He’s testifying against the Justice Department today after being forbidden to do so. From Doc Vega, the Dallas Tea Party Examiner:

Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights.  Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”

Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest  that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.

This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!

Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.

Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

You can read Chris Coates damning testimony from Pajamas Media while we all wait and see if the main stream media does its job.

Libertarian Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, shocked many conservatives when he refused to give full-throated support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act criminalized public sector racial discrimination, and struck down laws that required discrimination and segregation. But it went much further. It outlawed racial discrimination by private actors such as restaurant and hotel owners who refused to serve blacks.

National Review’s Rich Lowry, for example, wrote: “[T]he Civil Rights Act was the last spasm of the Civil War. The South had frustrated the imposition of black civil rights during Reconstruction in a low-grade insurgency that successfully rumbled on into the 1960s. Black civil rights weren’t going to be vindicated any time soon, absent the application of federal power again … I’m sympathetic to libertarianism, but it sometimes has a weakness for theoretical exercises removed from reality.”

This sounds like a white, guilt-ridden rationalization to justify an abandonment of principle. And it has real world, not merely “theoretical,” consequences. For one thing, it encourages grievance-driven race-based identity politics — and invites special-interest legislation to protect all manner of niche groups perceived as having been “held down by The Man.” It is in these waters that professional victim seekers and exploiters like the Rev. Al Sharpton, race and gender “advocacy groups,” and the Democratic Party do their fishing.

Read the rest here including this great quote:

“The consequences of government coercion are more harmful than the certainty that some will use their freedom in ways that offend.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9y0hRkrHa4

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

The question, as it pertains to the Civil Rights Act is, should the government make it illegal for a private business owner to discriminate or should consumers in the marketplace determine whether a private business owner stays in business due to his discriminatory practices?

Market forces, if they are truly free from regulation, produce equality far more pure than any government can create through force of law. Unfortunately, it is human nature to intervene and humans run the government so it is unlikely this assertion will ever become provable beyond doubt.

There are many people better than I am at arguing these points and defending Rand Paul on this issue.

Below are just a few of the best of the best:

First, there is John Stossel on Fox News supporting Paul saying, “I’m in total agreement with Rand Paul”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI

Here is Jacob Hornberger  speaking more truth:

Let’s delve into this two-faced liberal hypocrisy a bit further. For years, the ACLU has publicly patted itself on the back, especially in fund-raising letters, about how it heroically stood for the right of Nazi sympathizers to march down a (government-owned) street in Skokie, Illinois. This shows how principled we are, the ACLU liberals have long claimed, because we defend the right of bigots to exercise freedom of speech, especially when the speech is abhorrent or offensive.

Would liberals accuse the ACLU of being racists and anti-Semitic bigots for defending the right of Nazi sympathizers to express their views? Of course not. Liberals would praise the ACLU for having the courage of its convictions for standing up for the free-speech rights of those who express horrendously offensive views.

Then, why not the same consideration for libertarians who stand up for the right of business owners to run their businesses the way they want, even if in the process they discriminate against Jews, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, or anyone else?

Like I say, two-faced and hypocritical.

Here’s J.E. Dyer from HotAir.com defending the “impious Rand Paul”:

Federal overreach in a good cause is still federal overreach.  Republicans must reflect on this fact:  that if we refuse to reexamine the loose thinking about federal authority in the Civil Rights Act – thinking that was strongly opposed by many at the time, as older readers will remember – then we have already ceded the principle of federal overreach, and, by our own agreement, there is nothing the US federal government can’t do to us.

Here is Tom Woods on “Rand Paul and the Zombies”:

The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.

Here is the always excellent Jack Hunter on the “Rand Paul Revolution”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEM50EkAyx4

And finally listening to (at least) the first 20-30 minutes of the Jason Lewis show from May 20th will really sum the situation up quite well.

My own thoughts on the matter can be summed up via two items I posted to the @LibertyMaven twitter account:

Hands up if you think Rand Paul is racist… Now, hands up if you think unicorns exist. Hmm, all the same people.

Rand Paul’s detractors’ affinity for the race card is nearly as high as it is for spending other people’s money.

And with that it is time to move on from this Rand Paul “event” and look toward our continued fight for liberty in America.

Let’s dig a little deeper and attempt to un-attack Ron Paul. Here is my collection.

The “guilt by association” attack:

This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist.  Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.

People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.

The “blame America” attack:

This attack on Ron Paul is quite common among neo-conservatives. Their misguided logic goes like this: Ron Paul claims that our government’s foreign policy of the last 50 (or so) years has bred hatred of America in the Middle East. This means Ron Paul blames “America” for atrocities like the 9/11 attacks.

To make this argument one must equate the U.S. government with the American people. When one uses the word “America” it encompasses the government and the citizens. Ron Paul blames U.S foreign policy, not the citizens. United States foreign policy does not equal “America”; therefore, Ron Paul does not blame “America” for anything.

In fact, it could easily be said that Ron Paul is celebrating “America”. He is demonstrating through his words and actions America’s founding principles: distrust and criticism of an over-reaching government.

Arguing that Ron Paul “blames America” is the equivalent of arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for authoring the Declaration of Independence.

The “isolationist” attack:

This one is so common and yet so misunderstood that it makes my eyes bleed every time I read it or hear it. Luckily it is easy to understand why it isn’t true.

To be an isolationist one must hold two beliefs with respect to foreign policy and trade. First, one must adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy. This is the foreign policy of our Founders and Ron Paul certainly is “guilty” on this one. Second, one must be a protectionist on trade. Protectionism is the antithesis of “free trade”. Ron Paul is a free trader, not a protectionist; therefore, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

He is, however, a staunch non-interventionist, like our Founding Fathers.

The “racist” attack:

This attack refers to some questionable writing within Ron Paul’s newsletter released in the early 90′s (for the most part). It’s impossible to know what is in someone’s heart, but Paul tends to wear his heart on his sleeve. To call someone a racist who lists Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as heroes seems to say more about the accuser than the accused. He has denied writing the words in those newsletters. Add that to the fact that Paul continuously condemns racism and no other racist remarks attributed to Paul have come to light during his nearly 40 year political career; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is racist.

The “anti-semite” attack:

The “anti-semite” attack appears to stem largely from Paul’s desire to end foreign aid to Israel. The truth is that Paul wants to end all foreign aid, not just to Israel, not just to the many Arab countries that also get U.S. aid, but to all countries. Additionally, Paul’s entire economic belief system is based upon the work of Jewish economists and thinkers; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is an anti-semite.

The “earmark” attack:

Paul has been criticized for putting in earmarks for his constituents in his home district in Texas. What most people don’t realize is that the practice of earmarking is a method to allocate tax money that has already been collected. Refraining from putting in earmarks does not decrease spending at all. In fact, by not putting in earmarks, the President gets the money and can then spend it how he sees fit rather than as Congress sees fit. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

The practice of putting in earmarks actually makes government spending more transparent rather than less. Earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. Being principled on earmarks is bluster without wind.

While Ron Paul puts them in so his constituents have the opportunity to get some of their tax money back, he votes against them; therefore, Ron Paul should be commended rather than criticized for his position on earmarks.

The “can’t win” attack:

Many are critical of Paul because they feel he is “damaged goods” and doesn’t have a chance at winning should he be the Republican Party’s nominee. Many of these same people donated and cheered another “can’t win” candidate to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul would win, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win. If enough people soul-search toward being free from government rather than being creatures of government, Ron Paul could be the next President of the United States.

I doubt that support could ever come from the ever-dwindling group of neo-conservative Republicans, but that support could certainly come from those on the Left who are now realizing that Obama is potentially worse than Bush on foreign policy.

The “libertarian” attack:

This attack seems to come from both the Left and the Right. The Right attempts to argue that since Paul calls himself a libertarian it means he is a libertine. They argue that he is pro-choice. He’s pro-life. They argue that he would legalize all drugs. He would return that authority to the states, where it belongs, according to the Constitution.

The Left argues that Paul’s free-market approach would leave too many without the basic necessities of life. In fact, if the government were to get out of the welfare business and stop taxing income, Americans would respond with private charity to cover many of the poor that have become dependent on government for their survival. America is the most charitable country in the world even with the tax burden. Imagine what it could be like without that burden.

Yes Ron Paul is a libertarian. So were the Founders. It is a badge of honor, not shame.

The “truther” attack:

Yes, some people actually still believe Ron Paul is a 9/11 “truther”. He is not and stated so during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s TV show during his campaign of 2008. He called some of the truther’s claims “preposterous”. No more words are needed; just watch this clip.

The “gold standard” attack:

Many people say Ron Paul wants to return to a “gold standard”. This is a misunderstanding that Paul himself does not usually get a chance to clarify during short interviews. When it comes to monetary policy Paul supports legalizing the Constitution where it states that only gold and silver can be legal tender. He advocates repealing the legal tender laws. He supports competing currencies, not necessarily a gold standard in the historical sense.

Paul believes that legalizing currencies other than the fiat dollar would utilize market forces to convert the monetary system toward a currency that would be backed by something tangible. That could be gold, silver, or whatever the market determines is best.

It’s easy to just flippantly say, “oh he’s for the gold standard”, and then follow it up with an equally flippant, “that’s just crazy and we already proved that couldn’t work.” The truth is in the details. Competing currencies could possibly bring about a de-facto gold standard, but this wouldn’t be your great-grandfather’s gold standard.

The point is to bring freedom to the monetary system, not institute some kind of regulated currency ready-made for manipulation by special interests. We already have that now.

The “end the Fed” attack:

This attack, like many others, preys on fear. The attack suggests that Paul would like to abolish the Federal Reserve the minute he takes office. Paul has stated numerous times that legalizing competing currencies (see the “gold standard” attack above) would gradually and naturally siphon power away from the Federal Reserve.

This power reduction would occur because people would likely demand the use of the hard currency instead of the fiat currency being peddled by the Fed. Another indication of this gradual approach is Paul’s bill to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

Sure, he’d like to just abolish the Federal Reserve, but he realizes that would be too drastic a measure for markets to remain stable if it were done too quickly.

The  “mother’s basement” attack:

This attack seems to come from envy or jealousy rather than sound reasoning. It goes something like this:

“All those Ron Paul supporters do is spam Internet polls while living in their mother’s basements!”

In fact, a Google search on “ron paul mother’s basement” yields about 62,000 results.

I’m living proof that this attack is untrue. I don’t live in my mother’s basement. My parents don’t even have a basement. In fact there is not a single Ron Paul supporter I know who lives in a basement. We own our own homes, have jobs, families, and many of us have children. We just want the government to go away and/or leave us alone.

It could more easily be argued that those who do not support the freedom found in Ron Paul’s message are living in their government’s basement.

This concludes the guided tour through my collection of Ron Paul attacks. This article may not prevent attacks on Ron Paul from the misguided and ill-informed, but hopefully it illustrates just how misguided and ill-informed the attacks are.

Liberty is not easy. Sometimes you do have to dig a little deeper to find it.

—————————————

Feel free to add your own un-attacks in the comments.

]]> http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/14/un-attacking-ron-paul/9416/feed/ 17 http://libertymaven.com/2010/03/25/the-u-s-governments-love-affair-with-discrimination/9394/ http://libertymaven.com/2010/03/25/the-u-s-governments-love-affair-with-discrimination/9394/#comments Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:52:58 +0000 Matt Malkus http://libertymaven.com/?p=9394 Note: The inspiration for this article originated in Chapter 1 of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Lies The Government Told You,” which I would be remiss not to mention. However, the Judge mostly focuses on the history of discrimination against African-Americans and former slaves, and the resulting affirmative action laws that exist today. I felt that a broader approach was warranted due to the profound implications that state-supported collectivist preference (or outright servitude) has for us all.

From the founding of this nation’s government, we have lived in a society where “all men are created equal,” but are not treated that way. In fact, at some point in America’s short history, you can probably find an example where your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion has received the short end of the state’s disregard for one of the basic rights that they claim to protect. Such discrimination has also occurred in nearly every administration, across party lines, in good economic times and bad, in times of war and of peace. A common thread can be seen in each case: the discrimination has been driven by political motives and the expansion of state power.

For starters, despite the language in the Declaration of Independence, slaves of African descent were not considered equals when it came time to ratify the Constitution. Although some of the Founders were opposed to slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin), the institution was nonetheless implemented and was kept in tact – largely for economic reasons – until after the Civil War. Even when Abraham Lincoln took office, the only major push to end slavery – the Emancipation Proclamation – was made for political reasons by Lincoln, who wished to create a slave uprising in the Confederate states.

Throughout the first half of the 20^th century, racial segregation continued to oppress African-Americans, mostly for the political benefit of those in power (affluent white males). Starting in the 1910s and 20s, the federal government embarked on a national housing segregation program which denied housing loans to those living in “areas in decline” (majority black neighborhoods), since it was believed that the presence of blacks in a white neighborhood would bring down property values. Historically black neighborhoods were destroyed to make way for elevated highways which connected white neighborhoods. Politicians, eager to gain the votes of those white voters in the majority opinion, happily violated the rights of the minority race, both to gain re-election and to expand government power in housing and transportation.

As previously stated, however, government discrimination is not confined only to African-Americans. The well-documented case of Japanese-American internment camps during World War II provides a striking example of the government’s willingness to disregard the rights of its citizens. (Is anyone shocked that neoconservatives such as Michelle Malkin have continued to support such practices?) The forced removal of Native Americans in the 1830s to make room for (voting) white citizens is yet another example. The federal government’s use of the Marshall Islands to test nuclear weapons, which had long-term effects on the residents there, made disposable use of the citizens of a U.S. Territory. In the original colonization of Hawaii, the native Asians and Pacific Islanders were not permitted to vote within several years of American troops landing on the shores.

Nor is legal discrimination an issue that is contained within the realm of racism. In an effort to promote national unity and a sense of loyal patriotism, the Supreme Court held that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or any others who might dissent) were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. In an 8-1 opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a majority opinion which evoked thought control and national security as a basis for upholding the school district’s decision. Frankfurter wrote that the flag could be a part of legislative initiatives designed “to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country,” and that “national unity is the basis of national security.” These same rhetorical arguments have since been used to condemn anti-war activists as unpatriotic.

In the three years that ensued, Jehovah’s Witnesses were persecuted zealously across the country, with Kingdom Halls being burned and Witnesses being jailed, brutally beaten, and run out of town. The Court reversed their opinion in 1943, but the damage had been done, and the implications for religious freedom and right to disobey government propaganda was firmly established.

Although many in America believe that the civil rights era of the 1960s and 70s has largely ended discrimination, the fact is that the government has been one of the most ardent supporters of favor-granting on the basis of characteristics which are out of the individual’s control. Lyndon B. Johnson rightly admitted that the concept of affirmative action is inherently a socialist point: “We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” The government has continued to use “civil rights” as a pseudonym for “equality of result” in nearly every major federal program it has implemented in the past 50 years.

In the housing market, the Community Reinvestment Act promoted lending to minorities, even when the individuals in question were not qualified to take out loans. One result – a housing bubble and financial crisis – was met, predictably, with greater government control over the financial and housing markets, and resulted in the loss of property and employment for many Americans of all backgrounds.

On the other side of the coin, the “War on Drugs” continues to disproportionately affect minority groups: although about 15% of drug users are African-American, nearly three-quarters of those convicted on drug-related charges are black. In combination with the FDA, the drug industry in America is far from a free market: large pharmaceutical companies continue to benefit from the lack of competition in the industry, and continue to lobby Congress for more of the same at the expense of minorities.

The same government that espouses discriminatory policy in the name of “civil rights” continues to violate natural rights, and continues to keep the discussion of race, religion, and other collectives in the contemporary political discourse. As long as the government takes these qualities into account, so too will its citizens. Of course, this government has tremendous incentives to maintain the status quo as it pertains to discrimination: it flies in the face of, and destroys, the protections that keep us free as individuals.

The bottom line is clear: The state will commit acts of violence and oppression upon any individual or group, so long as it supports their cause, and provided those in power believe there are no repercussions. So much for “all men are created equal”; under our government, the only equality that exists is an equal probability to be robbed, denied opportunity, or enslaved.

Editor’s Note: Sometimes it’s good to listen to the other side with an open mind because perhaps they know better. This article about Ron Paul was sent to us by our neo-conservative friend, Richard Deekbag, founder of the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):

http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

I mean just look at the guy. Ron Paul is all skinny, old, and wrinkly. His speeches are rambling diatribes supporting the long debunked conspiracy theory known as the U.S. Constitution. Everyone knows the Constitution expired more than 100 years ago and has no place in our Conservative-Progressive-Democratic-Socialist-Liberal-Republican (ConProDemSocLibRep) society.

After all it was Ru Paul’s isolationist ideas that lead America into its darkest period following the Revolutionary War after his idiotic idols, the Founding Fathers, defeated the British occupiers. Well, they were more like friendly visitors than occupiers. Visitors that honored the American colonies by taxing them heavily and treating them like peasants.

Everyone knows by now that Ron Paul’s efforts to abolish the massively successful Federal Reserve bank is kookier than cookies. The Fed has been our savior over and over and over and over and over again over the years.  If it weren’t for the Fed the so-called “Great Depression” would have been much shorter. That’s a gigantic problem because we needed it to last much longer just to prove that government regulation is the lifeblood of the economy!

Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are moonbat crazy. His ideas violate the golden rule. You know, the whole “do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing”? We would be far less safe if we hadn’t flexed our military muscle in the Middle East. They only respect force and they’ve been cowering in fear of us for the last 10 years. Hopefully we’ll be able to show them who’s boss for at least 100 more years.

Ben Bernanke was overheard saying: “You can’t put a price tag on keeping America safe. Do you know where I can get discounted printer ink? After all we need to save money where we can in these trying times!”, according to a source who didn’t want to be named as a source and who spoke to me through telepathy.

It was so stupid that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll. It was obviously rigged by his Campaign For Liberty organization and they were all young people anyway. Everyone knows the future of the GOP will come from the old people! At least the results of the poll were booed loudly which just proves that I’m right.

Not to mention Paul is an anti-semite because he wants to cut off foreign aid to all countries and the last time we checked, Israel was a country. It couldn’t possibly defend itself with a stockpile of only 400 or so nuclear bombs. They need our help!

He’s also an obvious racist because he has a long history of hate speech following the publication of some newsletters written by someone else 25 years ago. His racism is so rampant that one could pull just about any speech of his in his decades in Congress and find the bigotry. In fact here’s one called “Government and Racism“.

It’s so easy to imagine a Klan hood over his head whenever he’s on TV espousing the virtues of some of his lilly-white heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.

Get this through your think skulls people, Ron Paul has no chance at being the next President of the United States. He shouldn’t run because all he will do is screw up the chances for the anointed Republican nominee, who won’t be a crazy, kooky, old, skinny, wrinkly, anti-semitic, racist, isolationist with a fetish for the supreme law of the land.

Don’t you understand, we hate Barack Obama more than we love the Constitution!

The last thing America needs is a candidate that adheres so rigidly to his principles and is logically consistent in both domestic and foreign policy.

And don’t get me started on his supporters.

Following Joe Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress I suggested he was merely representing his constituents. I also suggested that he’s probably a liar too, but not many picked up on that. They were too interested in discussing how disrespectful it was for a man to yell two words at the President during his address, two words that probably should have been three words: “We all lie!”

But what I’m most miffed about is all these charges of racism going around. There’s nothing about what Joe Wilson said that was racist.  Those jumping to conclusions about race are instigating racism instead of helping prevent it. Now Jimmy Carter says he believes that Wilson’s comment was “based on racism.” Well I suppose that settles it.

The bottom line is that it is not in any way racist to disagree with the President on health care or any number of issues. Why does having a black President turn so many into race-card-playing Al Sharptons? If this is the way it is 9 months into Obama’s Presidency I’m really starting to worry how this country will be 2-3 years from now.

Here’s a tip. Unless the person disagreeing with Obama is wearing a white hood, is burning a cross, or actually says or writes something that is racist, put your race card back in your pocket where it belongs. If you don’t, you are perpetuating racism by “crying wolf” when there is no “wolf” to be found.

The most recent Rasmussen approval rating for Obama is at 50%. That means that 50% disagree in some way with Obama. Do you seriously believe that in 2009 half of America is racist? I’d suggest seeing a therapist if you do.

Instead of  straw-man-jumping directly to racism in your counter-arguments why not argue the actual issue? If you don’t then you are only reinforcing that you have no counter-argument.

Jimmy Carter is setting a very bad example. Do the opposite.

The reason they choose these camera angles becomes obvious as the report unfolds. Revealing the man’s race would not fit their version of the story. They’d look idiotic if they talked about all these “white people” carrying guns at Obama events if the one they showed was actually black. As it turns out they look not only idiotic but extremely biased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

By the way, what former Presidential assassin goes by the name “Mark” Hinckley? At least that comment appears accidental.

I will not complicate the untying of that knot by quoting our Founders nor Abraham Lincoln. I will instead make an attempt to use logic. It is up to whomever reads this to decide if I’m successful in this endeavor.

The right of secession is a claim of freedom from the State. It is a rejection of State slavery. It is purely libertarian yet it has always been associated with the “peculiar institution” which was a complete rejection of liberty. Slavery has muddied the secession debate to the point that it is difficult for anyone to sound off in favor of secession without being demonized as a kook (at best) or a white supremacist (at worst).

I want to claim publicly, before I get labeled, I abhor slavery in all forms. It is pure evil. How hypocritical it was for the Confederate States to use States Rights in an attempt to continue violating human rights. It is also quite hypocritical today for those who claim to believe in liberty to marginalize those that support secession as a recourse for combating creeping State tyranny. Such tyranny is nothing more than a form of collective slavery.

How can individual slavery be so wrong and collective State-sponsored, taxpayer-funded slavery be right? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. Slavery in all forms is immoral, whether it be evidenced through the government’s incrementalist approach of freedom reduction or by the sound of a whip gashing a man’s back. The drama of the latter should not minimize the evil of the former.

To be a supporter of secession while denouncing human slavery is consistent and moral in the cause of liberty.

History has shown that one era’s fringe is another era’s mainstream. It is unlikely that secession would be considered a viable option by the masses for combating the ceaseless expansion of government today, thanks in large part to those that feel compelled to associate it with slavery. The secession principle is wholly libertarian and deserves more respect than it is receiving from the detractors.

Ron Paul has been a favorite target of the detractors because of his recently released pro-secession video. In it he focuses on the right message, the principle of secession. Instead of attacking Ron Paul we should be emulating him.

If we make the effort to unmuddy the water of secession in our time perhaps the next generation won’t be afraid to swim in its clarity. After we are gone they will thank us for our eternal vigilance so they still know liberty.

Adding to all of the beyond ridiculus Obama coins, dolls, buttons, underwear, halos and toast comes Obama Fingers. No, you won’t be able to put batteries in them and massage your back to the self-enriching sounds of Obama’s “Yes we can!” voice in your ears. These fingers taste like chicken.

Photo: AP

From the Guardian UK:

A company in German(sic) has just introduced a line of snacks called “Obama Fingers”: frozen chicken fingers with curry dip. To Americans, marketing a fried chicken dish with the name of our first African-American president instantly tingles our sensitivity to racial stereotyping and racist imagery.

The author prattles on about the apparent racism in such a move. Then asks if it is racist if the company putting out the product claims it was ignorant of such stereotypes?

It’s only “racist” to someone who looks at them and thinks… “oh lord, that is racist!” I look at them and see the chicken fingers are breaded and fried, and come with a curry dip. I then think… mmm yummy. Then I think, what an incredibly stupid name for a food product.

I can certainly see how someone may be offended by Obama Fingers, but don’t we have more to be worried about than whether or not a German company puts out a product that may or may not be offensive?

For our sake I hope it is a complete failure like the government’s other perpetual wars.  Though I fear that with the popularity of Obama and his “wolf in sheep’s clothing” words it may end in success.  If that happens, America will no longer be America as we once knew it.  Some may argue that America is already gone, capitalism is dead, and those of us who fancy liberty should self-immolate.  Thank god the nature of liberty coexists with the burning desire to keep it intact.  Rather than self-immolate we should immolate, through the ballot box, all of those in DC who are enemies to liberty. As Chuck Norris has suggested, Ron Paul could be the arbiter of which of his colleagues deserve to be choked out of office.

The actions being taken by Obama to combat capitalism are likely to prolong our second Great Depression. Even though Rahm Emmanuel said that they couldn’t let a crisis go to waste, perhaps what he really meant was that if they could  implement a first term agenda that prolongs the crisis, America may get what the “leftest” of the Left have wanted all along: a socialist country. It certainly won’t happen overnight, but it’s beginning to look more and more like we are in the final stages of the Progressive incrementalism which began in the late 19th century with the British Fabian Society and arrived in America with the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  FDR really kicked the effort into high gear during the Great Depression.  Now, Obama seems to be putting the finishing strokes on the American Socialist Portrait.  Be still and say cheese! Wait! Is that a camera or a gun?

Obama is turning the federal government into your gambling- and drug-addicted, abusive father. He will empty your pockets to satiate his infinite losses. He will forever be drunk on credit. His manipulative words will guilt you into loving him, for a time.

In the end you will sit penniless, a bruised and battered slave to the state, if you aren’t already. If you think that’s bad, wait until you see what he does to your children and grandchildren.

How angry will future generations be when they discover the very first African American President was also the man who presided over the return of slavery? The difference this time is twofold.

The slave owner is not a southern farmer with a whip, but rather the entire U.S.  government with the full force of the military and all their weapons. Finally, the box labeled “Race” on your National ID Card does not determine whether or not you are a slave. Modern slavery is colorblind. The slave “litmus test” will be how you answer the following two questions.

Do you live in the United States? Do you work for the government?

If you answer yes to the first, and no to the second, you are a slave.

Then again, if Obama’s War on Capitalism ends up like most other well-intentioned government programs we have nothing to worry about.  It will fail.