As I have made clear in several past articles, I have no doubt whatever that we are headed directly into a socialist dictatorship. Sadly, a majority of those of us who bother to vote do not seem very bothered by the prospect. In fact, many, including academia and the mainstream media seem to welcome it. As to how allegedly intelligent people could welcome such a thing, I haven’t a sure answer. My guess is that they suppose that THEY will be among the chosen elite who are allowed to make decisions for the rest of us. I further guess that the less intelligent see dictatorship as some manner of extended childhood where they are forever relieved from taking responsibility for anything other than the pursuit of pleasure.
I have also opined in those past articles that the declaration of martial law will be our signal that the dictatorship in firmly in place.
Lately, as a result of numerous conversations, articles and books read, etc., it occurs to me that many people think that the declaration of martial law will signal the beginning of the implementation of dictatorship rather than signaling its completion. Therefore, that the declaration of martial law will be their signal to start defensive actions.
My friends, I wish there were adequate words to express to you have tragic a mistake such thinking is. The signal to start defensive actions has long since come. Indeed, at this point in the process, it may well be far too late to do anything effective to prevent total dictatorship.
Read the rest of this entry »
There is no doubt that the recent spate of irrational shootings has scared many Americans. Some of them to the point where they are willing to forfeit their Second Amendment rights to an administration dedicated to the disarming (and subjugation) of our citizens.
I have written other articles in support of the Second Amendment, why the Founders included it in our Constitution (as a safeguard against a government that turns on its citizens) and why gun ownership, in and of itself, is not the cause of the irrational conduct we see around us. All I said then is still true.
However, there is another dimension to all this that needs also to be discussed. That is “how safe can we really be?”
At one level we all realize that all life carries with it an inevitable death sentence (whether or not we want to think about it). Naturally, most of us want to delay the inevitable as long as possible. Equally naturally, none of us wishes to be injured or disabled. That said, I ask again, how safe can we really be? It does not take much thinking to realize that life is actually quite precarious. Indeed, it amazes me that I have lived as long as I have, considering the way I have conducted my life – and, I will guess that many of you feel much the same.
It is also only natural that we wish to live in a circumstance where we can go about the daily activities of our lives without constantly looking over our shoulders – with a feeling of relative safety and security. And, for most of of the time, that is true. The odds that any one of us (or our families) will be the victims of violence are actually quite small, are slowly growing smaller, and, for the most part, have nothing whatsoever to do with firearms misuse. Indeed, if you are killed or maimed in an act of violence in America, the odds are much greater that the weapon used was an automobile rather than a firearm.
Read the rest of this entry »
With a single-party political system, there are no meaningful challenges, even to the most insane or inane legislation. Yet, that is what we now have in the United States.
It is long past time for us to get past the LIE that we have a two-party system – a LIE the duopoly party maintains as part of its plan to keep itself in perpetual power. How do I know so sure that we do not have a two-party system like our phoney “legislators” suggest? Simple. In a two-party system, there is meaningful opposition between the parties. And, the debates spurred by that opposition help inform the people as to what their legislators are really up to (or down to as the case may be).
We are just coming off what our “legislators” assure us was a major threat to our economy – the so-called “fiscal cliff”. I counter that this so-called major threat was in fact more of a threat to the “legislators” than to the economy in that it would have thrown a large wrench into their spending plans. A “crisis” in which there was NO meaningful opposition.
Read the rest of this entry »
President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013. “I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”
More at: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obama-hopes-to-enact-new-gun-control-measures-in-2013
So – the move toward total dictatorship is about to begin, just as we knew it would if the Obamanation got re-elected.
Of course, the proposed actions have nothing whatever to do with Sandy Hook. Instead, it is about voiding the 2nd amendment, the only real barrier between the progressives and the one-world dictatorship they have lusted after for so long.
If you can put aside the tragic parts, some of what would happen under the dictatorship would actually be amusing. For instance, do the traitors in academia and in the main-stream-media really think their new masters will reward them for their “service”? Not a chance. All prior history tells us that the traitors will be the first to go. After all, if they sold out their own nation and their own people, how could they possibly be trusted by the new regime? Yet, traitors, being actually idiots disguised as ideologues, never seem to figure that part out.
Back to the coming push for gun control. Might it be wise to stock up on the totally legal, easily accessible parts for constructing IEDs then (seemingly) willingly give up all of our registered/traceable guns when the goon squads drop by? I figure a realistic resistance would be far more effective if focused on the crippling of infrastructure rather than shooting a few goons, goons being far easier to replace than infrastructure. Besides, infrastructure does not usually shoot back.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
I have long been convinced that the founding of America was a sort of miracle. Not in the sense of magic or some manner of mystical intervention, but in the sense of what had to happen to allow and cause that founding.
Now that the Republic that was founded is likely coming to an end, it seems only proper to reflect on the why and the how of both the beginning and of the end.
For sure, the establishment of our Constitution seems a sort of miracle in itself and I revere the document and all it stands for. Yet, that Constitution is actually a result of the true miracle and not the miracle itself.
So, what then is this “true” miracle that I refer to? It is simply that fact that a particular group of people occurred at the same place, at the same time, and with a common goal that they were willing to risk everything for. I refer, of course, to the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, George Washington and a host of supporting players. Truly, what are the odds that such a group would coalesce just when and were they were needed? How seldom has such a thing happened in the known history of mankind (if ever)? And, please note that we-the-people did not chose our Founders. They simply occurred, hence the “miracle”.
We Americans are prone to say that we are “a nation of laws, not of men”. While I admire the sentiment intended by this, it is not now and was never actually true. The “laws” in question were the work of men (men meaning humans). They are obeyed (or not), are enforced (or not) by men. And, they have been slowly but surely destroyed by men – through a process of neglect combined with intent.
Read the rest of this entry »
…for Re-founding the Original American Republic
Incumbrepublocrats: n. The sham duopoly of incumbent ruling elites, tricking complaisant sheeple into believing they need frequent sheering for the welfare of the herd, and have a choice of shepherds promising, yet never quite providing, eternally green pastures in wolf-free zones. See: Incumbrepublocrats
Those of us who are political junkies, and/or passionate about an issue or ideology, tend to lament so-called voter apathy and how uninterested so many of our neighbors seem to be, about political matters we regard as critically important to the future of our country. These sheeple are content to blithely follow any glib demagoging bellwether, and foolishly trust their shepherds to keep them in clover. While we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort attempting to awaken them from their indifference, they cavort blissfully through much simpler lives, oblivious to any good reason to allow political squabbling to complicate them.
Perhaps we should be noticing what so many of them do, which enables them to tune out obsessive political debate. It seems to matter not how actively engaged we become; our prodigious efforts rarely make much difference in the end. The inexorable slide into the pits of tyranny is continuously advanced by ambitious oligarchs, in both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. For the most part, after a busy year of selecting, campaigning hard for, and even electing worthy candidates promising reform, little actually changes in Sodom by the Potomac. Alas, power corrupts… rather quickly, and nearly always.
Whomever we might vote for, the entrenched bureaucracy effectively wins every election. Perhaps we should rethink the Civil Service system, which was supposed to be an improvement over the ‘Spoils System,’ of patronage jobs for government servants. At least before, we could throw ALL the rascals out with a change election. Now, this unelected, under-worked, and grossly overpaid cabal of bureaucratic busybodies merrily carries on, growing their budget and micromanaging our daily lives. Once again, they bemusedly watch our freshly elected reformers being schooled by the old Pro’s, in the art of maintaining incumbency – job one for a career-minded Incumbrepublocrat.
So, we have yet another school shoot-up and yet another outcry for gun control. OK, let us pretend we really do want to “control” guns… what would that mean? Do we control only certain kinds of guns? Do we simply control magazine capacity? How about controlling ammunition instead? After all, how useful is a gun without ammunition?
My friends, please step back and think about what we are really talking about here. Set aside, for the moment, such ideas as basic rights, the 2nd amendment to our Constitution and other such and let us discuss the actual mechanics of real gun control.
First, how many guns are there already in the hands of civilian Americans? A Google search yields an estimate of 200 million
Second, would anything short of a total ban on future sales and total confiscation of ALL guns be effective in eliminating “gun violence”? Recent events suggest it takes only one gun, in the wrong hands, to do appreciable damage. Does anyone reading this actually believe that such confiscation could be accomplished in anything less than a “police state”?
Third, what of the estimated 150 million guns in the hands of military and law enforcement personnel? Can we be assured that these will never be misused? Can we assume that the increased value of such guns (after confiscation of civilian guns) will not tempt their being sold on the inevitable black market?
Fourth, what about that black market? Are we to believe that the United Nations, an organization that has yet to accomplish anything meaningful in its entire existence, is going to peacefully eliminate all guns worldwide? If not, will there not develop a black market in guns and ammunition that would put the narcotics market to shame?
The simple truth is that a gun ban in America (or worldwide) is not in the least feasible. We have a gun culture here and a majority of us are quite happy with it.
Read the rest of this entry »
I haven't thought this through nearly enough, as it only just popped into my head while reading a comment to a post about reforming the Federal Income Tax, so I decided to blog it so we can kick the idea around a bit. It just might be an elegant solution to funding a properly limited Federal government. A basic truth is that taxes are often more about control than revenue. To encourage behavior, governments subsidize it; to discourage something, they tax it. Punitively taxing income and savings is counterproductive to a free market economy; if anything we should be taxing consumption. This is why I have long been an advocate of the Fair Tax; but even that is convoluted and messy in its implementation.
I would like to do away with the IRS, or at least its interface with individual citizens in any way. How much income we have, how we earn it, and how we choose to spend it, is none of the Federal government's business. What if we were to fund it entirely with excise taxes instead of income taxes? What if banks and all other financial institutions that provided banking services, were charged a small excise fee as a percentage of every transaction on the debit side of their ledger, and permit them to pass that cost on to their customers as a transaction fee? That way, depositing earnings and other income from whatever source would not be taxed. Only the act of withdrawing funds, one way or another, to spend them for whatever purpose, would be effectively taxed. No exceptions or deductions would be necessary or desired.
The United States of America has long been considered a Capitalist nation. That is to say, the primary nature of our national economy is (or was) based (to some degree) on Capitalism. OK – fine. But, in saying this, what are we actually saying (or implying)? To begin with, what is Capitalism?
The generalized classic definition, this one taken from Dictionary.com, says:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
We are also told that Capitalism means Free Markets and/or Free Enterprise and/or laissez-faire (which is a fancy way to say “free from government regulation or interference”). Whatever terminology you prefer, the operative words to remember are private and free. By implication, a Capitalist system can only flourish within a system of government that accommodates private property and freedom of individual action.
There is another, slightly different point of view, taken from CAPITALISM.org (which I prefer) and which says:
What is Capitalism?
a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.
Historically, Capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other economic system in human history. Indeed, it made the USA what it once was – and did so in a fraction of the time historically required for a nation/state to achieve greatness. Yet, despite all its positive attributes and demonstrated success, many people have been taught to hate the very notion of Capitalism. Why is that? The reasons are many and varied. Let us discuss just a few of the more significant:
This needs to go viral. I concur completely:
They can have the country. I will take back my life.
It is our misfortune that the political class – elected officials [public sector unions], consultants, pundits and hacks of every stripe – has transformed our nation's Constitutional government and therewith our polity and civl discourse into a stinking cesspool of constant conflict. As a consequence, their campaigns to attain office, their method of gaining power over YOU and me, have degenerated to the point where their most successful tactic is to make 50.1% of your neighbors hate, resent and demean you.
With their unintelligble tomes of laws, with their divisive rhetoric and gargantuan government programs, they have destroyed every hint of civility among men of good will. I, as you, hate none of my friends, neighbors or countrymen. Conversely, I grow weary of being the target of vitriol and the victim of vile attacks merely because I dare to renounce the false premise and immoral rationale behind every act of government beneficence.
I resent that our government [and the mass media] perpetuates the destructive, inhumane lie that a stranger's need or misfortune is a mortgage on my life. I detest that our elected officials enact illegitimate laws that collect tribute from me to be doled out according to an unknowable formula that varies according to which man or group is best at licking the boots of the thieves or adept at avoiding, outrunning or siding with the plunderer.
I deserve better. You deserve better. We were each born free. They have deprived us of our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for long enough. I swear to you on my life, my fortune and my sacred honor, that I will not suffer their tyranny another day.
Join me. Scream louder.”
– Jeffrey T. Neal, Washington, D.C., November 4th, 2012.
Have we yet seen enough wreckage to realize that the GOP is defunct, and has been since the Reagan era?
Indeed, the only thing that has even hinted at GOP success since then was the election of Bushes I and II who were actually neo-socialists pretending to be political conservatives.
As we observe the train wreck pretending to be a party today, we see disorganized mess that lacks leadership and that has no real message other than the social-conservative nonsense that: a) has no place in national politics, and, b) alienates the majority of the electorate.
Is it not past time for a coalition of fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians to take control of what remains of the GOP, force the social conservatives out, and build a party that truly reflects the position of main-stream America? Such a position would be fiscally conservative and socially liberal – a position offered today only by the Libertarian Party (of which I am a member). However, the LP is also defunct in that it suffers under a name that, however unfairly, has been discredited beyond redemption.
My reasoning is that the GOP, however defunct it may be as a political force, still has an infrastructure that is part of the political reality of the current political process. Why not have the coalition I mention above merely take control of this infrastructure? This seems to me far more possible than for any of the presumptive third parties to break into the duopoly as it currently exists by building their own competitive infrastructures. This would provide virtually instant access to ballot presence, debate participation, party name recognition, etc.
Despite the fact that my rational self knows that America is most probably done for, it is simply not in my nature to shut up and take it so long as any form of resistance is possible.
Please offer your critique of this idea along with ideas of you own. We simply cannot imitate the Jews of WWII and meekly shuffle along to the gas chambers.
Think about it – then speak up.
Troy L Robinson
After the 2008 election, an editor in the Czech Republic opined that the real tragedy in America was not that Barack Obama was president but, rather, that he could be elected president in a nation like ours.
Clearly, he did not fully appreciate what our nation had become.
What does this imply four years later when, despite all the crimes and misdemeanors he has committed against our Constitution, that Obama could be re-elected?
It implies that we have reached that point where a majority of the voters prefer a Marxist dictatorship. That being the case, then the Covenant joined by the several States at the end of the 18th century is truly rendered null and void.
As I see it, the only possible (peaceful) remedy left to us is for those States (a majority actually) who still cling to the old principles enshrined in our Constitution to withdraw from the broken Covenant and seek a new beginning as independent sovereign States, or, by forming new federations with other States as they think best for their future freedom and prosperity.
For my part, I have no wish to force, or even persuade, my fellow citizens to change their minds. I ask only that they do not impose their shortsightedness on those of us who prefer a different course.
However, if those mistaken souls control our central government, that is what MUST happen.
I am privileged to have enjoyed America during her best days and I am totally saddened that I did not do more to prevent the tragedy that has befallen her and her people.
Goodbye America. You will be missed by all those who cherish liberty, free markets and individualism.
Troy L Robinson
This from: Fox News
Complaints crop up in Ohio of early voting machines marking Romney votes for Obama
Early voting problems in the key battleground state of Ohio are fueling concerns in the final days until Election Day, with the national race essentially tied in the latest Fox News poll.
After several early voters in North Carolina said last week they cast ballots for Mitt Romney but the electronic ballot machine logged their pick as President Obama, similar problems have popped up this week in Ohio.
Voters said they selected Romney on the touch screen but an Obama vote was logged instead.
“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Ohio voter Joan Steven told the Marion Star.
As with the North Carolina cases, election officials had the machine inspected and re-calibrated.
Ohio is widely said to the be the most sought-after state in the two campaign’s electoral pathway to the White House because of its 18 electoral votes and nearly even split between Obama and Romney, though Obama has held onto a slight lead in recent polls.
The Fox News poll released Wednesday showed the national matchup tied at 46 percent.
What if the economy wasn’t the most important issue in our coming election after all?
What if the underlying motive for the deliberate destruction of our economy, was to convince Americans that we can no longer afford to shoulder the burden of defending Western civilization, from the global forces of tyranny?
Despite the best efforts of Ayn Rand that the Society that succeeded her, the economic system commonly called capitalism consistently fails to garner the praise and respect it is due. I think that, in large measure, this is because far too many of us really do not know what the term means and even less so all that it implies. That plus a general misunderstanding the environment required for it to flourish.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary offers this definition for capitalism:
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
While I do not disagree with this definition, I find it a bit academic and I also think it falls short in many respects. To supplement this, I offer my own definition for capitalism:
: an economic system in which privately owned assets are leveraged, as determined by private decision, to generate new or additional wealth, subject to competition in a free market.
Please note that in both definitions, the operative words are “private” and “free” (as opposed to state controlled).
However, our definition is still lacking in that it allows to stand unchallenged, the mistaken notion that “capital” equals “money” – a mistaken notion that promoted by the progressive movement as is made obvious by many misleading claims being made in the current presidential contest. Far too many people extend this mistaken notion (capital = money) to mean, by implication, that “capitalism” means “the rule of money” (ergo, the rule of those who have it in abundance).
Read the rest of this entry »
On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln made a speech accepting the Republican party’s nomination for U. S. Senator from the State of Illinois. The best remembered quote from that speech was the line: “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
As all American school children once knew, two years later, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States and his “house” that was his nation sought to end its division by a bloody Civil War which, in some respects, has yet to truly end – in that the Republic has, since that time, never been truly united. The lesson, if there be one, being that pummeling your opposition into submission is never the same as convincing them of the rightness of your cause and convincing them to join you in its furtherance.
Once again, we are a “house” that is very dangerously “divided against itself”. And while, on the surface, the basis of that division appears quite different from that of Lincoln’s time, at an essential level, the basis is the same.
It is nothing more or less than a terminal disagreement over the proper roles of our Federal, State and Local Governments.
Read the rest of this entry »
The combination of high doses of pain relievers and the general lack of anything new on the political front has kept me quiet for a while. Yet, I’m recovering from my recent surgeries (in spite of myself) and I simply MUST rant about something.
The recent alleged “debate” would have been an apt subject in other days but this continued battle between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dummer leaves me mentally numb.
But, I did manage to find something worthy of my attention. Returning from a recent trip to Austin, we tuned into a local talk radio program. At the point where we tuned in, the topic was the firing of a female guidance counselor named Tiffany Webb by a New York high school.
It seems that Ms. Webb was highly regarded in her job. However, it evidently came to the attention of the authorities that 17 years earlier, well before becoming a teacher, Ms. Webb worked as a lingerie/bikini model and that some photos of her work are still extant – including on the Internet.
The school authorities decided that those photos rendered Ms. Webb unqualified to work with the young. (Kindly note there was nothing remotely illegal or even improper in her modeling work.)
This raises several very clear and very troubling questions about the current state of our society and its attitudes.
Read the rest of this entry »