Monthly Archives: October 2008

Global socialism vs. National socialism

I think we can all sum up what Election 2008 comes down to, the globalized socialism of Obama vs. the national socialism of McCain. Before the McCaniacs fool you into thinking you’re saving the free market by voting for them, here are a few articles to show you there’s not a dime’s worth of difference on the big issues between both candidates.

“Elected Affliction” by Nebjosa Malic at

Socialist or National Socialist” by Tom DiLorenzo at Lew

and “Is Obama a Socialist?” by Anthony Gregory, also at Lew

I’d prefer an honest socialist over a phony who goes around and attacks the honest man while hiding his own socialism and hypocracy. Hopefully the good news will be on election night is that the deviant and devious one is thrown down and that honest one will survive so the case against socialism will be on its merits with a true freedom candidate making the argument.

William Lind is Watching the Israeli Election

Over at, William Lind reports on the other election:

At present some, polls suggest the Likud Party will win. If that happens, it will mean as much for America as for Israel. Why? Because America’s Middle Eastern policy is effectively the tail on Likud’s dog.

Those who imagine an Obama victory will see the neocons shown the door are in for an unpleasant surprise. Under the guise of neo-libs, they are no less influential in the Democratic establishment than in the Republican.

Continue reading

Is Joe becoming a secessionist?

It just may be election year morosity and sour grapes but Joe Farah is starting to sound like a secessionist. Of course so did disppointed Kerry supporters but they got over it and now their posied to run the whole show.

But if it’s true the GOP is going to lose big and if the party remains crippled for many years (assuming the Dems don’t  become radical and stupid with power which usually seems to happen in these cases) the secession and seperatist ideas will once again start gaining creedence among those on the right cowered by Bush and McCain nationalism. Now that they’re gone, the Dems have all power and the GOP tries to mimic them, who’s to say such ideas won’t gain more traction? Especially among those writers like Farah not tied into the system?

In praise of assisted suicide

“Imperial overstretch” is upon us. The term is no longer a long-term prediction about what’s going to hit us if we allow the hazardous waste zone that is DC to continue to throw its weight around the world. It’s now shorthand for the daily news, from the Diversity Depression brought on by DC’s mandated egalitarianism, to the horrific waste and carnage caused by DC’s endless wars. Oh, and let’s not forget another high price of international bullying, the condemnation of the world for DC’s arrogance and aggression, of which the DC-sanctioned terror attack on Syria is only the latest example.

What’s a devolutionist to do? How can we possibly resist? Continue reading

The right to pay for Courtney Cox’s botox injections

I got a chance to listen to the debate between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader and enjoyed it very much.

However, I thought Baldwin could have given a better answer on health care policy. He’s in a bind because from Consitutional perspective there should be no government intereference in the health care system, which we would all agree on, yet you don’t want to look callous either which doesn’t leave you with a good answer.

Being long-time physician, Dr. Paul had some good ideas during the primaries for returning the system back to where it was affordable for persons with just out-of pocket expenses and I think states and local governments and companies should be allowed to expirament and come up with solutions for insurance coverage on their own free from the necessity of getting government permission or “waivers”.

To me, the best argument one can make against universal healthcare is that once you make getting health care a right, you can’t take it away, nor can you deny it or say it costs too much. In socialist systems the government is the one that denies care if it costs too much instead of the insuranace companies. But the difference is, such socialist counties do not have our Constituion nor are they as litigous as we are. A Canadian court said rationing violated Canada’s Charter of Rights so one can imagine the same would be true in the U.S.  And when U.S. court rules that you cannot deny or delay a person’s right to healthcare,  you’ll be paying for every Hollywood starlots botox operation and breast implants just as we’re paying to give Donald Trump Social Security. Enjoy.

Greed, what’s that?

Apparently the Grand Poobah of all Money (a.k.a Alan Greenspan) wants you to believe he’s unfamiliar with the concept of “Greed” and how making lots and lots of money in a short period of time has a way of making a man cease to think rationally or worry about long-term planning or whether all the money you’re making rests upon a House fo Cards. This apparently never occured to the man who once worried about “irrational exuberance” or whatever that means.

So the Grand Poobah of all Money plays dumb because he does not want to admit he knew exactly what he was doing all along. He made money easy to get for dot com companies and home buyers because he knew that in an age when consumer spending rather making things was the real basis of U.S. wealth, it was important as much money flowed through system as possible to basically repeal the business cycle.

Well the Grand Poobah failed, and now he’s just plain old Alan with his reputation ruined for creating the mess we’ll be spending years to clean up and it couldn’t have happened to a more wonderful person.

The moral of the story, never abandon your Randianism.

Third Party Presidential Debate Tonight at 9:00 on C-SPAN 2 (Update)

There will be a Third Party Presidential Candidates Debate tonight at 9:00 pm ET. It will be aired live on C-SPAN 2. The debate will originate from the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. A live web feed will also be streamed by Restore the Republic Radio at or

This 90-minute forum is being sponsored by The Free and Equal Elections Coalition ( A total of six presidential candidates who are on enough state ballots to be eligible to win the election have been invited to participate.

Constitution Party nominee and the only authentic conservative in the race, Chuck Baldwin, will be participating. Independent Ralph Nader has also confirmed. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr could not attend due to a “scheduling conflict.”

I don’t doubt that Bob Barr has a scheduling conflict since this debate was arranged rather hastily. It was originally scheduled for last Sunday. But skepticism is warranted because Bob Barr has generally tried to avoid appearing with the other third party candidates, I believe in the mistaken belief that he is a more serious candidate, and that appearing with other third party candidates will somehow diminish him. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader followed the same rational in 2000. But I believe Barr is making a big mistake. This attitude has already cost him support. His now infamous snub of Ron Paul’s press conference was labeled Snubgate on the Web, and earned Baldwin Ron Paul’s specific endorsement. Prior to Barr’s grandstanding, Paul had simply urged supporters of liberty to vote third party without endorsing any candidate specifically. Barr is acting, as my Mom would say, too big for his britches. He needs to get down off his high horse and get his hands dirty with the rest of the third party candidates.

Anyway, tonight’s debate should be a refreshing change of pace. After watching three debates of Social Democrat A vs. slightly less Social Democrat B, it will be nice to hear from an authentic conservative and Constitutionalist, Chuck Baldwin.

Update: We’ve got the video replay of the debate for all those who may have missed it.

The Nature of the Neocons

Check out this video from our friend, the Southern Avenger, and the long but interesting discussion that follows.

I engage in a debate with a few others on the nature of the neocons and the utility of hyperbolic neocon demonization. There are two seemingly conflicting characterizations of the neocons. One is that they are true-believing ideologues blind to reality, profoundly misguided but not necessarily base in their motivations. Utopian maybe. Cavalier about the use of force certainly. But not base. (War for oil. That type of thing.) The other that they are ruthless manipulators who may hide behind ideology but who really are just self-interested and whose primary motives are base. (Power, enriching Halliburton, making the world safe for global capitalism, etc.) I lean toward the former explanation. The later strikes me as more Michael Moore territory.

While long, I think the discussion is worth wading through, if I do say so myself.

It is certainly possible that both characterizations could have elements of truth, but taken as a whole they seem rather mutually exclusive to me. Either the neocons actually believed their own ideology and misstepped because of it, or the ideology is pure window dressing and the missteps were calculated. What strikes me as odd, is that both characterizations seem to have equal currency on the anti-war right, and I haven’t really seen a lot of discussion of the inherent contradiction. I think a lot of anti-war conservatives become a bit irrational when discussing the neocons. But if Claes Ryn is right, for example, that neocons are modern day Jacobins, then they can’t also be purely self-interested Machiavellians and vice versa. They could be Machiavellians in the services of Jacobinism. They could even feel that Jacobinism serves their own self-interests. (I accept this characterization.) But that isn’t really what is often argued. What is being argued is that War was pursued for the advancement of purely base and self-interested motives.

Thoughts? Harrison, our resident expert on the neocons, any thoughts?

Bart Simpson Supports Obama

Here is a funny yet not so funny story. Did you know little Bart Simpson was a Dem? Apparently he is.

What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?

All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

This is unfortunate. I really figured Daffy Duck for a conservative? Say it isn’t so Daffy. :-)