley is decidedly mixed from a paleo standpoint, but we should wait an adequate length of time before we examine the low points. His death is not the occasion to do that. May he Rest in Peace.

World’s Smallest Political Quiz Version 2

Inspired by: World’s Smallest Political Quiz

If anyone likes, he may help me make a Version 2:

Top Managerial:

1. Big Government
2. Limited Free Speech
3. Oppose decentralisation and secession in most cases
4. War Prone
5. Big Business and Free Trade
6. Mass Immigration
7. Creative Destruction, Anti-Social Morality, Ideological Center
8. Pro-democracy Continue reading

Buchanan’s “The Return of Ethnic Nationalism”

The Return of Ethnic Nationalism

Writes Muller: “A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.” Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.

Continue reading

For Those of Us Who Think Chuck Baldwin Would Make a Good Constitution Party Nominee …

Here is more proof. He is right on an essential question. One on which Alan Keyes is oh so wrong, BTW.

Although I do not share this opinion, many people believe Abraham Lincoln to be one of America’s greatest presidents (I think he was one of the worst). Personal opinion aside, it is a fact that Lincoln’s election and subsequent influence upon this country was huge. Therefore, it is more than significant to realize that Lincoln was first elected from a four-person race with only 39% of the popular vote. Even more significant is the fact that at that time the Republican Party was a minor party, having been formed only a few years earlier. So much for the argument that a minor party cannot win a major election.

More on Potential Constitution Party Candidates

Here is an article on the potential candidates at Third Party Watch. The author, Trent Hill, doesn’t really go into the issues much. He just speculates on each candidate’s potential base of support. You can see my comments in the comment section.

I continue to be disturbed that pro-War, pro-intervention candidates like Alan Keyes, Bob Smith, and Jerome Corsi are even being considered. (If any of these three is not pro-War and pro-intervention then I would like proof. Alan Keyes clearly is. There is every reason to believe Smith and Corsi were and no real proof they have had a change of heart.) 

When two world views collide

… you usually get sparks.  And sometimes light.  I think the ongoing exchange between Justin Raimondo of and Daniel Larison of Eunomia and American Conservative is one of those exchanges.  Raimondo is a libertarian who often posts the views of paleoconservatives, as well as liberals, on his site.  Larison is a paleoconservative.  Both object to the present regime and its reality-deficient agenda of continuous warfare and the projection of American power as an end in itself.  Both Raimondo and Larison are wise enough to see destructive foreign and domestic policy for what it is.  But one grasps the nature of the problem confronting us, and the other does not. Continue reading

Mary Starrett (Constitution Party) on John McAmnesty

Starrett is the Communications Director for the national Constitution Party. This is a good list of the problems with McAmnesty.

The battered and bruised “conservatives” have begun yet another abusive relationship. So used to being smacked around, they simply cannot see their way clear to pack their bags and leave the party or the candidates who’ve been mistreating them. McCain’s history should be enough proof the man can’t be trusted, yet it appears, like those who repeatedly find themselves in sick relationships, these voters simply cannot get enough of that which they do not want. The “conservatives” are supporting a candidate who has, to the letter, shown he does not stand for anything said “conservatives” say they must have in a candidate.

The conservatives as the battered spouse of the Republican Party. I like that analogy.