Will Work For Truth

We're working on our new site and will be closing this one down.  If you're a fan of small government and individual liberty, make sure you check back here for the URL, which will go live and have daily content added after January 1, 2011.  I'll post it here in the next few days. 

Good luck and Godspeed.

Here's one last ditty, before I go...

Dear distinguished editor,

            Thank you for recently publishing the article entitled “Oregon loses jobs, and it’s our own fault”.  The article was an insightful and refreshing adventure into the no-holds-barred journalism of old.  Rare indeed is the celebratory occasion in which your loyal—yet dwindling number of—subscribers have the pleasure of seeing the fourth estate’s investigative prowess on display.  The Oregonian’s coverage of the economic melt down in this state has been par excellence and markedly distinguishable from all other papers of local bent in this nation.

            No. 

No, it has not.

And you can stop the LexisNexis search for the above-mentioned article. You should know it does not exist.

            In fact, one might say (and one is, now) that your paper truly, truly sucks.  I don’t care who your new hoity-toity yellow-belly-in-chief is or how many Roman numerals he has in his name.  No one does.  What people—readers of local daily papers—want is news that answers just a few simple questions:  “What” and “Why”, for example.  Your paper does a pitifully mundane job at the “what”, and has always been shockingly unengaged in the “why”.  There is a third question that should be reticently obvious and automatically answered by the papers’ own name:  The Oregonian.

            Far too often, I see national goings-on on every prominent page of this supposedly local newspaper…save the quaint little stories about bicyclists who can’t ride a bus because there is no room to put their bikes.  Usually, all we get are constant and incessant macaronic bloviations on national health-care reform, the wars in Afganistan and (until recently, for some reason) the war in Iraq.  Locally we are enlightened by ramblings and musings of our non-existent clean energy industry, bloggishly simplistic entries mentioning, but never detailing the decline of our fledgling “Silicon Forest”, and maybe, if we’re lucky, we get some Pulitzer prize winning journalism—which is code for “Did what an even worse newspaper (i.e. the San Fransisco Obstacle) couldn’t seem to do.’’ One article on your OregonLive.com site suggested that our economy is “veering away from the abyss” by stating federal spikes in certain corners of the economic equation while suggesting that “Even in Oregon, optimism is growing.”  Really?  So, it is okie dokie for your journalists to spike opinion pieces with national stats and in turn apply those stats—none of which apply to Oregon—to Oregon?  Unreal.  But not unbelievable.

            The “what” question is really quite simple, to be sure.  Anyone can say what just happened.  A building burned down.  An international truck manufacturer picked up and left town.  The carpetbagging “creative class” seeking a “green-friendly” home-city scuttles out of Oregon as quick as they come here.  Unemployment skyrockets in just a few months’ time.  No one shops downtown anymore.  Crime is at an all-time high on MAX lines.  No one is hiring.  No one is creating new business.  Nothing is happening and no one at The Oregonian knows the answer to the more important question:  Why?

            Just one example of The Oregonian’s failure to answer the question “why” occurred in a story regarding the departure of Freightliner and the impending loss of 900 Oregon jobs. The reasons why Freightliner left weren’t particularly obscure:  it came down to profitability.  The “why” question was in this sentence: 

            “Oregon officials expressed their disappointment, but said there was little they could have done to change the conditions that led Daimler to shift all its truck-making operations to the Carolinas and to Mexico.”

            Ok…why?  Why? Why? Why? Why?  Now, certainly, 900 jobs lost is not the entirety of Oregon’s economic bloodstream.  But it is arterial to the endemic of lost jobs in this state.  Furthermore, if government officials are involved, which the article suggests, then they must have been able, at least theoretically, to do something about the loss of these jobs and this industry.  So, why didn’t they?  Or, granting them the benefit of the doubt (which The Oregonian forces its readers to do):  Why couldn’t they?  The newspaper, in over twenty articles on the subject (sorry, I don’t have access to LexisNexis’ entire search capacity. I’m only an unemployed college student, with three little girls to try to feed or I would have found more, trust me.) never once asked any “government official” any “why” questions.  The reporters, along with the editors and the newspaper as an entity consistently refuse to ask lawmakers and officials the right questions—if they ask any questions at all.  And even if they know the answer, this paper lets more pro-active, under-circulated rags break real news.  Which leads me to the fourth question all respectable papers should be at least trying to answer:  How?

            How can this be?

            Far be it from me to question the majesty of the mighty Oregonian, entirely.  Honestly, only a handful of people are to blame for not allowing stories to accentuate the “why” and “how” of certain stories.  I have been in those offices and have seen the hard work those producers of news task away on daily.  And I know the clock cannot be stretched.  But how can it be that every other medium including radio, radio for Hirsch’s sake, is killing print journalism?  I’ll tell you how:  they ask “why.” They ask “how.”  “Why” and “how” are the reasons Fox news, its publications and conservative radio and its publications consistently lambastes traditional print media.  Bloggers, as well, have learned the gift of asking “how”, and their popularity waxes ever upward.  This is not to say that Fox or e-magazines or bloggers are correctly answering the pertinent questions, but simply to say that they are asking the questions with numerous panels, talking heads and, most importantly, members of the national government.  But even these organizations, for the most part, are asking softball questions design to re-book government officials, not to offend them or stir up any real controversy.

            So where has the Oregonian lined up 

            So, you see, Oregon is losing jobs and it is our own fault.  Or rather, it is your fault.  That’s right, it’s the Oregonian’s fault.  You refuse to answer the pertinent questions of prominently involved public officials regarding our over-inflated housing market, our double-digit unemployment rate, our inability to attract and retain industry, our constant coddling of an overbloated, second-rate tech industry, our refusal to train and educate entrepreneurs of the future, and our over-all disdain for what makes great cities great: namely, an employed, productive and intuitive workforce that excels, nay, dominates any competition from anywhere else.   We’re too busy relegating our masses to waiting for the next bus, hoping there’s a rack on which to mount our eco-friendly rosary beads of the 21^st century.

Francesco's Money Speech--Atlas Shrugged

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. 


"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."


The above is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand.  Ripped directly from Capitalism Magazine and will stay here under Fair Use until they ask me to remove it.

Liberal Racism and the Offer You Can't Refuse

I don't know if you ever get over to Pajama's media to check out some articles or vids, but I suggest you do. Sure, I'm a Bill Whittle fan (yeah, he's leaving PJTV...boo!), like most middle-aged men would be if they were ever to regain what they had lost through the self-extracting, emasculating days of college. If. But one of my favorite dudes over there at PJTV is Joe Hicks, a straight-talking, no-nonsense, man's man.  Love it--in an...ah...manly type of way.

You're going to get a lot of "man-isms" (as my post-colonial literature professor called them) from me. Mainly because...well, I'm a man. Gasp!

Anyway, I was watching Hick's recent video interview with Deroy Murdock (contributing editor, National Review) as the two try to parse out an understanding of why the words "black" and "conservative" have been co-joined in the liberal media as "Black Conservative". Murdock himself underscores the "...capital 'B', capital 'C'".

Interesting.

I'd never thought about it before.  And why would I?  I'm not black.  I'm not conservative.  Not in the big "C" sense, anyway.  But I got to thinking.  I got to thinking about the Sopranos and that shrink Dr. whatsherface.  About how her family would complain about guys like Tony Soprano and the bad rap they gave Italian Americans.  The Godfather, the Mafia, all that.  Admit it: Italian + American =  "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."  Right?  Well, maybe.  It does for me, an Italian American.  Of course, that's not really fair.  I've been an Italian American for thirty-eight years and I've never once met anyone attached to organized crime...except a few (insert your favorite color here) Dragons--the Chinese and/or Korean gangs.  Oh, yeah, and the U.S. government...and Planned Parenthood.  That's organized crime at it's pinnacle...nadir...whatever.

Hmm.

Just hmm...that's all.

Chicagoland: Former Portland mayoral candidate assaults activist at Kitzhaber meet and greet

James Posey, Political Terrorist

If you are not familiar with the shenanigans and brutality of Chicago politics, fear not, the violent politics of the Windy City have finally blown into Portland. Welcome, Portlanders, to the era of thug politics.

At an open-invitation public meet and greet which included Oregon gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber on Thursday, a local activist with a camera met that violent reality face to face. Or fist to face, as it turned out.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE!  AND SUBSCRIBE!  (or else!)

David Wu smiles for the camera!

Vintage Wu. Isn't that just an all-star smile? How lucky we are! Our representatives are HAPPY! Just happy-go-lucky. Ah...Not a care in the world.

So happy the press never asks him any questions about anything.

So happy he thinks no one's wise to his happy little syndicate of beltway criminality. 

Just happity-hap-hap-happy.

We got news for Wu.

We see right through Wu.

Wu...ps.

Why you follow your gut when accepting friend requests.

Mainly, I wanted to reject this pompous rat-faced asshat's friend request because he looked like a freakin' serial killer.  I left the request unanswered for two weeks, then, after realizing that a ton of my friends were friends with him, I accepted it.  Oh, the gut is always right.

Now, listen...I'm not opposed to having a solid debate on term limits.  In fact, It's not like I'm diametrically opposed to the idea.  I simply want to see empirical evidence that changing our Constitution--that is, The Constitution of the United States of America--forever is a good idea.

Anyway, on to the entertainment...


___________________________________

• 
  
   
  

  Alan Levy THERE'S ONE WAY TO PREVENT OUR LAWMAKERS FROM TAKING US INTO NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY --- CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.

  12 hours ago

  Molly Nesham Lets send them home to learn what it's like to try to find a job and work for a living.
  

  9 hours ago
• 
  
  
  

  Alan Levy To which home? The one in Georgetown, the Hamptons, the Bahamas, in their home district or the one they rent out and conveniently forget to report income on?
  

  5 hours ago
• 
  
  
  

  Tim Horton We need to solve the problem with pressure and elections, LONG before that issues gets done. Remember term limits would take a Constituitional change. Fix it NOW, @ the ballot box NOW.... at every level, school boards UP.
  

  3 hours ago
• 
  
  
  

  Chris Lostaglia
  

  I'd like to see some real scientific work on how exactly term limits would do anything besides limit choice. Just by saying it would do X doesn't even come close to convincing me that one of my choices for representation should be removed E...NTIRELY. But since we're just blowing smoke...I'd wager the landscape of politics WOULD change for certain with term limits: Instead of waiting for super majorities, an even more harried, even more secretive process for legislating would ensue--faster and darker than what we just saw with HCR and TARP. What are you going to give them, 12 years? Have fun sleeping by your toilet in years 11 and 12... But, I'll bet someone will prove me wrong with a nice empirical calculus. Go to it!See More

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  
  
  

  Alan Levy No one cares about the dribble. Get off your own lazy butt and read. It's posted on the Wall somewhere, for the truly lazy. But anyone can look up the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation. It's allot better checking the definitive sources than popping off silly.
  

  43 minutes ago
• 
  
  
  

  Chris Lostaglia
  

  Whoa. Didn't expect that from you Alan. You're right, I never read and I can't think on my own. I am an idiot, which is probably why you sent me a friend request and I accepted.
  
  Here is just ONE argument I can make against term limits. ...And there are MANY MORE. I'll use CATO, since you mentioned them.
  
  ONE: CATO consistently supports a stronger Congressional presence--I have various recordings of lectures I ATTENDED on the very subject. TWO: The administrative branch is term-limited. THREE: By default, a temporally unlimited Congress SHOULD have power over a limited presidential term. FOUR: Congress' power has been waning even AFTER presidential term limits were imposed. FIVE: limiting the duration of powerful members of Congress will further WEAKEN Congress. SIX: CATO is blatantly hypocritical about Congressional term limits and the wont for more Congressional power. SEVEN: You are an ASSHAT BUFFOON.
  
  Here's a clue, you self important, self-insulating robot, don't ask to friend people you're just going to insult. You don't even know me, you pompous, plastic-faced moonbat.

  _________________________ 

  
  

  Yeah, I'm Mr. Diplomatic.  :D  It's just the way it is on FB these days.  Everyone has to be a complete asshole when they disagree with you.

War. Wah. Blah. Go Git em boys: The Sock Puppet Parade.

Time for another round of Facebookland.

But before I start, here's a book, you should read it:  Ronald Brownstein: Second Civil war (2007).

I haven't read it.  It probably sucks.  But YOU should read it.

You should read it because it probably reads like its forebears in the genre.  Probably a spittin' image. These books, you know, the books about how the doodoo is about to hit and the whole hell in a handbasket moonbattery.  I'm pretty sure the big houses used to limit the gloom and doom Civil War 2 type books to one per decade.  Not anymore.  They'll be everywhere soon.  Just watch, you'll see.

And it's not just books, either, is it?  It's been illustrated in movies.  It's in the papers.  It's in video games.  It's cable news media--all of them. And the internet. Oh...the internet! It's ... all ... over ... the ... internet. The "violent" protesters at Tea Party rallies are scoffed at and ridiculed while the "peaceful" WTO protesters tip over cars and throw burning trash cans through windows.  There is that side.  There is this side.  They are both violent.  They are going to clash.  Civil War 2.

That's what they tell us.

And, like the good little sock puppets we are, we fan the flames ourselves.  For the record, I am "me" on facebook.  Chris Lostaglia.  I'm "me" on this blog.  C.T. Lostaglia.  And I am me on Newsvine, Examiner, on every political blog I write for and respond to.  I'm no sock puppet blogarazzi.  I have nothing to hide.

But these people on Facebook,--the ones who hide under the guise of nom de plume sock puppetry--they say whatever they want without personal consequence.  Their names are Liberty this and Thinker that.  They write blogs under completely different nom de guerre's, further padding their limp wrists with more layers of
argyle anonymity.  And no, I'm not talking about good blogs with titles such as Cameron Jordan's blog.  I'm not even talking about the people who make their "name" under the see-through fish-net stocking of "fill-in-the-blank Pundit".  Those people simply lack imagination, or didn't care to come up with a coy title under which to house (pardon the obvious) their opinions. 


I am talking about the people (if they really are people and not some Orwellian government conspiracy of hired propagandists...I'M KIDDING!) who engage in anonymous Facebook rhetoric such as this:

• I just wonder when the people will exchange their "Don't tread on me signs" for "Lock and Load" signs.
• The blood of tyrants and patriots, people!
• Civil War is coming.  It's unstoppable at this point.
• It's alright we got guns, they've effectively legislated themselves into a corner they can't shoot their way out of!
• F*** it.  Let's roll on D.C.
• Forget the koran, let's burn washington. 

And on.  And on.  And on.  From the "left" and the "right".  These people want a civil war.  They are egging it on.  Not like the warning issued by most (see Cameron's re-post I linked above--a valid cry for diligence and change through--wait for it--VOTING.  Duh.).  These are dangerous times.  I get that.  I do.  American civil liberties are at risk.  They are.  Our penchant for hegemony is putting us all at risk, as well.  Dire risk.  But to bait people, to goad people into violent insurrection is 100% asshattery...and when done under the blanket of anonymity, it's cowardice.

Ok, so part of this is my fault for accepting friend requests from people I do not know.  Granted.  You have to expect that you'll find some cracked nuts via the process of social networking.  You are networking, it'll happen.  And heck, some of the people I've known since college think I'm the whack job for condoning liberty and peace.  Yep.  Those vile principles of peace and liberty...surely I must be ignorant or uneducated to believe in such nonsense.  If only I'd worn my sock puppet, I could be an ignorant, uneducated pundit with no consequences...

So what are the consequences?  Well, there's the obvious, self-policing process on both sides, of course.  That's the way I like it.  You say something vitriolic and inane, I can move along.  If I say something you don't like, you can move along. That's great.

But, there are other consequences as well.



But that's just the way the Chinese control attitudes and opinions online, right?

Maybe. But it is coming to America. It is true that Sunstein has re-thought his initial opinion on U.S. internet regulations, but this is how it always works. The presidents men, be they Wilson's brownshirt banker elitists, or the current Wilsonian-Jacobite Obamaniacs with PHD's, take both sides of the issue, so you never know what you're going to get. If you don't know this happens, the sock puppetry of the establishment iron hand has got you gazing at the cardboard cutout mini-stage of American politics like an amused pre-schooler, doesn't it? Look mommy! A donkey!

If you do know this happens, it seems to me, you can take two roads to a solution. You can spew crap on Facebook, or Myspace or wherever about how you're just drooooling over the idea of Civil War 2, or, you can do what real anonymous patriots did in the past: engage in civil discourse, police yourself, maintain some decency and stop the moonbattery.

If you do not, I guarantee you, some future Mao-loving czar will. I guarantee it.

So shut up out of fear? Is that what I'm saying? No. Shut up out of respect, you asshat. The only thing you're doing is fanning the flames of an already raging idea. A very, very bad idea.

Isn't the reason why we hate big government because we are capable of what my aunt used to call "a little self-control". Hey, keep your socks on, I don't care. Whatever. But if we don't know who you are and you are a stuffed sock flapping your fingers with the words of war and civil disobedience and insurrection and crap like that, I won't protect you. And I won't fight any battles on your side. Because you're a coward. An out of control coward who actually needs someone to come along and knock your socks off.

That's all.

Burning Books and Stuff

I have degrees in literature and writing so it goes without saying that I write and read more than the average person.  I guess you could say I'm well read, and no, I don't want to get into any bookworm pissing contest with anyone.  I'm just saying, I've read some stuff.  I'm a good reader.  I'm a close reader.  All that stuff.  And yes, I write--might not be the next Cormac McCarthy, but I do write...

You know, I can't imagine what it would be like if someone took it upon themself to hate my work so much that they amassed a heap of my *best* work and lit it ablaze.  Jeez, that would hurt my feelings, for sure.  I might even think about going into fetal hibernation under my bed.  Maybe I'd think about changing my name and moving to...somewhere that was not here.   I might think about a lot of stuff.  Yeah, I might think about it.  I wouldn't do it. Wouldn't do anything except keep writing.  That's what I would do. Well, ok, I might jump off a bridge if it were someone like my mother or my daughter doing the burning, that would shut me down, for sure.  But anything short of familial disparagement is just going to get chocked up to status-quo-class criticism.

Why is that?  Why wouldn't I freak out and throw incendiary bombs (linguistic or otherwise) at the people burning my book?  Because I live in a world of diverse opinions, with diverse perspectives and diverse attitudes.  That's why.  I'm used to criticism.  Americans are used to that.  If you're not, you're leading one helluva sheltered life, or you live with your mother.

You know what?  Check this out.  I actually did have a guy crumple up something I wrote once and toss it in the garbage can on the way out of class--a class full of students who were listening to me read my story as they were following along.  Boink.  In the trash.  Deep sixed.  I mean this guy was a blatant lefty and he didn't even think about recycling it.  Trashed.  Actually, when he first tossed it he missed the garbage can so he bent over and picked it up with his index finger and thumb as if it were a hardened dog turd and only dropped it into the wastebasket after dangling it there for a few seconds.  He smiled while he dangled it.  Right at me.  Right at my face.  Ugh.


Ok, that sucked.  But then again, so did what I wrote.  It sucked for him at least.  Pissed him off even. Whatever.

See?  This is why my writing sucks, I'm too tangential.  I've got no rigid structure, no...program, as someone once called it.  Maybe my writing style is just "diverse".  Nah...


So, I wonder about this Quran burning episode that will take place on 9/11/10.  And I wonder about Americans.  What is it about Americans that they put up with people burning the flag and the Bible even though they hate that it happens, but Muslims will supposedly kill an extra 10,000 infidels if we burn the Quran?  I don't know.  I'm just thinking...there aren't a lot of Christians in Mecca or Medina.  In fact, there aren't any at all.  No diversity.


Diversity.  God knows I hate that word so much.  It usually precede a lecture about how I suck for being a rich, white heterosexual male who enslaves entire races and eradicates other races from the face of the Earth.  Well, it does.  For the record, I'm not rich.  I'm not Caucasian.  I've never owned a slave, nor has anyone in my family. And I've never killed or condoned the killing of any human being.  Not even Saddam Hussein.  Not even Hitler.  Not even Kenny Rogers.


Oh, sorry.  Writing got diverse there again, didn't it?  It's actually working out good, let's keep it up.

More diversity:

I love chocolate cake with cherry flavored frosting.  /diversity


Have you ever read the Acts of the Apostles?  Did you know that Christians, 2,000 years ago burned books in protest?  Did you know this?  Act 19:19.  Go check it out.


So, what you're telling me is that it's NOT ok to offend the Muslim religion and their tradition by burning their book, but it is ok to offend the Christian religion and their tradition by telling them they cannot burn a book.  Hmm.  Maybe I was wrong about our "diversity".  Wait a second.  We don't get the benefit of our own diversity do we?  We're expected to be accepting--and particularly accepting of the idea that we're not expecting to be accepted.  That's not diversity, now is it?  That's writing yourself out of your own story! That's like...like...martyrdom.  That's the cultural equivalent of a self perpetuated fetal hibernation.  That's death.  Suicide.  Jumping off the bridge. 

Do yourself a favor and go burn a Quran.  At least you'll know you're alive.

Feel free to print this out, just so you can toss it in the trash.

Me?  I'm going to burn it. 

That's all.

The Sunday morning smackback: Is Glenn Beck a Libertarian? Not so fast.

Twice last week, on Thursday and Friday's television shows, Fox News' Glenn Beck referred to himself as "libertarian". On Thursday he said "a Libertarian", implying of course that his political affiliation lies with the Libertarian Party. On Friday he used the less associative "libertarian", absent the determinate article "a". So what's the difference? Well, a big "L" Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party, usually these people are fairly highly active in politics on varying levels and degrees. A little "l" libertarian is someone who is either unaffiliated or is registered to vote under any political party including the Libertarian Party and share some common beliefs with the big "L" folks. Usually the little "l" people aren't very politically motivated or activated. Usually...

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE (And please subscribe! I get paid for that, you know!)

Islam is a form of Government?

Jesus said:

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Thereby effectively separating the Church from the State.

But Jesus doesn't stop there:

“If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:19-20)

Jesus separates his followers from the World! The separation of Church and Planet. That's crazy, amiright?

Islam, on the other hand seems ONLY concerned with the position of itself int he world and among this planet's governments:

“You are the best community evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” (3:110).

Sorry about the annoying digitized voice, just mute it and read the whole thing!



Is Islam a religion? Sure it is, but it is a religion that demands all nations bow before it and that it's people be in charge over all the nations.

Hmm. If Islam's religious duties and political aspirations are entwined, I think we have a serious Constitutional problem here. So much for exercising constitutional rights to build a mosque (and yes, it IS a mosque) at Ground Zero in N.Y. (And yes, it IS at Ground Zero). While Christian clergy are ambassadors for an other-worldly power, the very presence of Muslim clergy on American soil is an apparent violation of the United States Constitution.

Links for reading what "moderate" Muslim scholars say about the separation of Church and State:

An FAQ on Islam

Separation Of Church And State (Secularism)

A ProCon wishy-washy fest.

EDIT: I Just ran across this article today...he says EXACTLY what I'm saying about half way through the interview...ah the collective brain is a hummin! A quote from the interview:

We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a first amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake.

That's all.

Grind Zero or Suspicious Packages?

Alright, help me out! Which name should we use for it?

What name should Greg call his new Ground Zero gay bar?

The things we say

So...I made a list over the last week of all the things I say to my 2-year-old daughter, and here are the top ten.  I tried to make this as scientific as possible...for whatever that's worth.  Unbelievable, how little imagination I have:

10.  You need to eat that.
9.  O.K. (TIE)
9.  Be nice (or some form of this) (TIE)
8.  You have your own bed; you should sleep in it.
7.  Let's go!
6.  Do you need to go?
5.  Are you going to go or not?
4.  Sometimes...I like to eat people!
3.  Goodnight.
2.  Booboo bear!
1.  No.

Freud was right. 

Lawrence becomes first ever Libertarian to champion "fusion-lite"

As a result of last month's Independent Party primary, Jeff Lawrence (LBT, district 3) became the state's first ever Libertarian to carry a second party's flag into the summer campaign season. Lawrence defeated Michael Meo (PGP) in the runoff. This victory for Lawrence means he will have both the Libertarian and the Independent tags next to his name on this fall's voter pamphlet--an advent made possible by a recent ruling in Oregon sometimes referred to as "fusion-lite".



READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Three Little Pigs in America

One day, three young pig brothers from humble beginnings decided it was time to leave and seek their fortunes in the world. And, thinking they had been educated in the best education system in the world, with the best standard of living and with an unsurpassed level of freedom, they set out in different directions to make their marks.

The first little pig was the nicest little fellow you could ever want to meet.  Unfortunately, this little pig had somehow fallen through the cracks of the porcine education system and had no clue how to go about starting a life for himself.  For a while he joined up with a troupe of traveling flute-playing pigs, but that didn't work out after they infuriated a crowd of Alaskan Mamma Bears.  After his narrow escape from that fiasco, he decided he needed help getting settled into a real life and went to the hogs over at the Bureau for the Welfare of Pigs.  They set him up with a house--not a great house, it was made out of straw--and a cushy little stipend in order to tide him over until he could figure things out on his own.  Every once in a while he took a part-time or temporary job, but nothing ever lasted.  His heart wasn't in it.  And besides, when he didn't work, he got paid more by the BWP and he didn't have to do anything except have his friend fill out some paperwork for him (he couldn't read very well, even though he graduated from high school).  He wasn't happy, per se, but he was glad enough that he had finally "made it" in the world.

The second little pig was a bit more motivated than the first.  But luck and time weren't as kind to this little porker as he had hoped.  Things weren't bad--far from it--but he knew they could be better.  He bought a wooden house, got a job and climbed the ladder, as it were, before hitting the eventual middle-class ceiling.  Investment! He thought.  That's how I can get ahead.  And he did--for a while, anyway.  But that's where luck came into play--the bad kind of luck, almost the worst kind.  All's not lost, he told himself reassuringly, but he was kidding himself and in his mind fear and uncertainty festered.  Eventually, he took out a second mortgage on the stick house.  "Don't worry"  the banker told him  "You'll be fine.  And besides, the law requires me to grant you this loan."  Well, he wasn't fine.  He lost the job he had for almost 10 years and money became as scarce as caviar suet.  He tried to keep his chin up.  But the bankers were calling and time...well time does what it does:  it runs out.

The third little pig was a merry good fellow.  And why wouldn't he be?  He was a success!  He started out slow, yeah, but hard work and resiliency were finally starting to pay off.  Sure, he'd had his share of failures...big ones!  That's what he learned through life in the world:  big risks lead to colossal rewards as well as titanic failures.  But nothing stopped him.  He tried and tried and tried.  After about ten years of trying, he felt as if he'd finally beaten the game.  He built himself his dream house in the Hamptons.  It was a solid, beautiful, brick structure complete with all the modern amenities...including a hot tub, a Foosball table and yeah, a fireplace.  You could say life was good for pig number three, but it wasn't done.  Not by a long shot. The third pig was a benevolent character, you know, he offered money and even a job to the second little pig, but was refused. Pride maybe?  Thought the third little pig.  Well, that can be a good thing, I guess.  He offered money and a job to the first little pig as well.  The first little pig took the money and said he'd take the job "next week".  It was always "next week".  At any rate, the third little pig had done well in the world.

Suffice it to say, one day about ten years after the pigs had left to enter the world, a stranger came into town:  The Big, Bad Wolf. 

He stopped first at the straw house and called out its inhabitant.

"Little pig, little pig, let me come in!"
"No fucking way!"  Replied the first little pig.
"Little pig, don't worry!  I'm not here to eat you!  I see your plight, and the plight of others like you and I'm here to help you foster in an era of fundamental transformation of this society!"
There was a slight pause--long enough for an eye to be batted.  And then...
"In that case...OK!"

And the first little pig came out to meet the wolf.

Then the wolf took the first little pig and arm-in-arm they marched down the street to the second little pig's house of sticks (which was kind of falling apart at this point).

"Little pig, little pig let us come in!"  They yelled.
"Brother?"  Replied the second little pig in a whimper, "What are you doing with that wolf?"
"Fear not my brother!  We're working together for the greater good!"
"Well...I don't know..."  The second little pig was a bit apprehensive--until the wolf started speaking.
"Little pig!  You are oppressed!  You are a victim of a society that harms you!  Why, look at your brother's house down the street!  It is plush and solid and he has Foosball for crying out loud! It's not your fault he got lucky and you struck out! Some of that should be yours!"

And that was all it took.  Now all three were marching in the street toward the third pig's house. 

When they got there, they had somehow acquired pitchforks and torches (I dunno...it's a fairy tale, these things happen).  And they stood in the yard of the third little pig chanting and yelling for him to come out.  Well, the third little pig was no dummy.  He knew what was happening.  Time to pay the piper--and after all he'd done to try to help these little hogs.  One thing was for sure: he wasn't going without a fight.  So when they yelled:

"Little pig, little pig, let us come in!"


He did nothing.

That's right, he ignored them.  They'll go away after they grow tired of trying to blow this house down.  Sure, he looked at the gun closet and thought about opening it and pulling out his threaded barreled, semi-automatic AR-15 carbine with flash suppressor and laser sight to make pork chops out of his brothers, but he declined.  They'll come to their senses and go away.

But they did not go away.  The grew louder and more obnoxious.  Finally, at about three o'clock in the morning, the third little pig had to respond.  He opened his bedroom window and looked down on the trespassers



"What exactly is it you want?"  He asked them

"We want justice!"  Blurted out one of his brothers--but the wolf silenced him with a wave.

"Little pig, little pig, let us come in."  Said the wolf, calmly.
 
"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin."  Came the melodic reply.

"Then we'll huff and we'll--"  The wolf stopped mid-sentence...

"Then we'll huff and we'll--hang on a second."  The wolf reached into a sack attached to a stick he'd been carrying around and pulled out two teleprompters on stands (don't ask how they fit in the sack--it's STILL a fairy tale...)

The third little pig rolled his eyes, rested his weary piggy face on his little piggy hand and waited for the wolf to set up his get up.

"Ahem."  The wolf cleared his throat before continuing.  "Then we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll-"

"Blow my house in?"  The third pig interjected sleepily.  "I've heard it all before."

Well, this interruption infuriated the wolf who had known all along that they could never get that third little pig out of the house to join their crusade.

"That's it fellas."  He said to his portly cohorts.  "On the roof!  We're goin' in!"

And up they went.  The third little pig, fearing for his life, quickly lit a fire in the fireplace and stoked it as hot as it could get, just in case they tried to come down the chimney--which they eventually did.  Down they came, all at once.  Blam, Blam, Blam!  The wolf seized the third little pig before he could reach his gun. The first little pig shook his fist and yelled angry things at his more successful brother.  The second little pig made no noise at all.  He was dead.  Burned up in the boiling hot water in the kettle.  "I smell dinner!"  Yelled the Big bad wolf.  "Yum!"

The first and third little pig sat there, dejected, as the Big Bad Wolf finished his meal.  The first little pig knew he had been "snookered".  The third little pig was just plain saddened.

"Alright, that's enough of this sulking around."  Said the wolf to the third little pig.  "Get outta here, go live in your brothers wooden house.  And be happy I don't eat you, too."  The third little pig moped slowly out of the house he had built and headed for the stick house of his brother.

"What about me?"  said the first little pig with a smile.  Certainly he expected to get something out of this. 

"You?"  asked the wolf snarkily while wiping his furry chin with the tablecloth.  "You get outta here, you get NOTHING!"  The wolf yelled the last word so loudly, the furniture in the house vibrated and slid across the floor.

"Nothing?"  The first little pig asked timidly.

"Well..."  Thought the wolf momentarily, "alright, take the Foosball table."

And so the first little pig dragged the table down the street, past the dying flames of torches, past the disheveled third brother who stared at him with sad eyes from the stick house and then finally, to the straw house, where he would live out his days, betrayed, victimized and ostracized.

But hey, Foosball's fun, right?

Wayne Allen Root

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT:

Barach Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

 

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."


None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe