RIP America—and It Serves You Right!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2012-06-29 01:08

RIP America—and It Serves You Right!

America, qua Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, just died. Qua travesty thereof, good riddance. Cowards and cretins—now a majority of Americans—don't deserve the liberty that has just been definitively removed from them. They don't deserve the freedom they won't miss.

Even without the Supreme Court's thoroughly anti-American decision on Obamacare today, the Founding Fathers would scarcely recognize the semi-police state that their republic has become.

With this decision, the rebels against King George would need dental forensics to identify the charred remains of the greatest body politic in history—born of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, eventually to be torched by King Obama, with gas poured on by treasonists like Chief Justice Roberts.

The National Federation of Independent of Independent Business joined 26 states in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The Director the Federation's Legal Center, Karen Hamed, has just written:

We joined the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law because, for months, we had heard from small business owners who were greatly concerned over the costs, the burdens and the impositions that the PPACA would bring. They believed it threatened their businesses, employees, families, and livelihoods.

So we fought to the bitter end to keep their fears from playing out.

Yet this case was about something bigger than health care policy, it was about preserving American liberty from the increasingly powerful hand of the federal government.

Today marks a sad day in the history of America. With this decision, Americans have lost the right to be left alone, which Justice William O. Douglas once called “the beginning of all freedom.”

It is painful to recognize that the liberties which our forefathers fought a revolution to secure have been lost. But it is clear that our original constitutional system has been thrown out, and we are left with only the democratic process to preserve our rights. That should be a sobering thought for anyone who values liberty.

Obamarx has won the right to force American citizens to buy health insurance because SCOTUS has deemed the penalty for not doing so a tax, notwithstanding Obamarx's vigorous claims to the contrary. As a tax, says SCOTUS, it is constitutionally permissible (in which case the Constitution clearly needs amending). To enforce the mandate under the Commerce Clause, rules SCOTUS, would be impermissible: the Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to regulate commerce, but not to impose it.

Understand the implications of this. The Federal Government may now, on the grounds that the penalty for non-compliance is a tax, force all adults to purchase anything it deems worthy—e.g., to invoke Justice Roberts's own example from the hearings, broccoli or cellphones.

Small wonder that the four dissenting judges wrote that in their view the law is "invalid in its entirety."

"We are left with only the democratic process to preserve our rights," says Ms Hamed. "That should be a sobering thought for anyone who values liberty."

It is sobering because it means the preservation of rights is now dependent on a majority of American voters wanting to preserve them and voting accordingly. No such majority exists. By a process of Gramscian attrition, which I have traced in many articles, America has become Airhead America, where the very term "rights" is met with blank stares and glazed eyes. In that sense, the thought that the preservation of rights depends on these hordes of zombies is not sobering at all; it's enough to drive the most abstemious freedom-lover to drink.

Liberty-lovers, indeed, should rediscover their intoxication with freedom. They must KASS up. Foppish fumblings on Faecesbook will no longer cut the mustard. Freedom-lovers must reacquaint themselves with the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Freedom-lovers must at the very least, like the Sons of Liberty of old, hang effigies on their front lawns of freedom's enemies. They must remind themselves at every opportunity of Jefferson's words, "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Freedom-lovers must convey that they preserve the spirit of resistance.

As the airheaded vernacular would have it, "Ain't gonna happen." Instead, Obamarx will now cruise to re-election, and faint-hearted milksops among liberty's purported proponents will continue to remonstrate with me for calling him "Obamarx."

Under a re-elected Obamarx, Invoker-in-Chief of Arbitrary Executive Privilege, government will call the shots to an unprecedented and decisive extent. America's unique status in history as a place where the individual has the right to be left alone will be gone for ever. Obamarx will have achieved the fundamental transformation he promised, the fundamental change in the relationship between government and the individual cited by Justice Kennedy during the SCOTUS hearings in March.

We don't need to hear any more shots called by the government. We need to hear echoes of the shots heard around the world from Lexington in 1775.


treii28

gregster's picture

Hello, Traitor 8 ( Oups ) I just hope someone other than myself notices this and picks up the ball. You dropped it with "jurist prudence." To be fair, I am prone to think Roberts did just what all the media pundits said he was going to do - decided as so as not to appear to be legislating from the bench. So as long as the Supreme Court decides in line with the media, all is OK in your world?

But is it really?

treii28's picture

To be fair, I am prone to think Roberts did just what all the media pundits said he was going to do - decided as so as not to appear to be legislating from the bench. If Roberts felt that the nature of the way the health care plan was laid out was a fee/tax and not actually a mandate covered as by prior interpretations of the commerce clause, and if that was the argument presented before him, and if his desire is to exercise jurist prudence, then he can not render a judgment on a tax if no argument on the legality of the tax was presented.
In actuality, as it stands the damage may be considerable as it 'appears' to lend the congress free reign to tax any behavior they wish to limit or control. If left as-is, it will do just that. But Roberts commented (off the record as not to attach precedence which would also seem to be in line with a strict prudence approach as he was not asked to rule on the legality of a tax) that it should not be a power of the congress to tax citizens to control behavior.
I view this comment as a blaring invitation. In my opinion, he is trying to tell those lawyers that he couldn't side with them because of the nature of the case they presented. He's trying to tell them to challenge the legality of the power to tax behavior itself. I just hope someone other than myself notices this and picks up the ball.

(By the way, if anyone is interested in helping me, I have been trying to solicit financial support to hire a constitutional attorney to challenge a very similar law here in the state of Michigan known as the 'Driver's responsibility fee'. Truth be told, a decision on one of these types of state fees could even be used as precedence to challenge the AHA penalties)

Greg

Shayne Wissler's picture

You misunderstood what I mean by "deferred cost." Linz says "RIP America", as if something just happened that's the death knell of America. Since this legislation was just approved, and that he's talking about people getting what they deserve, I take him to mean that some disastrous thing is going to happen in the future because of ObamaCare. So by "deferred cost", I mean this disastrous thing that is allegedly coming for people.

Cranks do this all the time. They predict the end of the world, economic collapse, payment for your sins, etc. And it's an easy thing to predict on an individual level. At some point in your life, you can be guaranteed a disaster will happen. It may be sooner or it may be later but it will come for you. And so these cranks seem by some to be right.

Part of the problem here is I think people want to put America on a pedestal, as if she was a shining example of true principles at some point. But this was never the case. The actual truth was America demonstrated that these shining principles were true, by coming closer than other modern governments to correct principles. But America's gross hypocrisy has been there from the start, at least since the US Constitution was signed. But people always want to only focus on the good aspects of America. They are like a little child who desperately needs someone to look up to, and so looks past the flaws in their hero, much to their own detriment.

ObamaCare is not a change in principle. And at least in part it is a reaction to previous injustices caused by a corporatist America. It is not the correct remedy of course. The correct remedy is to get the government out of all healthcare, just as it is mostly out of computer technology. Abolish the FDA, government medical licensing, patents, and the raft of other regulations, and the price of medical care will drop radically, and ObamaCare would be seen as utterly superfluous.

Of course, you and I both know that that isn't going to happen. Which takes us back to America's hypocrisy, rooted in decisions made long ago.

SW

gregster's picture

“The only thing evident is your unseemly position relative to Linz.” A not-unexpected comment from you Shayne, with a hint of humor if one squints. Or perhaps I’m overly generous. I originally put “I hereby note the danger of taking a sentence out of context, especially one of Shayne’s.” I wrongly reconsidered it. I'll learn.

“It's not evident at all that people are getting or will get what they deserve.” “That's the thing with nationalism and probably one of the key points of it: pretty much nobody ends up getting what they deserve.” At the individual level that is mainly true, due to redistribution, with occasional fortuitous exceptions likely. But desert is not justly (properly)(and not literally) distributed and most people will get what they deserve, while the moral minority will fit along its own bell curve. This is evident if you consider if most people were moral, in the objectivist sense, The Great Obama Depression would not be imminent. Most people are irrational or are being trained to be.

“"We" don't all deserve the bad consequences of nationalism, just as many who are getting the financial benefits of it don't deserve them either.” True, not all, but a majority does deserve bad consequences by abetting general philosophical evasion. It is evident that the Republic has drifted far from its moral Constitution. The spectacle of Chief Justice Roberts delivering America the government it desires. The mob now literally rules. It will get its just deserts.

“We could go on and on analyzing the gross unjustice here, which means nothing more nor less than that people don't get what they deserve.” “Some good people are lucky enough to avoid getting splattered too much by it, others less so. Some evil people get off with other people's hard efforts; some evil people end up in prison. This mixed up trend will continue in the foreseeable future.” Opinion that won’t rival the better economists, nor even the local priest’s.

“Will there be real quantum jumps in economic crises and catastrophe in the near future? I don't know.” Not sure whether to be a pessimist or optimist, what day is it? All the hallmarks are for a greater longer Great Depression.

“It's already a catastrophe. There's no deferred cost here to pay; we've been paying all along, and there are plenty of victims to point to. It is true that the costs and pressures are incrementally increasing, but so is the pain to the victims as well as their number.” But you only finished saying you weren’t sure!

“I see no sign of deferred cost to be paid for later.” A deferred cost by definition is always paid later. But you said “we’ve been paying it all along,” inferring it will continue, and that being your case, it is not deferred at all.

“So I see no reason to suppose that there's going to be some deferred Malthusian catastrophe in America.” The reader will have to choose which of your opinions to believe. The ongoing, or the “deferred cost to be paid later.”

“The catastrophe is here and has been here for a century or more. People don't see it because they have become acclimated to it.” They may not notice the dips but they’ll notice your colloquial “quantum jumps.” And what are you saying? The case is hopeless? It's over? Cynical defeatism? I hardly blame you. Out-gunned, and out-voted am I too.

What...

Ross Elliot's picture

...a tremendous speech.

The appreciation of democracy versus individual rights alone is wonderful. And quite glorious in such a tiny nation that has no desire to extend its influence via nation-building but has the attitude: if you fuck with us, we'll burn you so bad you'll wish you'd died as children.

Malthusian predictions

Shayne Wissler's picture

Most will get what they *do* deserve ... Yes that is evident.

The only thing evident is your unseemly position relative to Linz.

It's not evident at all that people are getting or will get what they deserve. The costs and consequences of this political structure are separated across generations. Does the under-20 deserve what they're going to get? Does the over-80 deserve it? It's also separated across income strata. Are people who have wildly profited from government privilege going to get what they deserve? Or are people who have been squashed by government over-regulation going to get what they deserve? We could go on and on analyzing the gross unjustice here, which means nothing more nor less than that people don't get what they deserve.

Linz talks like the shit is going to hit the fan. What he fails to comprehend is that it's been continuously hitting the fan for decade after decade. Some good people are lucky enough to avoid getting splattered too much by it, others less so. Some evil people get off with other people's hard efforts; some evil people end up in prison. This mixed up trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

Will there be real quantum jumps in economic crises and catastrophe in the near future? I don't know. It's already a catastrophe. There's no deferred cost here to pay; we've been paying all along, and there are plenty of victims to point to. It is true that the costs and pressures are incrementally increasing, but so is the pain to the victims as well as their number. I see no sign of deferred cost to be paid for later. So I see no reason to suppose that there's going to be some deferred Malthusian catastrophe in America.

The catastrophe is here and has been here for a century or more. People don't see it because they have become acclimated to it. They have no sense of the ideal or what is really possible, so they look around and think "this iPhone is pretty damn cool" and gloat over how much better they have it than someone else either around the world or backwards in time. It's pure second-handedness and lack of vision.

I see what you mean Linz

gregster's picture

Most will get what they *do* deserve

Yes that is evident. The overwhelming number of brothers' keepers meeting with the law of causality and still wondering what hit them. I hereby note the danger of taking a sentence out of context.

Don't be vague

Shayne Wissler's picture

Most will get what they *do* deserve, including especially those who just jerk off to Rothbardian hair-splitting while America burns.

Are you referring to me?

Incidentally, it is my view that America is dying because of intellectuals who do not care to be precise, rational, and principled. We need scientific/thinker types, men like John Locke and Thomas Paine, not chest-beating ideologues. Of course, the fault here lies primarily with the supporters of these hopelessly sloppy intellectuals.

Many, many deserving dilettantes will die at the hands of fevered entitlement mentalities such as the OWS whim-worshipper Hannity interviewed. Oh, wotta shame.

Again, are you referring to me? And are you actually gloating ahead of time over someone's *murder*?

So, because a "dilettante" does not do what *you* (at a safe distance) prescribe for him to do, then you are claiming he deserves to be murdered. What, exactly, would you have this "dilettante" do for you then? Or is it too much trouble to have to specify and defend your recipe for political success?

Nonsense

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Most will get what they *do* deserve, including especially those who just jerk off to Rothbardian hair-splitting while America burns. What I say is not collectivism, it's a generalisation, the truth of which only the comprachicoed could fail to grasp and only the evil could refuse to acknowledge. Some, for sure, will get what they don't deserve—genuine freedom-lovers who know that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of martyrs and tyrants, that America is well past the point where such a refreshment is necessary but can't make it happen as it should. Them's the breaks. Obamarx's re-election will bring on mob tyranny of a kind and severity we're unaccustomed to in our lifetimes in any Western nation. Many, many deserving dilettantes will die at the hands of fevered entitlement mentalities such as the OWS whim-worshipper Hannity interviewed. Oh, wotta shame.

SW

gregster's picture

pretty much nobody ends up getting what they deserve

True.

The benefit to the lesser contributors far outweigh their individual inputs. The average has been dragged down, and down, until the enablers will be forced to physically relocate to enlightened territories, or create their own. It is impossible to avert this. Endarkenment is unavoidable.

The future lies with up and coming territories who will make the structural adjustments necessary. I can't see where they are. Where is a practical philosophy practised?

"... what you're getting, serves you right."

Shayne Wissler's picture

Seems odd of you to be making such a collectivist remark. "We" don't all deserve the bad consequences of nationalism, just as many who are getting the financial benefits of it don't deserve them either. That's the thing with nationalism and probably one of the key points of it: pretty much nobody ends up getting what they deserve.

As I said ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... what you're getting, serves you right.

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

—Obamarx

I don't see how this is different from previous usurpations

Shayne Wissler's picture

Subject says it all. ObamaCare is just a variation on a theme that's been playing a long, long time, not a new tune.

Frediano

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wish I could argue with Lindsay's point, but I can't; America has been effectively over-run.

I wish *I* could argue with Lindsay's point, but I can't. America *has* been effectively over-run. Only this time, those who should be in rebellion are instead in denial.

Violence

Frediano's picture

Do you remember the thugs in Phila in the 2008 election, intimidating voters outside the polling stations? They were barely investigated by Atty General Holder, and nothing at all was done by the poorly named Justice Dept. Our government now officially looks the other way...selectively.

Which means, this Nov, if Romney is close at all, we will selectively see more of it.

I used to believe in our political context that the first side to wane violent lost, but in today's climate, that is true only for the right. When the left in America wanes violent in the name of newly manufactured collective demands painted as 'rights', that violence is not only tolerated but celebrated. The ineffective right, weakly defending individual rights, is still subject to the 'rage and lose' rule. The concrete evidence of this is the street behavior of the OWS folks vs. the street behavior of the Teaparty movement. There is no comparison.

In 1776, the issue was ultimately decided by violence. The issue is always ultimately decided by violence. History is never over.

I wish I could argue with Lindsay's point, but I can't; America has been effectively over-run.

This process didn't just happen in the 2008 election. It began in the early 1900s, and continued, unchecked, like a cancer. And, that is the evidence of Lindsay's assertion that America deserves what is about to happen.

But then, so does the world; this boot-licking cancer came to America. We tolerated it, we didn't invent it. Our forefathers once fled it, and fought against it, as did our fathers, as recently as WWII.

But you know, sometimes cancer wins, no matter how hard you fight it, and when there is no place on earth left to flee the tribal jungle, the tribal jungle wins.

It's about to get its 15 minutes of eat-the-rich noise.

But ... then what? Another 15 minutes of eat-them-that-have-more-than-us?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Until the inevitable terminus; two destitute hags in rags, showing each other their runny sores as claim on the last piece of not so maggoty rotted meat.

When we largely focus on running only downhill, we eventually get there. The universe has rigged that one in advance.

Here comes One Pie World...and then Half Pie World.....and then Quarter Pie World.....and then No Pie World.

Because only a fool or a slave will be baking pies in this coming massive tribal cluster fuck.

Interesting analysis.

Damien Grant's picture

I am reluctant to buy too much into conspiracy theories, I am inclined to believe what is being reported, that Roberts initially was going to vote it down but reconsidered the issue during the process.

I was reading this week’s economist and they made the point that Roberts sided with the conservatives to vote down the Federal government’s expansion of Medicare to the states by saying that the Federal government could not use penalties on the states.

Why did the Supreme Court deliver President Obama a favour?

Marcus's picture

Interesting article from the Independent.

Why did the Supreme Court deliver President Obama an unexpected favour?

"It is a little over a week since the US Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment on President Obama’s signature policy achievement in office so far, the Affordable Care Act, which extends medical insurance coverage to additional tens of millions of Americans as well as covering those with pre-existing conditions. It was an achievement made in the face of almost universal Republican opposition, and which at the time of its implementation was believed by almost every respected constitutional lawyer to be fireproof in terms of the law and the constitution.

In modern America, however, what the courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, decide is lawful or constitutional has become increasingly unrelated to what mainstream legal and constitutional scholars would consider to be the case, and increasingly closely related to the political and partisan prejudices of those serving on the bench. To this extent, it is as if the modern US Supreme Court is made up of politicians dressed in legal robes.

It is the reason that so many decisions which divide Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and the country so often end up split 5-4, between the five conservative justices and the four more liberal justices. Law decided on party lines!

It was never made so obvious as when the Supreme Court in 2000 voted 5-4 to halt the recount in Florida and award the election to George W. Bush over Vice-President Gore. In that case, one of the justices, Antonin Scalia, had to perform the equivalent of legal gymnastics to explain why he was overturning the right of Florida’s Supreme Court to continue with the count while championing state rights to decide such things in every earlier case. When queried, he told dissenters to “get over it!”

More recently the Court voted 5-4, in the Citizens United case, to allow corporations and other vested interests to spend as much as they liked to promote and attack the causes of particular candidates, a decision hugely beneficial to the Republican Party. As expected, the vote went 5-4 along usual party lines...

In the event, the decision was 5-4, but to the anger and shock of a Republican Party accustomed to having the referee on their team, it went the other way. Chief Justice Roberts, an arch-conservative appointee of George W. Bush, voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act as constitutional, siding with the more liberal members of the court, albeit determining it legal only on the basis of the principles of the Government’s right to taxation, an apparent sop to the campaigning arm of the Republican Party.

So why did he do it? Was it a decision based on a great respect for doing the right thing in terms of the law and the constitution? On past evidence, unlikely.

Was it a growing concern that the Court was on the verge of at last being rumbled by the general public as the judicial arm of the Republican Party, in the same way that Fox News was a while ago rumbled as the party’s broadcasting arm. Perhaps.

Was it because he thought it would energize the Republican base to come out in force to overturn the Act by ousting the President and his Democratic allies in Congress. More likely.

Or was it because he feared the revenge of a re-elected Democratic President and Senate when the time should come to replace a number of the ageing justices on the court, maybe as many as three in the next four years. Most likely!

In fact, the decision has so far served to boost the President in the post-judgment polling and betting.

We now look forward to seeing how this plays out! It will be interesting."

Junk silver

Craig Ceely's picture

To those who may be unsure what Robert and I are talking about, "junk silver" refers to previously circulated, legal tender coins issued prior to 1965. They contained up to 90% silver. They are referred to as "junk" because they have no numismatic value, ie, they're not rare and, having been circulated, some of them are in lousy condition. But it's not hard to argue with 90% silver content, and it doesn't take a lot to acquire enough expertise to start buying it confidently. There is also the matter of coinage issued by countries other than the US, but then we're getting into the need for some expertise.

Gold and silver bullion coins are also easily available these days: American Eagles, Candadian Maple Leafs, Chinese Pandas and more. I've also bought Mexican two-peso pieces, which I guess could be referred to as "junk gold." They're about 1/20th of an ounce.

Collectible coins are not my thing. It's not my hobby and I have nowhere near the expertise to invest in them. Anything with a "wow" factor is really not appropriate to what we're talking about here.

Sorry to hear about the guns, though. I myself only have [CENSORED], but definitely good to have a few.

Qudos...

Robert's picture

Buying junk silver and old alloyed coins containing fractional amounts of silver never occurred to me. Mainly because I was under the mistaken impression that most of the coinage in the US was made from zinc and surplus WWII army iron rations.

The "Taking a bath" comment was mainly directed at Goldline(TM) etc. "Hi I'm Glenn Levin Sean Limbaugh Ingram and when I get home after a long day blowing hot air into a radio mic, I love to take a swim in my pool filled with antique gold coins and Krugerrands that I bought from Goldline..." Yeah right. Nothing against these hosts as editorialists, but I'm not that confident in their financial chops... The only way you could buy gold from them is if you had enough greenbacks floating around outside of your household budget & crisis savings (the money you have for those times when you haven't got time to haggle) to buy their minimum amount - and I don't, yet.

So thank you, I shall beetle off to a library and learn more about junk US coins. That and small scale smelting of general metallic junk.

Guns are a little more of a problem for me. Not a citizen quite yet, but more importantly the little lady has a "thing" about them. I'm more concerned with her power of veto and confiscation than the Federal government's -- it's a work in progress.

And I have a little time on that score. Inner city Philly (and Chicago and Detroit) appear to be going down hill faster than suburban Kansas City. But I'm sure Kansas City will reacquire it's 1930s notoriety soon enough. You'll know when we're there when KC's little Italy section has the world's lowest crime statistics... Capice?

A friend just suggested...

Marcus's picture

...the antidote to the occupy movement should be buycotts and cashmobs Eye

Why Marxism is on the rise again

Marcus's picture

Why Marxism is on the rise again

Capitalism is in crisis across the globe – but what on earth is the alternative? Well, what about the musings of a certain 19th-century German philosopher? Yes, Karl Marx is going mainstream – and goodness knows where it will end.

"Class conflict once seemed so straightforward. Marx and Engels wrote in the second best-selling book of all time, The Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (The best-selling book of all time, incidentally, is the Bible – it only feels like it's 50 Shades of Grey.)

Today, 164 years after Marx and Engels wrote about grave-diggers, the truth is almost the exact opposite. The proletariat, far from burying capitalism, are keeping it on life support. Overworked, underpaid workers ostensibly liberated by the largest socialist revolution in history (China's) are driven to the brink of suicide to keep those in the west playing with their iPads. Chinese money bankrolls an otherwise bankrupt America.

The irony is scarcely wasted on leading Marxist thinkers. "The domination of capitalism globally depends today on the existence of a Chinese Communist party that gives de-localised capitalist enterprises cheap labour to lower prices and deprive workers of the rights of self-organisation," says Jacques Rancière, the French marxist thinker and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. "Happily, it is possible to hope for a world less absurd and more just than today's."

That hope, perhaps, explains another improbable truth of our economically catastrophic times – the revival in interest in Marx and Marxist thought. Sales of Das Kapital, Marx's masterpiece of political economy, have soared ever since 2008, as have those of The Communist Manifesto and the Grundrisse (or, to give it its English title, Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy). Their sales rose as British workers bailed out the banks to keep the degraded system going and the snouts of the rich firmly in their troughs while the rest of us struggle in debt, job insecurity or worse. There's even a Chinese theatre director called He Nian who capitalised on Das Kapital's renaissance to create an all-singing, all-dancing musical...

In such uneasy times, who better to read than the greatest catastrophist theoriser of human history, Karl Marx? And yet the renaissance of interest in Marxism has been pigeonholed as an apologia for Stalinist totalitarianism. In a recent blog on "the new communism" for the journal World Affairs, Alan Johnson, professor of democratic theory and practice at Edge Hill University in Lancashire, wrote: "A worldview recently the source of immense suffering and misery, and responsible for more deaths than fascism and Nazism, is mounting a comeback; a new form of leftwing totalitarianism that enjoys intellectual celebrity but aspires to political power.

"The New Communism matters not because of its intellectual merits but because it may yet influence layers of young Europeans in the context of an exhausted social democracy, austerity and a self-loathing intellectual culture," wrote Johnson. "Tempting as it is, we can't afford to just shake our heads and pass on by."

That's the fear: that these nasty old left farts such as Žižek, Badiou, Rancière and Eagleton will corrupt the minds of innocent youth. But does reading Marx and Engels's critique of capitalism mean that you thereby take on a worldview responsible for more deaths than the Nazis? Surely there is no straight line from The Communist Manifesto to the gulags, and no reason why young lefties need uncritically to adopt Badiou at his most chilling. In his introduction to a new edition of The Communist Manifesto, Professor Eric Hobsbawm suggests that Marx was right to argue that the "contradictions of a market system based on no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment', a system of exploitation and of 'endless accumulation' can never be overcome: that at some point in a series of transformations and restructurings the development of this essentially destabilising system will lead to a state of affairs that can no longer be described as capitalism".

That is post-capitalist society as dreamed of by Marxists. But what would it be like? "It is extremely unlikely that such a 'post-capitalist society' would respond to the traditional models of socialism and still less to the 'really existing' socialisms of the Soviet era," argues Hobsbawm, adding that it will, however, necessarily involve a shift from private appropriation to social management on a global scale. "What forms it might take and how far it would embody the humanist values of Marx's and Engels's communism, would depend on the political action through which this change came about."

This is surely Marxism at its most liberating, suggesting that our futures depend on us and our readiness for struggle. Or as Marx and Engels put it at the end of The Communist Manifesto: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

Claimed

Jmaurone's picture

Occupy National Gathering in Philadelphia Underway; Expect Waves of Protest"

Although conservative newspapers sneered “Goodbye, Occupy” months ago, the Occupy movement refuses to exit the scene, popping up to protest the role of big money in elections at Obama and Romney campaign events and summoning tens of thousands to Manhattan protests that the New York Times refuses to cover.

Now Occupy forces from across the country are exercising their constitutional rights, peaceably assembling at Independence Mall in Philadelphia. The purpose of their National Gathering from June 30 to July 4 is not only to petition for redress of grievance, but to coordinate the movement’s next moves.

Last night, occupiers projected a “99%” We The People message onto Independence Hall, the spot where the U.S. Constitution was drafted hundreds of years ago:

Occupy Movement projects 99% We The People symbol onto Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the night of June 30, 2012. Photo Credit to SFPunkBoy

According to the “NatGat” schedule, the most spectacular protest events will be a July 4 march through the city and a July 5 march setting off from Philadelphia with a destination of Wall Street in Manhattan. The 99 mile march is being made in honor of Woody Guthrie’s birthday and is an attempt to reinvigorate the relationship between music and protest with a “Guitarmy” of musician-activists. Along with these officially-announced events, you can expect waves of protest to ripple through Philadelphia over the next few days — look for signs of it. After that, waves of protest may ripple through the nation as NatGat activists head to back to their home communities. Look for signs of that too.

Clever...

Craig Ceely's picture

...bastards, whoever did this. Was it anonymous, or claimed?

More guns, more gold...

Craig Ceely's picture

Robert, you might be surprised what you can away with in Arkansas! Or Oklahoma, for that matter. And I wasn't slamming your mention of a sidearm: everyone needs a few.

Now to your gold and silver comments: I admire Peter Schiff, but in buying stocks of gold mining companies, you are still assuming some counter-party risk. Perth Mint and your jurisdiction suspicions? I like those ideas, too. Pays to keep your eyes open. And yes, you have to pay a fee to acquire gold and silver coins, but take a bath? I think not. Since the two commodities are freely traded on exchanges worldwide (for now), the prices are published. I think there is now a period of about four hours per week in which gold is not being traded on an exchange somewhere in the world. So you have information and you needn't buy the stuff every day. But why buy antique coins? If you like them and you're a collector, fine. Fabulous, even. But as a bullion investment? Buy gold and silver bullion coins and junk silver (There was a period last summer, my coin dealer tells me, when no one could get junk US silver dimes -- because I'd bought them all! Oh well...). And I even have the dimes with FDR on the face: silver content is silver content, after all. If you have the coins you have them in your possession, you have no counter-party risk, and you may as well just think of it as part of your savings program.

But: with the coins as with the guns, we are entering times where it is probably no longer a good idea to let too many people know you have such things. You yourself mentioned confiscation: your coins, your guns and ammo, your amateur radio gear, for that matter.

Finally, books: yep, this to me is a biggie. You mention brewing, which of course will be huge, and distilling as well. Gardening, canning, reloading ammo, small engine repair...yeah, all of the above. I'd just add theoretical stuff and the arts (including Linz's KASS Music Gems) to the Big List.

And the possible good news is that we may never need any of this, so our brewing and radio activities are just fun, scientific hobbies, our gardens are a source of pleasure, and our guns and gold are just levels of security. After all, the economists taught us about division of labor: what are we if we do everything ourselves? Poor.

Guns & Gold...

Robert's picture

Get whatever you can. I mention a side arm because its hard to go out shopping while carrying a M14 at high port. Maybe in Arkansas...

As for not being able to hit a barn door with a handful of chicken feed... they have an app for that too. Smiling

As for gold & silver, I'm a little skeptical about that. The idea of exchanging dollars for commodities that hold their value is sound. It's just that you're going to take a bath buying it (normally available as antique coins) and then converting it unless you do all your business in Utah (where gold is acceptable as currency).

I'm with Peter Schiff. You're better off buying stock in gold mines or buying actual gold from the Perth Mint - who'll store it & convert it into currency for you. Better yet, all of those assets are overseas and out of the jurisdiction of the FDR-wannabes who might like to confiscate gold and silver to prop up their dying currency.

But I like your books idea better. The more skills you have, the more barter you can do. And learning how to distill liquor, brew beer, butcher meat, and fix expensive machines is probably more valuable to you than twenty pounds of gold coins in a jar in your sock drawer. Governments can always confiscate commodities. They can't confiscate knowledge that's already in your head.

I have a sneaking suspicion though that if the Green back dies (or should I say when), we'll be going back to the days when banks issued currency/credit notes backed by their own gold/land reserves. I suspect that that is the most pain free method of returning to a gold/silver standard.

Netanyahu's Message

Richard Wiig's picture

In(ter)dependence Day in the Birthplace of Liberty

Jmaurone's picture

In(ter)dependence Hall, Philadelphia 2012.

Oh pardon...

Marcus's picture

...that should be the declaration of independence and your antenna.

Independence Day

Craig Ceely's picture

The date July 4 refers not to the Constitution, at all, and never did, but to the Declaration of Independence.

Celebration: brats with German mustard, corn on the cob, fried shrimp tacos, throwing sticks in the back yard for my pit bull, and plenty of beer (drinking a few and brewing some of my own).

No flag hoisted here (maybe an antenna!), and screw Facebook.

There is a growing campaign...

Marcus's picture

...on Facebook not to celebrate the fourth of July.

I can understand that. If I was in the US I would lack the appetite for it too.

Anyone here still celebrating the constitution and flag?

"In Obamacare we trust!"

Galt forbid ...

Richard Goode's picture

"Are you seriously saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium? At all?"

Yes, Craig, I am saying exactly that.

... that I should agree with Michael Moeller. But I do (in this instance).

Jesus

Damien Grant's picture

well he had better get his skates on!

The end is nigh

Richard Goode's picture

Jesus is coming back.

Only time will tell...

Jmaurone's picture

.

and dime

Damien Grant's picture

And I had a dime for every time someone predicted the end of days because of some thing they did not like happened I'd be more than twice ahead I think Joe!

Revolution has been predicted many times, is actually quite rate.

Frogs in pots and all that.

Oh, if I had a nickel...

Jmaurone's picture

for every time someone's said "no no no no no, this will never happen," only for it to happen...I'd need me a bigger nickel bank...

no no no no

Damien Grant's picture

There will be no revolt, no reaction.

America, like other countries, has a menu of economic options. They are choosing, currently, a left wing path. It will mean less wealth creation and opportunity, but it is not the death of her and there will be no reaction.

The sadness is the lost opportunity, what it could be if it were to revert to the original model, but the United States seems to be following a well-trodden path that other western nations have followed towards a welfare state.

If you listen to Romney on health care he is not saying abolish Obamacare, he is talking about replacing it with something; Romneycare Mark Two no doubt. Romney will maintain, if elected, (which will not happen) the status quo.

What is lacking is a libertarian Gramsci. The closest America has is Ron Paul, which is fricking sad.

So, Gary Johnson! Give the man a bully pulpit and see what he can do with it.

Back to the topic...

Jmaurone's picture

While I originally posted the Barnhardt piece as a companion to Linz's rejection of Robert's decision being a "deliberate ploy", both call into question what's coming, and what to do.

Robert: "Applies to 99% of the OWS tools too. For instance: what did those dip shits in Philly & NY & Oakland do when thugs came into their conclave and raped their women and stole their iPads... they bitched and moaned and crawled into a fetal position and did nothing."

As Robert wrote that, I saw this on the street, a block away from me. Something about these slogans on a Prius with handicap plates just rang true with the above...

(BTW, That "Start bitching, start a revolution" slogan is related to Wulf Zendik, which is a whole other can of beans...I don't know if the owner of that car is aware of the organization behind it, or just liked the saying, but it's a cult that is certainly not pro-liberty...)

And yet...

Robert: "Things - especially in urban areas like Chicago and Philly - are GOING to get ugly. That's a given just judging by what happens when the economy crashes. People get mean. Happened in the 30s & it will happen again. Get a lock for the door. Make sure that you showing your wealth around when you are on the street and basically keep you wits about you. But that's big city living for you. I'd give you the same advice if you were planning to move to any impoverished city in the third world."

I'd go broader, and say that things are going to get ugly when you get enough mob-minded people together, no matter where they are. This one person alone (from the pic above) may be harmless, but put into a mob setting...already the OWS in Philly has had over 26 arrests for disorderly conduct, who knows what will happen tomorrow on Independence Day...and they are recruiting; the veterans who were protesting at the same spot were told to vacate to make way for the incoming OWS, but OWS offered the Vets a place with them. They also picked up Verizon workers who were striking for something or other...

So, regardless of who will be the useful idiots, curling up like roly-poly bugs, there will be others emboldened by the ruling, while angering others on the opposite side...

Iran

Damien Grant's picture

I do not trust Iran, I do not care for the subtleties of their politics. When their president says he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, is a cancer etc, then Israel is entitled to take him at his word and reduce their nuclear facilities and related sites into dust. Israel is an ally, and the only difference between Israel and the US I suspect is one of proximity.

Now, maybe that is not the smartest play, I accept that but it is not the point. If Iran poses a threat to your very existence then you are entitled to take whatever action you think is appropriate.

A nuclear armed Iran is a real threat and I see no reason why the west has to sit back and wait to see if Iran intends to bomb us before deciding to strike back.

If you think someone might kill you and you decide to wait to see if he does before defending yourself, then you deserve to die.

It is the one thing Bush junior failed in more than any other. When he was a lame duck he should have reduced the place to rubble, let the new president disown the aciton, say sorry, and mend fences with an impotent foe rather than try and wrestle with a nuclear arming one.

Unleash the B52’s. We can always say sorry later.

Craig

Michael Moeller's picture

Take your pick -- Khameini or Ahmedinejad. Um, here's Khameini on nuclear weapons with a side order of taqiyya.

Sorry, Craig, I don't subscribe to moral relativism that equates the US putting a worm in their nuclear program with a murderous regime putting a worm in our nuclear program. Last I checked, the US wasn't threatening to wipe anybody off the map with a nuclear bomb, especially unprovoked. And if you think that placing a worm into their nuclear program is an act of initiated aggression against a regime that has already killed thousands of Americans, then, yes, we will forever be at odds on this issue. And the moral equivalency argument (i.e. "how would YOU like it if China did x, y, z") is a pacifist argument-for-all-seasons. One would never be justified in acting in defense, at least until the mushroom cloud appeared.

In any event, more on Thursday...really gotta go.

Michael

Just to be clear...

Craig Ceely's picture

I asked: "Are you seriously saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium? At all?"

And, Michael, you responded: "Yes, Craig, I am saying exactly that."

Okay, that's explicit. Then tell me why any other nation should ever sign a treaty with the US again.

Treaty Obligations

Craig Ceely's picture

Michael: You were implying that Stuxnet is an act of aggression by the US without saying so explicitly. Is it true that you regard placing a computer worm into their centrifuges an act of initiated force by the US?

Michael, what if that very same act had been committed against the United States? Would that not be construed as aggression? The US is a member of the IAEA, so presumably has certain rights under that treaty. But then, so is Iran a member, and so does Iran have those same treaty rights.

I don't trust them, and I don't see why I should trust them. But we've been lied to by our own government here, as well. I don't see a good way out of this -- by which I do not mean, "I expect Ceely and Moeller to work this out, and it's our fault if we don't." We won't. You and I will continue to disagree on a number of the points here. But I really do not see a good solution to the whole Iran/nuclear question at all, and I have not heard one put forth, not by anyone. And in saying "not by anyone," I do include you, Michael, and I regard you as arguing here in good faith and from the best premises you have. We're all in a bad situation here. If there's a decent way out, I've yet to see it.

Leaders

Craig Ceely's picture

Their Supreme Leader (Khameini) said nothing of the sort, and in fact has stated, more than once, that nuclear weapons are abhorrent to Islam.

Or are you thinking of the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Ahmadinejad), who has no authority over the Iranian military? He has made such comments, yes. But again, he is not the Supreme Leader, and he is not the Commander in Chief of their military or naval forces.

I've no respect for either of these creeps. But they're not the same guy, don't hold the same office, don't wield the same power.

Craig

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Are you seriously saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium? At all?"

Yes, Craig, I am saying exactly that. When their Supreme Leader states that he would use a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel and the US off the map if given the chance, I'm not going to wait around for the mushroom cloud, are you? I think it is legitimate to take him at his word, and I give the president my blessing to prevent it from happening.

You were implying that Stuxnet is an act of aggression by the US without saying so explicitly. Is it true that you regard placing a computer worm into their centrifuges an act of initiated force by the US? I just want to be clear on your stance.

Michael

Phone held...for you, Michael

Craig Ceely's picture

Not saying that Stuxnet was "contrived." It happened.

Are you seriously saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium? At all? That's not what IAEA and Non-Proliferation agreements say. Or are India, Pakistan, and Israel just exceptions to all of the rules by which others must abide, and be judged? Then place your answer in the context of whether Stuxnet equals or does not equal aggression.

Again, I don't wish to defend the present Iran regime, but let's let facts be facts.

Whoa! Hold the Phone!

Michael Moeller's picture

I'll respond to the rest on Thursday, but let me deal with the Stuxnet point real quick.

Are you seriously putting forth the idea that Stuxnet is a "contrived" pretext for a US attack on Iran? If not, then why are you bringing this up in the context of Paul's risible "Gulf of Tonkin" statements.

Furthermore, are you implying that the Stuxnet worm to prevent their enrichment of uranium is an act of aggression by the US?!?! If not, again, why even bring this up as an example in the context of Paul's comments about the US contriving a pretext for war with Iran?

Michael

RP, RR, and Abortion

Craig Ceely's picture

Michael: In any event, I've been through all the Ron Paul stuff too much already. I simply wanted you to take note that, as one who despises Ron Paul, my arguments consist of subtantially more than his stance on abortion.

And as I wanted you to note, my point wasn't about abortion.

Two quick points, Michael...

Craig Ceely's picture

Michael: We will first off disagree about Iran. An attack on Iran would be legitimate, as they have been the number one sponsor of terrorism against US citizens, resulting in deaths numbering in the thousands."

Ah, so they are up there with Saudi Arabia's royal family and associates? So we should attack Riyadh? If not, why not?

Michael: It is one thing to disagree with policy on war. It is quite another thing for an elected politician to accuse the US government of "contriving" pretexts for issuing an attack, especially when no attack has yet occurred.

Really? Why? First of all, if elected officials, with their various immunities of office, are not to do so, then who the hell else can, or will? And are any and all contrived pretexts out of bounds for debate, for objection, for renunciation?

(And point 2b: "no attack has yet occurred?" How about Stuxnet etc?)

Well, Craig

Michael Moeller's picture

We will first off disagree about Iran. An attack on Iran would be legitimate, as they have been the number one sponsor of terrorism against US citizens, resulting in deaths numbering in the thousands. I laid out the evidence to Scott, I believe on the thread I already linked to.

It is one thing to disagree with policy on war. It is quite another thing for an elected politician to accuse the US government of "contriving" pretexts for issuing an attack, especially when no attack has yet occurred. This is the same guy who routinely shoots his mouth off about how America's trade embargoes/restrictions with countries like Cuba and Iran are "acts of war".

As far as how high the bar is, I don't think it is as high as you assume it to be (see, eg., Schenck v. US, and Abrams v. US).

Now, if we use a more narrow standard (than these cases) of requiring an overt act, I would not say Ron Paul should be subject to a treason charge, legally speaking.

I was speaking in the colloquial sense of a treason/traitor offering propaganda for the enemies' war efforts while falsely accusing the US of "contrived" and illegitimate uses of force. In that case, Ron Paul is guilty as charged. He has done so repeatedly (see, also, his statements given on the thread post I linked to).

In any event, I've been through all the Ron Paul stuff too much already. I simply wanted you to take note that, as one who despises Ron Paul, my arguments consist of subtantially more than his stance on abortion.

Again, his political career is done, and I'm glad of it.

Michael

Robert

Craig Ceely's picture

I'd say more than one side arm, and also a rifle or two. And whatever you think is sufficient ammo, you're wrong. Get more. And gold and silver coins. And books.

Yeah, it sucks to talk this way (well, except for the books!). But we didn't create this situation, did we?

(And by the way: I don't think you'll disagree with this, Robert, but it deserves mention. Firearms are tools. If you cannot reliably put rounds through a paper target and then safe and clean that weapon afterward, then you do not know how to use that tool. But I think you know this.)

What I said about Cannon-Fodder

Robert's picture

Applies to 99% of the OWS tools too. For instance: what did those dip shits in Philly & NY & Oakland do when thugs came into their conclave and raped their women and stole their iPads... they bitched and moaned and crawled into a fetal position and did nothing.

As I said, the one's you should be wary of are the one's who say nothing, do nothing, and stay below the radar until the next moon-less night comes around.

And yes, you should save up for a side arm. Things - especially in urban areas like Chicago and Philly - are GOING to get ugly. That's a given just judging by what happens when the economy crashes. People get mean. Happened in the 30s & it will happen again. Get a lock for the door. Make sure that you showing your wealth around when you are on the street and basically keep you wits about you. But that's big city living for you. I'd give you the same advice if you were planning to move to any impoverished city in the third world.

There isn't any way to avoid economic and political pain. But that doesn't mean that we are at the stage where we throw the whole thing in a biohazard bag and autoclave it.

But that's exactly what Barnhardt is calling for isn't it? Her own "fundamental transformation of America."

No thanks. All I need are the Feds off my back, the Constitution restored, the debt paid off and the budget balanced. Compared with carving civilization out of the wilderness, throwing off the English - twice, freeing the slaves & stopping Hitler, this NEED NOT BE that damned complicated. It's going to take a concentrated effort over the course of a generation, but it need not involve civil war. Not yet anyway.

One point of clarification

Craig Ceely's picture

When I mention, Michael, about using terms or words loosely, I don't (and in your case, didn't) mean it as a direct accusation, but as a caution. A bar. A gold standard, if you will, to which we should repair.

I've always loved to read, since I was a boy. Still do. Spent much of my adult life as a professional writer, editor, speaker, communications coach. So in a sense, words are what I am. Don't think that makes me subject to rationalism, but words are all we have with which to communicate.

I post this because this argument is becoming heated and I think that so far we have each remained respectful of the other; I just don't mind pointing out that I wasn't trying to descend below that level. In mentioning possibly "loose" speech I meant, "Hey, this is dangerous turf, let's be careful here," and not, "Michael, you're a lying, dissembling sack of shit!"

Craig

No, Michael

Craig Ceely's picture

Michael, I'm sorry, and I have no love for the mullah regime in Iran, but this video does not make your "treason" point. There's not enough to it here.

You don't say what aid and comfort the Iranians receive from the Paul comments, or how he offered any, you don't justify the proposed attacks on Iran (you simply use the word "legitimate"), and as for "overt enemy," we have plenty of those. Some of them have nuclear missiles aimed our way.

Was the Gulf of Tonkin incident contrived? Seems to have been. If we were again to do something similar, would we or would we not be the aggressor?

Please don't try painting me as a defender of the Iran regime. But we've seen, time and again, how American "leaders" act, with ignorance and like badasses -- with other men's lives -- and then flee from the difficulties, including comments in the press. Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon.

So I think someone could honestly disagree with Paul here. But treason is a bar set pretty high, and it's not reached here. Not even close. By this standard, all of the America Firsters in 1941 were traitors. Are you willing to go there?

I Don't Use Terms...

Michael Moeller's picture

Loosely, Craig. This is not loose talk. Need an example? Try this on for size:

If the US should attack Iran, Ron Paul is boldly declaring that it would be a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin" type incident. And he is saying this on the House floor.

I certainly do consider it treasonous and giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" when a politician claims that a legitimate target of US defense and an overt enemy would be the victim of a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin" type incident, thus casting the US as the aggressor -- against a country like Iran, no less.

Talk about "loose" talk, and treasonous "loose" talk at that.

What do you think of these statements, Craig?

Michael

Forward to..?

Craig Ceely's picture

Michael, my point about Ron Paul and abortion wasn't to focus on an issue (especially that one), but to point out that Reagan is given a walk by some here, while they excoriate Paul for the same thing. You have your reasons for despising Rep. Paul, but cutting off the Reagan half of my comment obscures my very point, which was not about abortion, but about inconsistency.

And since we're on Article III matters these days anyway, let's address Paul's "traitorous foreign policy" and hop over to Section 3, which reads, in part: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. [emphasis mine]" We could convict, and send down the river, quite a number of office-holders if we get loose with language like "traitorous," and that includes a fair number of office-holders who have been vehemently defended here.

You have offered, elsewhere, a number of well-reasoned anti-Paul arguments. I maintain that he almost redeems a party that offers us "choices" among Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich. These men have advocated, and done, evil.

Craig

Forward Thinking...

Michael Moeller's picture

Craig,

You wrote:

"For example, a lot of folk at this site despise Ron Paul because he's pro-life. He doesn't see abortion as a federal issue, but he's Christian and pro-life, so he's nuts and anti-liberty and they just can't abide by him. No sirreee bob."

I am only speaking for myself, but as one of the people on this site that despises Ron Paul, his pro-life stance was among the least of his problems. If you followed the threads, you are giving the arguments the shortest of short shrifts (see this thread, starting at the very beginning).

In short, I reject him for a deeply flawed constitutional theory, he traitorous foreign policy, and his fiscal policy and budget -- the last of which is a smokescreen that covers up his expansion of the welfare state when you examine the details of his budget. You can even read all the juicy details where Paul at one time says welfare programs are unconstitutional, then later says they can be "saved" by cutting back on overseas military spending. And let's not forget his reprehensible newsletters and associates, and the constant lying about all of it.

So, Craig, it is safe to say that my contempt for Ron Paul stretches quite a bit further than his stance on abortion, don't ya think?

But he's about to be gone, and I'm glad of it.

Michael

"Marxists have shallow

Leonid's picture

"Marxists have shallow pockets..."-but capitalists have the deep ones.

As Vladimir Ilyich Lenin once observed

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Marxists have shallow pockets...

Marcus's picture

Obama begs donors for more as Mitt Romney rakes it in

"Barack Obama has issued a plea for wealthy supporters to give him more money and stop his re-election campaign being outspent by Mitt Romney and the Republican's billionaire backers.

In a phone call from Air Force One, the President reportedly told a group of top donors "I can't do this by myself" and urged them to open their cheque books to "meet or exceed what you did in 2008".

Noting that most had "maxed out to my campaign last time," Mr Obama told them: "I really need you to do the same this time," according to a leaked transcript.

Despite holding a narrow lead over his rival, the president informed the supporters that his ability to campaign and broadcast advertisements in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio directly depended on their generosity.

Details of the call emerged days after Mr Obama warned supporters that he would be "the first president in modern history to be outspent" by his opponent unless donors upped their contributions.

Mr Romney and his party raised $76 million (£49 million) for their campaign in May, while Mr Obama – who had not been out-raised in five years – brought in $60 million (£38 million) with the Democrats.

Romney aides have boasted that their haul for June may exceed $100 million (£64 million), after being boosted by Right-wing anger over the Supreme Court's approval of Mr Obama's health care reforms.

While he remains ahead overall in the money race for the time being, loose talk of Mr Obama being the first candidate to raise $1 billion (£640 million) has been silenced by the Romney machine.

"In 2008 everything was new and exciting about our campaign," Mr Obama said, according to a recording of the call obtained by The Daily Beast, a news website. "And now I'm the incumbent president. I've got grey hair. People have seen disappointment because folks had a vision of change happening immediately. And it turns out change is hard".

Robert

Jmaurone's picture

Those were Barnhardt's words, not mine. I'm not planning a revolution, just reporting. (Should it come to my having to take action, I'm inclined to passive civil disobedience.) That said, your criticisms apply to the opposite side. As I watch OWS descend upon Philly, again, for the Fourth of July celebrations with calls for a "Declaration of Independence", or reading people at the Occupy Philly Facebook page quote Emma Goldman, I am well aware of what might be called for; forget revolution, I'm talking about plain-as-day self-defense...

John Venlet at Improved Clinch explains: "A Clean Sword":

OMMP, NAP and A Clean Sword

Until today, I was unfamiliar with the acronym OMMP, which stands for the Orkin Man Master Plan. I am familiar with, though, what the OMMP calls for, as history has provided us with many examples of just how such a plan actually works.

...the Orkin Man Master Plan (“OMMP”) - a plan designed to systemically root out very high-level officials of our corporatist financial system across the globe, and ultimately exterminate them. Everyone agrees that the plan will invariably involve a significant number of innocent “casualties of war” along the way.

There is a very interesting discussion of the OMMP at the website The Automatic Earth under a post titled The Orkin Man: Which Side Are You On?, and the question encapsulated within the title to that post, and the question whether OMMP should be implemented, are questions which bear consideration.

Some additional ideas which should be considered, in relation to the OMMP, include the tenets of the Non-Aggression Principle, which does not mean pacifically standing by when force is inititated against you.

Individuals of faith additionally must consider what participation in such a violent plan, the OMMP, would mean for them as adherents to Judeo-Christian teachings, as Jacques Ellul so eloquently pointed out in his book Violence, which I mentioned here.

"I do ask, however, that the man who uses violence at least have the courage to admit the consequences of his action, namely, violence against himself. Let him refrain from appealing to great principles—a Declaration of Rights, democracy, justice—in the hope of escpaing the reaction of the power he has attacked. He must recognize, and clearly, that violence begets violence.

"No government established by violence has given the people either liberty or justice—only a show of liberty (for those who supported the movement) and a show of justice (which consists in plundering the erstwhile 'haves').

"The unhappy fact is that violence operates only for the good of its users.

"Values have no meaning except as they are lived by man! We always come back to man. Everything depends on how man relates to man."

And while I consider these words of Ellul’s accurate, I also think, and firmly believe, that man must stand up to violence with violence, though man must do so with a clean sword, an idea that is discussed in a book by Lynn Harold Hough titled The Clean Sword, from which the following quotes are taken.

"A sword has no character until you use it.

"There is nothing fundamentally good about it. There is nothing fundamentally bad about it. It is ethically neutral until it is drawn and wielded; and then the cause gives character to the sword."

And this.

"There is only one kind of world where a real man may have a philosophy which makes it impossible for him to put his body between danger and those whom he loves: that is a world where there is no danger. There is only one kind of world where a real man can refuse to use force for the protection of those whom he loves against invading evil: that is a world where there is no invading evil."

Also.

"Now we know that the only safety for the world lies in the forces of good will being stronger than the forces of ill will at the definite point of physical might and its moral and intellectual control."

Additionally.

"The principle at the heart of all this may be very simply and clearly put. Whenever organized unbrotherliness tries to conquer the world, the sword of brotherhood must be unsheathed in order to make the world safe for friendliness. The conflict may be sternly hard and terribly long. But it must be fought out in the name of brotherliness itself."

If swords are to be drawn, when the sword’s character will be revealed, one must carefully consider whether it will return to its scabbard clean, or soiled.

Link to OMMP piece via Claire Wolfe.

"Instead of preparing for the war"

Robert's picture

What a capital idea.

First question: Who are you (Ann, Joe, Bueller, whomever) planning to fight.

Second question: What are your goals... that is, when you have won, whom shall lead this Second Republic and what will they say when I refuse to tug my forelock at them.

Third question: Where is your army and whom are you planning to have lead it.

I ask because every genius who talks like this has a skullet or a Fu Manchu and dresses like they just slept in a dumpster.

Call me picky, but if your outward appearance gives the impression that you often have trouble organizing yourself so that you drop your pants before you take a shit, I'm not inclined to believe that you have the organizational skills to lead a revolution, or an army or even a fucking panty raid.

Moreover anyone who seriously held these convictions would - if they have half a functioning brain - not announce them on the Internet in plain language. Not in the age of government agencies filtering the internet for trigger words. Not in the age of armed unmanned flying drones. And they wouldn't be advocating carb-free work-outs. They'd be practicing skulking and hiding, and laying IEDS in the dead of night. Because that's the only war you can fight successfully against the US military... or did she miss the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Posing with guns on Facebook and talking about revolution is for cannon-fodder.

--- That was my instantaneous reaction to this sort of bombastic bilge ---

--- Here are my considered reactions to this crap ---

Barnhardt's Second Republic is headed for the same ash-can as the Monmouth rebellion - and good riddance. I wouldn't trust loud-mouthed bigots like Banhardt with my lunch money. She reeks of the piety that caused Cromwell and Robespierre to become dictators - for the good of their fellow citizens.

I'll say it again. A Revolution must be won on the field of ideas before it could ever be fought on the field of battle. And to do the former you must repeat what the founders did: Prove to the people (as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson did) that the government is CONSPIRING to USURP your INALIENABLE rights.

The chore of articulating your vision of how to achieve liberty has already been done. But you ~cannot~ inspire people to reverse the course of this government, without destruction of the underlying society, unless you do the work that Jefferson and Paine did.

Barnhardt et al. don't just want to tear down this government. They want to tear down this society too. And when I talk of the difference between society and government, I mean to invoke the distinction that Adam Smith, John Locke et al. invoked.

That is why Barnhardt cannot HELP but slander gays and atheists. Do you think that once armed, with blood up and victorious, that she will have the restraint to beat her weapons into ploughshares? I don't. I never will. And I'd rather suffer Obama than Barnhardt. Obama's narcissism marks him as a person who will surrender if he is strenuously opposed by a serious political opponent (as opposed to being confronted by a pathetic geriatric caricature like McCain). Barnhardt strikes me as the sort who would strap explosives to her chest and wade into a sea of children if she was convinced that they were gay or atheist or Denver Broncos supporters or the sort of dog-owner that does nothing when Fido takes a shit on a neighbor's lawn.

Anyway, then as now, a large number did not believe that George III & Parliament was acting with deliberate and malicious intent. Take Damien (I took a 20-1 bet against Liberty) as your example. Obama is thought of as a fool or ill-served but well-meaning overly paternalistic leader. People think that if they change the leader their fortunes will change. They see nothing wrong with the fundamental society, but they think that the government is an inalienable part of that - as opposed to a mere insurance policy against the malicious.

The people need to be reminded that the trick in the American experiment was to constrain governmental power. And they must be reminded that the last of those locks were just picked by Roberts.

Only then will the sort of people you need in Congress, the White-house, the various State Houses, and school boards be encouraged to stand and change the direction of this country.

And if you think that sentry duty in a blizzard at Valley Forge or charging with the 1st Minnesota Volunteers at Gettysburg is easier or a surer way to fix this Republic than standing & voting for office - EVERY office, country, city, state & Federal - then YOU are the idiot.

Barnhardt is one of those who wants to see America burn.

You can set fire to anything in 5 seconds flat. Putting out that fire after its started - there's the rub. I know this from history.

So I'll not abandon the effort to change the direction of this country using civic powers until those civic powers are clearly about to irretrievably disappear. We are far from that point now. We are closer than we were than we were before Roberts. But we clearly ARE NOT there yet.

And in any case, Barnhardt's 'preparations' are NOT designed to win a war of ideas - to put VALUE back where there is none. She's just interested in vandalizing stuff with a hail of bullets. Screw her and her loud-mouthed xenophobic bullshit.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet...

Jmaurone's picture

TOLDYA. REPUB SEN. MCCONNELL HAS ALREADY FOLDED
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – JULY 2, AD 2012 5:33 PM MST
Barnhardt: "Told Ya"

TOLDYA. REPUB SEN. MCCONNELL HAS ALREADY FOLDED
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – JULY 2, AD 2012 5:33 PM MST

ObamaCare is not being repealed. The only way to get rid of it is either a junta or a civil war and establishing a Second American Republic.

Period.

If you give any money to any of these First Republic scumbag politicians instead of preparing for the war, you are an idiot.

A complete and total idiot.

Senate Republican leader McConnell stated today that it isn’t going to be repealed.

It comes fairly quickly in this local news segment out of Louisville, KY today.

Alea iacta est.

George Carlin, Weasel Words and Boots in the Ass

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Bro Ceely wanted to post this, with my approval, but was defeated by the technology:

BTW, we just had a huge earthquake here on the Kapiti Coast. I blame Baade, who lives in the region. Gobby is punishing him for rewriting Goblianity to suit himself.

Fits

Craig Ceely's picture

Linz, "energize" ia a fine word, much employed by engineers and technician, and it fits what needs to be accomplished: there are quite a few out there who need a 416 volts AC, three-phase, 400 Hertz boot in the ass.

"Energize" ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is a ghastly MBA platitude, like "going forward."

The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel-words.

Yes, we could send Atlas to the ARI, but I fear they would dismiss it as over the top.

Irate, tireless, pathetic...

Craig Ceely's picture

Gosh, I'm sure glad I didn't get angry in referring to tame grass being sweet poison. Maybe I'm just a pathetic wuss.

But you're spot on about the ARC release: it's pretty weak beer, and even though they end with "Today will serve only to energize us," I don't see it. Weak beer energizes no one.

It's especially disappointing to see that kind of public release coming from that source. What the hell ever happened to "By what right? By what standard?"

Maybe we should start a program, let's call it Weekly Weak Beer Blasts, the aim of which will be to send copies of Atlas Shrugged to intellectuals, columnists, and writers of press releases.

We could start with the ARC...

Boy!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do I adore this woman's spirit!!!!! I know she's bigotedly anti-gay, but frankly, I can look past that (after all, Ayn Rand was, too). This is the spirit I've been clamoring for Objectivists to display all these years. They still cannot. Look at the tepid MBA bullshit from ARI. And where is TAS??!!

Brandroidism has won. No anger please, we're neo-Objectivists.

Where are the Sam Adamses of Objectivism?! "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Where is the irate, tireless minority? All I see are pathetic wusses.

Is there a word in English for "kulaks?"

Craig Ceely's picture

Ann Barnhardt wrote: "Roberts just ratified the 'right' for the government to tax people on their existence."

I like her fury, and she's right about how stupid and evil this decision is, but no, Roberts ratified nothing of the sort.

We live in a material world (apologies to George Harrison), and must, therefore, produce in order to consume, or live as parasites. The income tax is thus a tax on existence, and it was around long before John Roberts was born.

Roberts: No "Machiavellian Genius"

Jmaurone's picture

"Barnhardt: Stupid, Stupid Jackasses"

From her article:

STUPID, STUPID JACKASSES. PART 1 & 2
POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT – JUNE 30, AD 2012 3:32 PM MST

"It isn’t just Lindsey Graham that is a stupid, stupid jackass. If you’re buying any of this, 'Everything’s fine! We actually WON on ObamaCare, and Roberts is a genius!' jackassery, then go look in the mirror and behold the Sombrero of all Asshats.

"Are you detecting ire? Are you getting the sense that I’m just a LITTLE pissed off? It’s one thing to watch a bunch of godless, drug-addled, moloch-worshiping Marxist dumbasses spew mental diarrhea, but to have to sit and watch pretty much everyone on the right do the same thing is just too much.

"Do you people not have functioning brains?"

...

"Roberts is not a 'Machiavellian genius.' Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet.

"And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes.

"Roberts just ratified the 'right' for the government to tax people on their existence. Either you purchase a service commodity, thus paying a tax which is collected by the insurance company itself, or you will pay a tax to the IRS directly. Insurance is, for all intents and purposes, an innovation of the last fifty years, meaning that almost no one carried any insurance of any kind, and insurance was itself in some places ILLEGAL (and now we know why, because if allowed to cover anything other than large disasters, insurance will, by mathematical definition, destroy any market that it comes into contract with and end in fascism.)"

...

"The state, fully ratified by the emotional schoolgirl John Roberts, has now elevated itself above God, and has done nothing less than declare itself god. The state now sees itself as the source and arbiter of human life, demanding and coercing tribute in exchange for permitting human life to continue. Fail to pay tribute to Moloch for your very existence, and your property, your liberty and eventually your life will be forcibly confiscated.

"Oh, but all of the dumbasses out there swear up and down that this step in the battle for the Republic had to be lost so that we could later, in some grand strategy, win the war.

"Listen, dumbasses, the war is already lost.

"YOU JUST LOST IT.

"You didn’t just sac your queen in order to set up a checkmate. Your ass just got checkmated and Barry Obama is sitting on the couch lighting up a joint, and texting Reggie Love to come over for a little celebratory sodomy."

...

"Bottom line, if you continue to argue that Roberts’ decision was anything less than the end of the Republic, then you are either a total jackass, or you are a despicable liar looking to keep some stream of revenue or power concentration flowing."

Damien the difference is..

Marcus's picture

...that you are required to buy insurance when you own and drive a car, not called a tax.

With Obamacare you are required to buy insurance without driving the car and it's called a tax.

Backward thinking?

Craig Ceely's picture

Well, Damien, it depends on the Republican. For example, a lot of folk at this site despise Ron Paul because he's pro-life. He doesn't see abortion as a federal issue, but he's Christian and pro-life, so he's nuts and anti-liberty and they just can't abide by him. No sirreee bob.

Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, widely admired here, a Christian who wrote "Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion [...]" in his article "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," published in The Human Life Review in 1983. After he was elected and assumed office. See, the difference is....

a bit harsh

Damien Grant's picture

but the problem I have with republicans is their backward thinking on social issues.

Abortion, for fricks sake.

they do my head in. I like Gary Johnson though.

Be nice to see him on the debates, but he needs to poll fifteen percent I think.

Look ...

Richard Goode's picture

tax

Damien Grant's picture

My taxes here force me to buy things I do not like. The government of nsw forces me to buy third party insurance if I want to own a car, and just like obamacare I can choose my own insurance.

My understanding of most states in the us is that health care is free. This is the issue. Not obamacare.

And why, can I ask, was Romneycare not the end of civilisation? Because the entire thing is domestic us politics.

Mandates were initially proposed by the heritage foundation for Clinton. They changed their position but this just confirms to my mind that it is not, as Biden said, a big fucking deal. It is simply another incremental advance of the federal governments power.

bad but not Armageddon.

Shudder

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Like I said, I do not care about obamacare because it is not important.

As I said, not the philistine like I said. And Obamacare is important because it's unique in forcing individuals to buy a product. Is that so fucking hard?? Did you pay the slightest bit of attention to Justice Kennedy's questions??

Yes, Romney too is a socialist. An insipid, me-too Republican, rather like you, Obamien. Who here has denied that?? That's not an excuse for you to minimize the much greater evil of Obamarx, which you are clearly hell-bent on doing.

oi!

Damien Grant's picture

Like I said, I do not care about obamacare because it is not important.

Medicare and medicaid is socialised medicine. Why does Romney say nothing about that?

Because he is a waste of space. Because he introduced his own version of obamacare.

He is a socialist, just preferable to Obama.

Anyway, I'm not American. todays fight is against the acc.

Strictly speaking ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Yes. In practice, no. My reference to King Obama was not gratuitous. He simply gets his way by fiat. Thanks in part to sycophantic lickspittles like Roberts. Then we have useful idiots right here like Islameonid and Obamien minimizing the enormity of all this. Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Obama is saying it's not a tax...

Marcus's picture

...but if that's the case doesn't that mean it should go back to the supreme court?

It's depressing reading the US news these days.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I do believe that's the point of my article. Eye

Even worse Linz..

Marcus's picture

...watching this on Hannity (maybe not the best indication) the debate is not over the outrage against liberty by a nonsensical ruling. The argument is over the Obamacare.

Why don't they realise that after what has happened to the constitution that the problem of Obamacare has become a mere sideshow? If even the US right-wing can't wake the fuck up, what hope is there for the US?

The last defence of freedom now is the people and they are absent.

Marcus

Lindsay Perigo's picture

but the one thing I think no one saw coming was this ruling that a non-activity may be taxed into becoming an activity.

No. But anyone with his eyes open could see SCOTUS would find *some* excuse for not upsetting the vile Obamarx. Some writers are now saying the excuse is so threadbare it had to be a deliberate ploy on Roberts's part to embarrass Obamarx. Bullshit. Roberts just wanted to avoid the furore that would have ensued had SCOTUS done its job of upholding the Constitution. He's a piece of filth, like the creature he attempted to rescue. SCOTUS is supposed to be a bulwark against political considerations. The Constitution, whatever it takes. The man is beyond despicable. More to the point, I knew something like this would happen, as you know from my private communication with you; just didn't know what form it would take.

"We are not done."

Leonid's picture

"We are not done."

I second that. Paraphrasing Mark Twain " The rumors of America's death have been greatly exaggerated."

I can attest to that Linz...

Marcus's picture

...but the one thing I think no one saw coming was this ruling that a non-activity may be taxed into becoming an activity.

This legally endorsed concept is far more shocking than Obamacare being approved. I do not know of any other western democracy that has had such a legal ruling.

So what do you do now?

How can you reject a ruling by the supreme court?

This is really Atlas Shrugged come true.

Um...Speak for yer self Yankee!

fidotexas's picture

am a humble American.

Not Really. I am a Texan.

American, yes. Stupid...no.

Call any American stupid, yet YOU...let the French [ come into your country] And make make you their Bitch.....?

Do not note American strife without knowing. America.

We are not done. No where ne

A forced decision in support of force

F L Light's picture

"The health care ruling on Thursday was the first time Chief Justice
Roberts joined the court's four more liberal members in a 5-to-4 vote."

What was held over him?

And yet...

Craig Ceely's picture

...you have somehow managed to endure, all thanks be.

Perhaps my suggested reading program could help? Mises, for example, wrote in 1947 that "Great Britain could easily repel a Russian attack," and is that not only cause for enduring, but for a bit of a smile?

Alas, we differ yet on "fundamental." Had the fundamentals not already been screwed years before, Obamacare never could have been passed into law, let alone upheld by the Supreme Court.

Michael ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You wrote: "Obamarx will have achieved the fundamental transformation he promised, the fundamental change in the relationship between government and the individual cited by Justice Kennedy during the SCOTUS hearings in March." I didn't read your article until after I posted mine. Interesting that we both took note of that.

Quite so. That alone should have screwed the thing. But as Marcus will attest I remained pessimistic to the end, and was not at all surprised at the outcome. Unsurprised but still incandescent with anger. Then to watch that evil demagogue in the White House smugly gloating ... unendurable.

Kyrel

Damien Grant's picture

My understanding, which is limited, is that the US is already a welfare state and has been for some time.

In the area of health care, the current focus, what I have read gives me the impression that the uninsured do gain access to health care via a number of government programs at the local, state and federal level.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"Obamarx will have achieved the fundamental transformation he promised, the fundamental change in the relationship between government and the individual cited by Justice Kennedy during the SCOTUS hearings in March.

I didn't read your article until after I posted mine. Interesting that we both took note of that.

Michael

Welcome to the Club

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

America is now a European-style welfare state, essentially no different from Britain, France, and Germany in terms of individual rights. Sad

Just goes to show...

Marcus's picture

...that a constitution is only as good as the people it serves. If they fail to understand it or reinterpret it based on populist statist ideology it will not be worth the paper it's written on.

In fact the type of ancestor and document worship they practice is bound to fail because it is not based on a bedrock of philosophy or understanding but the same blind faith as religion.

Every generation in the US needs to win the fight for liberty anew, it's no good resting on your ancestor's words as if holy writ.

The best freedom lovers can do now is to make their case and win the argument, but through going back to basics. Not just say: because the constitution or the founding fathers say so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.