Monthly Archives: June 2011

Mes Aïeux – Toune En On

Mes Aïeux (French for “My Ancestors”) is the Québécois group famous for its double platinum album En Famille with the hit song “Dégénération” (English subtitles). Though I can’t understand a word, “Toune En On” has a great sound – another French treasure largely unknown by the English-speaking world.

The music video appears critical of television viewing and perhaps mass society in general. I’m dying to see an English translation.
Continue reading

Study: US Wars Cost $4 Trillion, Killed 258,000

Plan to recite the Pledge of Fealty Allegiance this weekend? Well, here’s what you’re pledging to support:

A new study from Brown University’s Watson Institute has set an estimated that the post 9/11 costs of the assorted wars of the Bush and Obama Administrations has been in the realm of $4 trillion and has directly killed 258,000 people.

If this death toll seems a tad low, its because it is. The study readily admits that it is only calculating “direct” kills, and not the indirect deaths from shoddy healthcare, lack of access to food and water, etc in the various occupied nations.

Whether a Republican or Democrat occupies the Awful Office, DC’s number one industry is subsidized mayhem. Only the campaign rhetoric changes every election. The only difference between Red States and Blue States is the color of their Kool-Aid.

Coverage of World Net Daily Press Conference

Yesterday to get some updates on the WND press conference I searched Yahoo using “world net daily press conference sue esquire” (no quotation marks in my search), and I would like to point out that my blog post from 28 Jun on the issues was the number one search result. While this is good for my ego and this site’s credibility, it doesn’t speak well for how larger news organizations have covered the press conference.

But some stuff has been trickling out, and as usual it is more snark than honest reporting. The reports are more an excuse to ridicule birthers than to report the news.

Here is Forbes’ report. (I have a comment below it.)

The Atlantic Wire.

Huffington Post.

What these all have in common, besides substituting snark for the actual reporting of facts, is they all accept the long-form birth certificate the President released at face value. This is journalistic dereliction of duty. Given all the controversy and delay, the MSM should have immediately investigated the authenticity of the document the White House released. I do not believe this is a debatable point among objective, fair-minded people. If you believe the press should have accepted the long-form bc at face value, then you are either deliberately incurious or a shill. The press is supposed to be skeptical of the powers that be, not defenders of the conventional wisdom.

Here is what Corsi had to say on Facebook about The Atlantic Wire article:

Here’s the left’s spin on the WND law suit — Left wants to keep laughing it off — in blind belief that the WH released birth certificate settles everything — if the birth certificate issue had involved George W. Bush, the Left would be up in arms — demanding a forensic examination of the original document. Only lies keep Obama in office at this point.

Corsi is right, of course.

Breaking: Federal court upholds Obamacare

And now for the shocker of the century:

The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:

By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the judges who voted to uphold the act, clerked for Scalia, and was nominated by George W. Bush.

Actually, this is two shockers in one! Not only has the Commerce Clause been used ONCE AGAIN to grant the central government powers never contemplated by the people, a Bush-appointed judge sided with Obama.

Still think electing Republicans makes any difference?

I can’t resist quoting my blog post from last September, on a court ruling that said the Commerce Clause gave DC final say on gun laws:

I mean really — you ask the Feds how much power they have over you and the answer is “lots!” That’s a surprise? And they base their authority on the commerce clause, which lovers of big government have turned into Silly Putty. Yawwwn. …

Guess what will happen when Obamacare faces the exact same challenge? Think the commerce clause can be stretched to cover that, too?

Anyone out there care to make a little bet?

Yep. That’s some Clause, that Commerce Clause.

Articles for your consideration

SARTRE’s latest at BATR – “Monetary Revolution and Alternative Money”

Here’s another from SARTRE – “The Handbook of Human Ownership”

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn “Silliness as to who has to Give Up their Day Jobs”

My latest is up at Etherzone.com “Complexity is the Enemy of Good Public Policy”

The Recessional for Empire by Eric Margolis at Lew Rockwell.com

The War Fever Breaks by Andrew Bacevich at TAC

Everyone Needs a Little Localism in their Lives - By Russell Arben Fox at Front Porch Republic

“Once Made in the USA” at the American Prospect

“Goodbye to Los Angeles” by Pat Buchanan at Chronicles

 

World Net Daily to Sue Esquire Magazine Over Birther Satire

World Net Daily has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow where they will announce their intent to sue Esquire Magazine over a satire Esquire published.

I am not a lawyer so I do not know the legal merits of the suit, but I do know that the article was bad satire. Good satire is subtle but obvious. The Esquire article was neither subtle nor obvious as evidenced by the fact that so many people mistook it for the truth, and also by the fact that Esquire had to issue an update to clarify that it was satire. The article does not read like satire. It reads like a mean-spirited vindictive liberal taking pleasure in the travails of his enemy, and that scenario should strike no one as unique. Ever watch Olbermann or Maddow?

Hopefully this press conference will give WND a chance to lay out some of the evidence that the long-form birth certificate the White House released is a forgery*, since the obvious question is “Didn’t a book entitled Where’s the Birth Certificate become a moot point after Obama released his long-form birth certificate?” Of course, the MSM should have had the birth certificate forensically analyzed immediately after it was released, but they didn’t, so this will hopefully nudge them to address the concerns.

*I do not dogmatically claim the long form is a forgery, but I have read some analysis that should make any fair-minded person wonder. What is needed is expert forensic examination, the type you would have in a high profile trial, of the scan the White House released and of the alleged original.

Paul secures terror hearing

A follow-up of note to an earlier post on Iraqi refugees arrested in Kentucky, comes news that Senator Rand Paul:

has secured a hearing through the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee to address concerns about visas and political asylum following the arrest of two Iraqi refugees on terrorism charges last month in Bowling Green. BG Daily News June 25, 2011…

“So my question is, ‘Was someone asleep at the switch here?’ ” Paul said earlier this month about the men successfully gaining refugee status.

“Is it happening because we’re spending time searching millions of innocent Americans and wasting time on that and not doing a thorough job on those who are coming from these Middle Eastern countries, who I think need to be thoroughly vetted before they enter our country?” Paul asked.

The hearings are scheduled for July 13.  Senator McConnell’s call to send them over to Gitmo, and keep the refugee racket going for his supporters looks like the misdirect it is, in light of Paul’s reaction.

The totalitarian campaign of Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich isn’t letting the fact his campaign team, his advisors, managers and fundraisers, have basically deserted him in his bid for the White House in 2012. In fact he says he’s been “liberated” to run the kind of campaign he now wishes to run.

There’s no doubt Gingrich sees himself as the John McCain of 2012, a candidate abandoned and left for dead by everyone else but who, without a burdensome campaign infrastructure, is free to be the candidate he wishes to be and run his campaign the way he wishes to and uses this freedom to impress the people enough in one of the early primary states to lead him to victory after traveling up and down the state in town and through every valley. Actually he cannot travel at all now (unless its on someone else’s dime like this Tea Party tour of Iowa) given his campaign has no money coming in and he has more bills to pay at Tiffany’s.

But it doesn’t matter because Newt is going to campaign the new fashioned way from the new school. Instead of church basements in Iowa and coffee klatches in New Hampshire, Newt will be standing social media on its head to get his message out.

Continue reading

New York passes same-sex “marriage”

New York Governor Andrew Caligula Cuomo has pushed for some time to legalize same-sex “marriage” in his state, and by a thin margin of 33-to-29, the legislature passed it yesterday. Other than Iowa, the other states that have legislated “marriage equality” are in the Northeast.

Oh, and don’t forget the District of Corruption.

But equality is a perpetually ravenous beast that consumes whole populations. What do we mandate next in the permanent revolution known as the Civil Rights movement? It’s already embraced illegal immigration along with homosexuality. Can pedophilia be far behind?

Oh, wait, it’s already on its way!

Prohibition Party Nominates Pastor Jack Fellure for President

In our ongoing effort to keep our readership abreast of all things right-wing third party we bring you this bit of news. :-) The Prohibition Party nominated Baptist minister Jack Fellure at its recent convention. The nomination was considered a bit of a surprise. Fellure is no stranger to Presidential politics, having run as a Republican several times before. Darcy Richardson has the story. Interestingly, the reportedly “sparsely attended” convention was addressed by some fairly well known (in third party circles) guests speakers – Libertarian activist Steve Gordon and ballot access expert Richard Winger.

Here is Fellure’s website. I saw his website earlier when I was looking at all the websites listed at politic1.com for obscure Republican candidates. Apparently he is a Ruckmanite (King James only). Correction: Actually I’m not sure it is accurate to attribute  every theological perspective on the website to Fellure. The website appears to belong to someone else and the section on Fellure’s campaign is just one page of it. (This doesn’t bode well. Steve Gordon’s talk was on using new media. Someone needs to take his advice.)

Here is the Prohibition Party’s website. Correction: Thanks to Bill Bledsoe here is the correct Prohibition Party website.

“The Godfather”: The Futility of Third-Party Candidates for President

Here is an article on third parties from “The Godfather.” There is some to agree with and much to disagree with.

Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in American politics is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of Republicans and Democrats. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992 as was Pat Buchanan in 1996. Perot was a nationally known figure who had lots of money to pour into the process. The Reform Party affected both elections but did nothing to advance it as a genuine third party player. While Perot received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, he did not receive a single electoral vote.

Trying to change America’s political system by running a third-party presidential candidacy is a pipe dream.

See more…

IMO, the point of a third party presidential candidate is not to win, at least not in the near term, and anyone who thinks it is is bound to be disappointed and frustrated. The point of a third party presidential candidate is to punish the party closest to your beliefs for being insufficiently faithful, to provide a safety valve and home for those unwilling to compromise and vote for the lesser of two evils, and to hopefully build the party base so you can better challenge the two major parties in the future. Given our current system of first past the post, the long term goal is not to become a “viable” third party, but to replace one of the major parties.

Ballot access is also an obstacle since third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of Republicans and Democrats.

Regardless of where you stand on the usefulness of third parties, every fair minded person should agree that the Republican and Democrat parties having an exalted status and “third” parties having additional barriers is fundamentally wrong.

May I suggest that we discuss this article at “The Godfather’s” website. No registration is required to comment.

Cross posted (in somewhat different form) at Independent Political Report.

Southern Baptist Leadership Jump on Cultural Marxist Bandwagon?

So says the blogger Dow Blog, apparently a Baptist and paleoconservative himself, in reference to the SBC’s recent endorsement of amnesty and mass immigration. He writes:

By passing this resolution the SBC eagerly hopped on the amnesty bandwagon and comes dangerously close to advocating lawlessness in the name of Jesus. In so doing, they seek the approval of men, by which I mean the editors of the New York Times, rather than God. The entire spectacle is yet another piece of evidence that even the most “conservative” American institutions have been taken hostage by the poisonous principles of political correctness and Cultural Marxism, a Satanic Trojan Horse whose purpose is to serve as a weapon wielded by the enemies of Christianity to lull gullible and guilt-ridden Christians into complacency prior to slitting our collective throat.

The MO of the whole Richard Land / Leith Anderson / Roger Mahony / Timothy Dolan crowd seems to be: “Our numbers are declining so let’s flood the US with the Third World so we can get some of them to come to our church. Besides, it’s wrong to kick poor non-whites out of our country; they’re good people; it’s not what Jesus would want.”  Of course, the Cultural Marxists, hellbent on the dispossession of the European American majority, are more than happy to accommodate them.

HT: PC

Update:

Here’s Part II of the Dow Blog’s rebuttal to the SBC’s support of mass immigration.

More BNP Stuff

Here is a second Alternative Right article on the BNP issue. It is by Alex Kurtagic and argues that Griffin isn’t the BNP’s only problem. I found this part particularly interesting:

The problem with the party’s message is that it is almost entirely negative. It is based purely on a negative proposition (Britain is going to the dogs, the establishment is corrupt); it is concretely and emphatically anti-everything (anti-immigration, anti-establishment, anti-globalisation, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam, anti-feminism); and it is pessimistic (everything will get worse, the economy will collapse, Britain will be Islamised). As a result, it seems acutely paranoid rather than simply realistic.

Where an effort has been made to make the party’s message positive (and the recent logo re-design seems part of this) the message remains for the most part reactionary and conservative, expressing a yearning for a return or restoration to a pre-liberal past, rather than a will to rebirth or regeneration in a post-liberal future…

… Most want to feel happy and optimistic. They want to look forward to, rather than dread, the future. And most importantly they do not want to be like ‘those awful BNP supporters’—at least how they imagine them to be.

In other words, the negative message implies a negative identity—an identity defined against an establishment that enjoys the benefit of possessing and regulating access to status, power, and money.

The reason this struck me is that it also describes American paleo-conservatives precisely. Everywhere he says BNP you could replace with paleo-conservatives without missing a beat. While Kurtagic might be right rhetorically, the problem for me is that the negativism and pessimism is entirely warranted. America (and Britain) really are going to Hell and the answer, to the degree there is one, really does involve re-embracing the past. I just can’t get emotionally invested in fake optimism that I think is entirely unwarranted and fundamentally dishonest. The people who want their ears tickled need to grow up and quite living in a fantasy world. The country is going to Hell in a hand-basket and if we don’t do something to reverse course there will be nothing left to save.

BNP: Griffin Must Go?

We have covered the BNP some here at CHT. Here is a very interesting article by Colin Liddell at Alternative Right. He argues that Nick Griffin has become a drag on the Party and must go. I don’t profess to know nearly enough about the issue to have an informed opinion about it, but the article is informative.

I agree very much with the comments of Nightwatchstate. British nationalism is always going to be artificial because Britishness is artificial. What is needed is an English National Party, a Scottish National Party, a Welsh National Party, etc. that are rightist. I recognize that there is already a Welsh Party and a Scottish Party, but they are leftist in character.

It’s not even a state

Thomas Naylor, ‘What the Birther’s Missed:Why Hawai’i is Not a Legitimate State

Reading a children’s edition (republished in ’79 from a 1902 manuscript) of the Arthurian legend this evening to the elder boy, I found myself with Merlin creating the round table.  In this children’s edition, the table is to sit 50, which includes the Seat of Peril, or the Perilous Seat, or whatever name have you–if you sit in it, and are unworthy, the act is fatal.  Further, the text includes a warning from Merlin that when the 50 seats are filled, God will wreck King Arthur.

While indeed the legend frequently changes the number of seats at the Round Table, the mind is tempted to consider the thought of the author and the later editors to use the 50 seat number and Merlin’s warning–Fate is apparently still with us.

With that in the background, Thomas Naylor hits the metapolitical point of the Birther question–is Hawaii a legitimate state?

And I won’t (which is to say I will) bother to mention the Pearl Harbor Question–we’ll tackle candidates from Seward’s Folly another day if need be.

Is Gen. Paul Vallely Considering a Run for President?

It has been somewhat of a tradition here at CHT that we attempt  to cover outside the mainstream and otherwise non-traditional candidates. In that spirit, here is a suggestion I ran across on Facebook.

It’s is from Orly Taitz’s website, and it is not clear how “on board” Gen. Vallely is with the idea from the e-mail conversation she posts. The bulk of it is a call to action from Stand Up America which is apparently Gen. Vallely’s organization, but it also sounds like it could easily be a campaign platform. You may recognize Gen. Vallely as a frequent Fox News commentator on military matters. He earlier said he would consider running as Trump’s running mate.

The “call to action” is a mix bag of good and bad. He endorses the “Fair Tax” which would be a disaster, but he also endorses abolishing the “Departments of Energy, Education, (and) HEW” and dissolving “the EPA and IRS (and) Federal Reserve.” He surprisingly says we should “Cease this strategy of nation building in the Middle East as well as supporting corrupt and ineffective international organizations like the United Nations,” but is also excessively concerned about the threat from Iran. He seems possibly to be a John Bolton style nationalist interventionists but without being a neocon. His Stand Up America website contains links to The Weekly Standard and David Horowitz which isn’t encouraging.

What might make a Vallely candidacy intriguing however, is that he has openly questioned the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, has called for his impeachment,  and has questioned the authenticity of the long form birth certificate.

The campaign needs an open birther in my opinion to keep the issue out there. So far the current candidates have been completely ball-less on the issue, especially since the release of the long form birth certificate which may or may not be authentic.

MSNBC promotes Marxist bullies

This is ridiculous.

On Sunday, 26 June, MSNBC will broadcast a puff-piece on the “antifa” group “One People’s Project.” What the documentary praises as the group’s “anti-racism” is what most people would call “bullying and intimidation,” as documented here. My letter to MSNBC is self-explanatory:

I am deeply concerned about your upcoming documentary on the One People’s Project. The clips portray them as a benign group, when in fact they are an intolerant leftist organization. They characterize all opponents as “racists” and “nazis,” including conservatives and activists who want existing immigration laws enforced.

OPP’s totalitarian tactics are documented here. But don’t take my word for it. In this video, Daryle Lamont Jenkins reveals the “antifa” style when he belligerently confronts Andrew Breitbart and attempts to smear him as a “racist.”

Your viewers would appreciate the full picture of this dangerous group instead of propaganda.

Thank you for your time and attention to this.

The hypocrisy of this reeks to high Heaven. Mr. Jenkins can associate with the followers of mass murderer and totalitarian Leon Trotsky at the Left Forum held at Pace University, and even give a talk on Black Liberation Theory, which seeks to advance Marxist goals through racial, rather than class, solidarity, but praised the “antifa” who persuaded the mayor pro tem of Charlotte to pressure local hotels to deny Jared Taylor a place to meet. Free speech for me but not for thee.

Click here to send MSNBC your reaction to this outrage.

The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

Is it possible this country has just had an outbreak of sanity? Well, the rising backlash against the mindless militarism of the last decade tells us there’s hope:

An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.

Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.

The arrogance and obscene waste of DC’s imperial projects can no longer be covered up with flowery language about liberating the world. A real anti-militarism movement is taking coherent form (check out this story, entitled “Bring the troops home — all of them,” to see just how wide and deep this movement is.) As this backlash grows, more people will realize the connection between an aggressive foreign policy and an authoritarian domestic policy. We’ve been sounding the alarm for some time that single-issue politics is self-defeating — the only means of restoring liberty is to dismantle the entire machinery of empire, not just part of it.

A president who can launch wars at will can arrest or assassinate Americans at will. Thank God more people are finally understanding that.

Is Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Losing Its Grip on the GOP?

This Foreign Policy article says it is. It is well worth a read.

I agree. The base of the GOP still holds default interventionist and “strong defense” assumptions. They are a long way from Paul style non-interventionism. But they are less inclined to embrace the neo-conservative idea of America as keeper of world order. There just isn’t an ear for that anymore. Six or seven years have made a big difference. It isn’t 2004 or 2005 anymore, and the hyper-interventionist rhetoric that worked then just doesn’t resonate anymore.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

 

Articles for your consideration

From Chuck Baldwin: “Why we chose the Flathead Valley of Montana” and “Government cannot be trusted to police itself.”

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn “Things gleaned from the Republican Debate” and “To Tyranny and Beyond…!”

Alexander Cockburn at Chronicles: “Can any of these Republicans win? Can Obama lose?”

Jack Hunter at TAC: “Radical Kirk”

Justin Raimondo:  “The Persecution of an Antiwar Blogger” at Antiwar.com

The Second Vermont Republic’s Mission Statement

Our friend Jerry Sayler write on the “War on Raw Milk” at Front Porch Republic