Here’s another video I made for YouTube: Representative Bob Etheridge, a Democrat from North Carolina, assaulted a young college student for asking him a simple question, as reported here: http://www.raleightelegram.com/2010061001.html I thought it was hilarious and the guy looked extremely drunk, so I figured I’d make a silly video. Enjoy.
Here’s another video I made for YouTube:
Representative Bob Etheridge, a Democrat from North Carolina, assaulted a young college student for asking him a simple question, as reported here: http://www.raleightelegram.com/2010061001.html
I thought it was hilarious and the guy looked extremely drunk, so I figured I’d make a silly video. Enjoy.
During my most recent business trip I took advantage of my flying time and read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.” It was a pretty entertaining read and confirmed most of what I already knew about the War Against Southern Independence but it also offered some great insight into the individual leaders involved [...]
During my most recent business trip I took advantage of my flying time and read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.
” It was a pretty entertaining read and confirmed most of what I already knew about the War Against Southern Independence but it also offered some great insight into the individual leaders involved in the war, and the vast differences among them.
” It was a pretty entertaining read and confirmed most of what I already knew about the War Against Southern Independence but it also offered some great insight into the individual leaders involved in the war, and the vast differences among them.
One of those leaders, probably the most famous of them, was Robert E. Lee. Scholars debate his tactics to this day, and looking back it is possible to say “well if he only did this” or “if he’d only gone there” but we have to remember that hindsight is 20/20, and the man was able to protect Virginia for four years while facing drastic disadvantages. The US Empire had the advantage of an endless supply if immigrants being forced into military slavery (conscription), as well as the captured slaves forced into combat, as well as supplies and munitions that were a direct result of 30+ years of tariffs on Southern exports.Anyway, the following passage leaped out at me from the book, and it is about a correspondence between Lee and Lord Acton in 1866 (after the war):
Though a reluctant secessionist, Lee understood the cause for which he fought, and it was by no means an ignoble one, as witness a letter he wrote to Lord Acton, the great classical liberal statesman, in 1866. Acton had initiated the correspondence, writing to Lee about his admiration for the Confederacy. “I saw in State Rights,” Acton wrote, “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction of but as the redemption of Democracy… Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”
Lee replied, “I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and the balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government… whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” He outlined his understanding of how the founders had opposed such a consolidation and how secession had been acknowledged as a presumed constitutional right in the past. But, he said, “I will not weary you with such unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgement of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war.” During the crisis of 1861, Lee had been on the side of judgement and reason.
Take a look at the history of the United States since the day Lee wrote those words. I’ve added the emphasis in bold because I think he basically outlined the mode of operation of the federal government for the last 150 years. Look at the point we have come to today:
- The federal reserve controls the money supply, confiscating our property at their whim
- The US foreign policy has been nothing but a trail of tears of interventions and blowback, from WW1 to the present
- The Sherman Act (fittingly) along with stacks of further regulations have destroyed any semblance of a free economy
- The government is blaming its failed social programs on us, and forcing more social programs down our throats
- Race relations are still abysmal, it having taken the federal government 100 years to grant blacks any civil rights
- The national debt is so high that we can’t mathematically ever pay it off
- Neither national party has repealed a significant law since prohibition
- The President writes laws from his desk
- The President has the power to detain US citizens indefinitely
- There are more bureaucrats than there are elected officials, and they have the power to do everything from imprisoning to wiretapping to stealing from US citizens
- The list goes on.
Calling Robert E. Lee a prophet might be a stretch, but it is clear that he was 100% accurate about the direction of the US government following their war of conquest from 1861 to 1865. The policies of the federal government are different in name and detail to the policies of the fallen empires throughout the rest of history, but conceptually they are exactly the same: finance government through debt/inflation, spend vast amounts of money on maintaining entitlements and an empire, then collapse. It’s happened time and time again, and it will happen to the USA.
The statist bias of the mainstream media in the United States is readily apparent to anyone with a rational mind. However, claims of such bias in an audience of people who agree with that bias are always met with sarcastic sneers and outright dismissiveness. Those who agree with the “progressive” philosophy of state control of [...]
The statist bias of the mainstream media in the United States is readily apparent to anyone with a rational mind. However, claims of such bias in an audience of people who agree with that bias are always met with sarcastic sneers and outright dismissiveness. Those who agree with the “progressive” philosophy of state control of individuals seem to have no problem with state control of information and lash out at any dissenter as some sort of racist who is delusional and paranoid.
A couple of events that happened recently have given us the opportunity to bring this bias to light in a manner that is as clear as day, and that can only be denied by an outright denial of reality itself.
First, the FBI raided a militia group within the United States that was allegedly plotting terrorist attacks against the police. Second, a terrorist group actually carried out a terrorist attack in Moscow.
Let’s point out a few obvious facts about these two events:
- Each group can accurately be called an extremist group or militia.
- One group was allegedly planning attacks, the other group successfully carried out attacks.
- The US alleged terrorists are Christian Extremists, the Russian terrorists are Muslim.
So, these seem like two very similar events, except one actually happened and resulted in 38 dead civilians, and the other was an alleged plot. Let’s see how the media covered these events.
*Note: the following is totally non-scientific as I do not have the tools or expertise to data-mine this information from every US news source; maybe someone at Newsbusters or Media Matters could do a more thorough job.
**Also note: click each image below for the full version.
First, let’s just take a macro-level look at the amount of coverage. A quick search of news.google.com for “christian militia” brings back 10,600,000 results during the last week:
That’s quite a few. Meanwhile, a search for “russia bomb” brings back a mere 9,389:
For those of you keeping score at home, that is 10,600,000 to 9,389. Apparently the media just doesn’t think it’s that important to tell us about an actual terrorist attack carried out by an extremist group when that group includes Muslims.
Maybe my search terms are wrong though. Maybe if I used different words I would get different numbers. Well I tried that, and the disparity actually got worse. I invite you to try it for yourself.
Let’s move on to the coverage of individual news outlets. Again, this is an unscientific study, and I just picked three news sites off the top of my head. I encourage you to go and see how your favorite news site stacks up. What I did was I found the top story relating to each of these events on three websites and I looked at the first few paragraphs of the story to get an overview of what was going on. The difference in coverage is stark.
Let’s start with MSNBC’s article about the Christian Militia:
Now here is MSNBC’s coverage of the Muslim Bombers:
OK, not looking good so far. MSNBC makes it a point to mention the word Christian in the very first paragraph of the militia article, yet you can’t find any mention of the religion of the bombers in Russia. The pictures I’ve shown only include the first few paragraphs, because I think that is what gives people the impression of the overall story, but I’ve also included the links to the full text so please go and comb through them for yourselves.
Next, let’s check out CNN’s story about the FBI Raids:
And on to CNN’s piece on the Russian attacks:
At least CNN was a little more specific about the Russian terrorists, telling us they were Chechen Rebels from the North Caucasus region. Somehow they didn’t feel the need to describe the Christian Extremists as “Caucasian Rebels from the Midwest Region.” Still no mention of the Religion of Peace as the motivating factor behind the 38 dead Russians, and even though they quote the website of the Christian Militia, no mention of the Chechen Rebel website is made, which I found in 0.02 seconds by using Google.
Finally, let’s have a look at the New York Times. The paper is having so much trouble keeping readers that they’re lobbying for a newspaper bailout (state takeover of the press) but yet they can’t seem to figure out why
people aren’t interested in the news they have to offer. Well let’s see:
The New York Times on the Christian Militia:
The New York Times on the Russian Islamic Attack:
It took the NYT seven words to get the point across that the FBI Raid was against Christians, yet no mention of Islam or the word Muslim appears in their article on the Russian subway bombing. When you beat your readers over the head with the billy-club of bias on a daily basis, its no wonder that they’re leaving in droves.
The point is clear that we have an extremely biased mainstream media in this country. Christians nor Muslims who participate in terrorism should be immune from criticism, but journalists should not play favorites. Both groups should be covered under the same objective standards. Instead the media hides the truth about the Chechens and stretches the truth about the Christians. All terrorists are evil, and so are biased journalists who purposefully mislead the public.
I was reading a post over at the Tenth Amendment Center when I had a brief moment of inspiration. I took a graphic from this article about Texas’ response to the health care legislation and I did a little editing to make it reflect my views of our current government in the United States, enjoy:
I was reading a post over at the Tenth Amendment Center when I had a brief moment of inspiration. I took a graphic from this article about Texas’ response to the health care legislation and I did a little editing to make it reflect my views of our current government in the United States, enjoy:
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms today about the signing into law of Obamacare, and the rallying cry seems to be: Repeal! In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed [...]
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms today about the signing into law of Obamacare, and the rallying cry seems to be: Repeal!
In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed by Parliament that were so oppressive that they could only be described as the “Intolerable Acts.”
Obamacare is today’s Intolerable Act. And just as the colonists banded together to enact change after those acts were passed, so should America respond to Obamacare. This law must be repealed.
link: Morning Bell: Repeal | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Now while I’d like to just jump on the bandwagon and cheer on the “good” guys, I just am not buying it. Why are the Republicans all of the sudden so hell bent on repealing a government program? When was the last time they actually did that? As I’ve pointed out before, there are plenty of progressive government programs in place that the Republicans have failed to do anything about, much less repeal, when they’ve had power. The list is huge, but some of the big ones include: medicare, social security, public education, the federal reserve, the income tax, etc. Why should this time be any different?
In fact, I don’t think it will be different at all. The Republicans are going to win back control of congress and maybe the senate, but they surely won’t have a supermajority. So what are they going to do in 2011? Nothing. They’ll be able to block any new government programs, but who’s to say they actually will?
When 2012 comes along the Republicans may still be riding the wave of the tea parties and they might take back the white house. What will happen then? Do you think they’ll actually repeal Obamacare? What piece of evidence exists in the history of the Republican party that would suggest such a thing?
I think the Republicans are going to win back control in 2012, and I think they’re going to remove some of the legislation piece-meal from this plan while leaving in the vast majority of the fascist regulations and bureaucracy. One thing is for sure: they most certainly will not remove all government regulation of medicine, including medicare, the FDA, the DEA, state-sponsored monopolies, etc.
This is why I am not on the “repeal!” bandwagon. I don’t think it goes far enough, and I don’t think it will actually happen. I am on the “Secede!” bandwagon, because that’s the only way we’re actually going to get this behemoth tyranny off our backs.
Loading ...
Recent Comments