Sarah Palin’s standing with the American public has undergone a stunning reversal of fortune, according to two recent polls.
Just two and a half years ago, Sarah Palin’s star was ascending to the political heavens. A solid 53% of Americans held a favorable opinion of Mrs. Palin, while only 28% had a negative view.
But according to a March 3 Bloomberg News poll, only 28% of Americans now hold a positive view of the former Alaska governor, while a stunning 60% see her in an unfavorable light.
And a March 16 Washington Post-ABC poll found Palin’s negative ratings fell to a nadir of 37% among Republicans and right-leaning independents.
So how do we explain the stunning turnaround of this immensely ambitious political wunderkind?
Following John McCain’s surprise selection of Sarah Palin on August 29, 2008 and her well-received acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, the political unknown from Wasilla notched an impressive favorability rating of 53% (all figures I cite are from the Gallup poll, unless otherwise noted).
But as the campaign lurched toward the November election, stories began to circulate about a simmering discord between the McCain-Palin campaign staffs. “She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” complained a top McCain adviser just days before the election. “Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party.”
Following the GOP’s sweeping losses on November 4, Palin’s favorability ratings still registered 48%, a respectable number considering the predictable miscues of the grueling campaign.
Soon shaking off the post-election blues, Palin’s first move was to establish SarahPAC, which would eventually raise $1 million for conservative candidates around the country. Throughout 2009, Palin’s favorability ratings cruised along in the acceptable low to mid 40s range.
Palin’s heralded book Going Rogue came out on November 17. Even though the autobiography would eventually sell over 2 million copies, it also raised questions about the former candidate’s conservative credentials – even her character.
Going Rogue highlights Palin’s endorsement of the controversial Title IX quota program. It reveals her predilection for gender-baiting clichés like “I’ve been living in a man’s world all my life.”
The autobiography even suggests a mean streak. When then-boyfriend Todd told his friends that Sarah didn’t know how to kiss, Palin’s judgment was harsh as it was swift: I “learned a lesson about guys that day: even the good ones can act like jerks.”
As if women never gossip about their mates’ sexual prowess!
Throughout the year Palin appeared at endless Tea Party rallies around the country. On February 6, 2010, Palin keynoted the inaugural Tea Party convention in Nashville, TN, cementing her position as the charismatic leader for the burgeoning movement.
But in mid-2010, the apparently unstoppable train suddenly took a pro-feminist turn.
During a May 15 speech at a Susan B. Anthony conference, Palin unveiled the term “Mama Grizzly,” and invoked the words “feminism” and “feminist” no less than a dozen times. This provoked predictable attacks from the N.O.W. blowhards — and raised conservative eyebrows as well.
Palin’s response was to accuse her critics, including her female detractors, of chauvinism – a stance that began to wear thin in the eyes of many.
The cracks in Mrs. Palin’s formidable reputation began to show themselves in the Gallup poll taken after the November 2 elections. While she garnered a steady 40% favorability rating, for the first time ever her unfavorable numbers spiked to 52%.
Perhaps the decisive turning point, though, was the day that Palin decided to take on Barbara Bush. First Ladies occupy a revered spot in the American iconography, but the tone-deaf Palin apparently didn’t understand this.
When the former First Lady remarked that Palin might prefer to stay in Alaska rather than throw herself into the hurly-burly of national politics, Palin rebuked Mrs. Bush – and her family — as a group of elite “blue bloods.”
Wrong move, Mrs. Palin.
Then came Palin’s “blood libel” gaffe on January 12. And in February, Palin insinuated former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum was a “Neanderthal.”
Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald has ridiculed the “feminist strain” of the Mama Grizzlies and notes that Palin “is living up to her most skeptical assessment of her.” But the real reason for her plummeting support is that many Americans are confused about who Sarah Palin is and what she really stands for.
Is Mrs. Palin the tireless spokesperson for a recrudescent Silent Majority? Is she a have-it-all, do-it-all Super Mom? A dazzling, but ephemeral Media Maven?
Or is she an old-school, quota-embracing, male-bashing feminist who also happens to be pro-life? Is she a Shake-and-Bake liberal whose political resumé includes support for the ill-fated Bridge to Nowhere and a record-breaking $6.6 billion state operating budget in 2007?
Until Mrs. Palin takes steps to reconcile these apparent contradictions, these questions will continue to be grist for the political mill.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Congressman Sean Duffy "Struggles" On $174,000 Salary
How much money do I make from money literally stolen from others? 0
How much money does this asshole make from money stolen from the public? $174,000 per year.
So how is it that the "public servants" make multiple times more money than the public in which they supposedly serve?
It's a racket, they are criminals no different than the mafia.
How much money does this asshole make from money stolen from the public? $174,000 per year.
So how is it that the "public servants" make multiple times more money than the public in which they supposedly serve?
It's a racket, they are criminals no different than the mafia.
Paul and Rubio: Two "Tea Party" Candidates, Polar Opposites
When you see the big pictures it's crystal clear. As I said the second Rubio stepped on the scene, he is a neo con. The exact term I used was "Marco Rubio Is A Neo Con Pussy" This thesis was PROVEN the second he was elected an within days ran to Tel Aviv to thank his masters and get his orders.
What were his orders? Follow kikestan and do exactly what it wants you to.
SOURCE
At almost the same moment Senator Rand Paul introduced a resolution to express the "sense of the Senate that the president does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve actual or imminent threat to the nation," Paul's "tea party backed" colleague Marco Rubio resolved the almost exact opposite.
The Hill reports that Rubio wants Congress to approve a resolution authorizing Obama’s decision to attack Libya and giving him the authority to remove Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rubio wrote:
I am writing to seek your support for bringing a bipartisan resolution to the Senate floor authorizing the president's decision to participate in allied military action in Libya...
He went on to say removing Gadhafi from power is "in our national interest and therefore should authorize the president to accomplish this goal. To that end, the resolution should urge the president to recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya."
Yesterday, Rubio in an interview with Neil Cavuto stated, "The President was right when he determined that Gaddafi must go....I wish he would've done it a little bit sooner."
The difference between Senator Paul and Senator Rubio on this issue couldn't be more striking.
While Rubio ran as an "outsider" who was going to shake up the Washington establishment, his policies (including hiring former a aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, Cesar Conda, as his Chief of Staff) have turned out to be remarkably similar to the devastating Republican politics of the Bush era.
This debate goes to show, not all tea during the election was brewed the same.
What were his orders? Follow kikestan and do exactly what it wants you to.
SOURCE
At almost the same moment Senator Rand Paul introduced a resolution to express the "sense of the Senate that the president does not have the power to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve actual or imminent threat to the nation," Paul's "tea party backed" colleague Marco Rubio resolved the almost exact opposite.
The Hill reports that Rubio wants Congress to approve a resolution authorizing Obama’s decision to attack Libya and giving him the authority to remove Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rubio wrote:
I am writing to seek your support for bringing a bipartisan resolution to the Senate floor authorizing the president's decision to participate in allied military action in Libya...
He went on to say removing Gadhafi from power is "in our national interest and therefore should authorize the president to accomplish this goal. To that end, the resolution should urge the president to recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya."
Yesterday, Rubio in an interview with Neil Cavuto stated, "The President was right when he determined that Gaddafi must go....I wish he would've done it a little bit sooner."
The difference between Senator Paul and Senator Rubio on this issue couldn't be more striking.
While Rubio ran as an "outsider" who was going to shake up the Washington establishment, his policies (including hiring former a aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, Cesar Conda, as his Chief of Staff) have turned out to be remarkably similar to the devastating Republican politics of the Bush era.
This debate goes to show, not all tea during the election was brewed the same.
Sen. Rand Paul Speaks On Libya
I have made it quite public that I cut my support of Rand Paul during his campaign mainly due to his alleged support of the terror state of kikestan. While I still do not donate to Senator Paul the fact of the matter is Rand is the most Constitutional abiding member of the Senate. I am not here to be a cheerleader for Rand, however as far as I can tell he has followed through on his campaign promises proposing relatively big budget cuts, opposing wars etc.
In my opinion Rand hasn't really been put through the test, for example opposing a Republican leader, even a popular republican leader like his father has. Time will tell and I hope Rand will stand by the Constitution.
In my opinion Rand hasn't really been put through the test, for example opposing a Republican leader, even a popular republican leader like his father has. Time will tell and I hope Rand will stand by the Constitution.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
US Military Expenditures In Libya Near 1 Billion Dollars
At a time when the US is literally bankrupt we feel the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on worthless endeavours overseas. Not to mention the blowback this could easily cause down the line.
SOURCE
US military strikes on Libya have cost $550 million so far the Pentagon said Tuesday, adding that the tab was likely to increase another $40 million in the next few weeks.
Between March 19 and 28, the Defense Department spent more than 60 percent of the funds on munitions, such as missiles and bombs, with the rest going toward deploying troops and covering the costs of combat, including additional fuel needed for US aircraft and ships.
US troops fired at least 192 of the 199 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched against Libyan air defenses and command centers.
Each Tomahawk missile costs about $1.5 million dollars, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis told a congressional hearing, bringing total expenditures for the pricey munitions alone to nearly $300 million.
The United States has also launched 455 of the 602 laser-guided weapons used by the coalition over the same period.
"Future costs are highly uncertain," said Navy Commander Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
But she estimated the Pentagon would spend another $40 million over the next three weeks as NATO assumes full control of coalition operations from the United States on Thursday and US forces gradually reduce their presence.
"After that, if US forces stay at the levels currently planned and the operations continues, we would incur added costs of about $40 million per month," she told AFP.
US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said last week that the operational costs in Libya were negligible.
"Because we're not mobilizing or sending more forces forward, all of these are relatively minor increases in costs," he said, adding that the United States would easily replenish its stock of Tomahawk missiles, which currently counts 3,000 such munitions.
SOURCE
US military strikes on Libya have cost $550 million so far the Pentagon said Tuesday, adding that the tab was likely to increase another $40 million in the next few weeks.
Between March 19 and 28, the Defense Department spent more than 60 percent of the funds on munitions, such as missiles and bombs, with the rest going toward deploying troops and covering the costs of combat, including additional fuel needed for US aircraft and ships.
US troops fired at least 192 of the 199 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched against Libyan air defenses and command centers.
Each Tomahawk missile costs about $1.5 million dollars, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis told a congressional hearing, bringing total expenditures for the pricey munitions alone to nearly $300 million.
The United States has also launched 455 of the 602 laser-guided weapons used by the coalition over the same period.
"Future costs are highly uncertain," said Navy Commander Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
But she estimated the Pentagon would spend another $40 million over the next three weeks as NATO assumes full control of coalition operations from the United States on Thursday and US forces gradually reduce their presence.
"After that, if US forces stay at the levels currently planned and the operations continues, we would incur added costs of about $40 million per month," she told AFP.
US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead said last week that the operational costs in Libya were negligible.
"Because we're not mobilizing or sending more forces forward, all of these are relatively minor increases in costs," he said, adding that the United States would easily replenish its stock of Tomahawk missiles, which currently counts 3,000 such munitions.
13% Of All US Homes Are Vacant
High residential vacancies are killing many housing markets, as foreclosed homes sit on the market and depress sale prices and property values.
And it's only getting worse: The national vacancy rate crept up to just over 13% according to last week's decennial census report. That's up from 12.1% in 2007.
"More vacant homes equal more downward pressure on home prices," said Brad Hunter, chief economist for Metrostudy, a real estate information provider.
Maine had the highest proportion of empty housing stock, at 22.8%. Other states with gluts of empty houses included Vermont (20.5%), Florida (17.5%), Arizona (16.3%) and Alaska (15.9%).
The way the census calculates the vacancy rates, however, is problematic. It includes properties such as ski lodges, beach houses and pied-à-terres that many real estate statisticians would not.
These are often summer homes or second homes, but census lumps them together with homes that have been sold but not occupied, empty homes for sale or rent, and homes used by migrant workers. Basically, anything other than a primary residence is considered vacant.
"You can only live in one home," said William Chapin of the Census Bureau's Housing Statistics Branch. "If you own five homes that you occasionally live in, four of them will be counted as vacant."
But Paul Bishop, the vice president for research for the National Association of Realtors, countered that these properties aren't vacant in the usual sense of the term. "A vacation home is hardly the same situation as a foreclosed home that has been taken back by the bank," he said.
In Maine, more than two-thirds of the 160,000 vacancies were vacation homes in 2009; Vermont had a similarly high concentration.
Compare them with Connecticut, which has a vacancy rate of just 7.9%, the lowest of all the states. If you back out the vacation properties from the statistics, the states have very similar vacancy rates: 6.1% for Connecticut and 7% for Maine.
Some states have high vacancy rates even after backing out the second homes: Florida's is about 10%; Arizona's is 10.7%; and Nevada's 11.4%.
Besides Connecticut, the other states with lowest vacancy rates are California, Iowa, Illinois, Virginia and Washington, all at 9.2% or lower.
And it's only getting worse: The national vacancy rate crept up to just over 13% according to last week's decennial census report. That's up from 12.1% in 2007.
"More vacant homes equal more downward pressure on home prices," said Brad Hunter, chief economist for Metrostudy, a real estate information provider.
Maine had the highest proportion of empty housing stock, at 22.8%. Other states with gluts of empty houses included Vermont (20.5%), Florida (17.5%), Arizona (16.3%) and Alaska (15.9%).
The way the census calculates the vacancy rates, however, is problematic. It includes properties such as ski lodges, beach houses and pied-à-terres that many real estate statisticians would not.
These are often summer homes or second homes, but census lumps them together with homes that have been sold but not occupied, empty homes for sale or rent, and homes used by migrant workers. Basically, anything other than a primary residence is considered vacant.
"You can only live in one home," said William Chapin of the Census Bureau's Housing Statistics Branch. "If you own five homes that you occasionally live in, four of them will be counted as vacant."
But Paul Bishop, the vice president for research for the National Association of Realtors, countered that these properties aren't vacant in the usual sense of the term. "A vacation home is hardly the same situation as a foreclosed home that has been taken back by the bank," he said.
In Maine, more than two-thirds of the 160,000 vacancies were vacation homes in 2009; Vermont had a similarly high concentration.
Compare them with Connecticut, which has a vacancy rate of just 7.9%, the lowest of all the states. If you back out the vacation properties from the statistics, the states have very similar vacancy rates: 6.1% for Connecticut and 7% for Maine.
Some states have high vacancy rates even after backing out the second homes: Florida's is about 10%; Arizona's is 10.7%; and Nevada's 11.4%.
Besides Connecticut, the other states with lowest vacancy rates are California, Iowa, Illinois, Virginia and Washington, all at 9.2% or lower.
South African Rugby Star Beheads Blacks Who Gangraped His Daughter Giving Her HIV
The sham that is the "justice" system in black run South Africa is nothing but a waste of time. My heart goes out to this man, I can't fathom what he has gone through. Instead of waiting on the corrupt system, he took control manned up and served justice. I commend him for his courage and I wish him all the best.
SOURCE
A SOUTH African rugby star has been charged with the axe murder of three people in revenge for the alleged gang rape of his daughter.
The player's actions allegedly took place after discovering his daughter had been raped by several men and infected with HIV, reported the Afrikaan newspaper Beeld.
The killings took place near the city of Durbin in South Africa's east.
At least one victim's decapitated head was found in a dustbin over a kilometre away from his body, while another body's head was left hanging "by a nerve", police said.
"The body of (one of the victims) was found in Lamontville and the head was found in Jacobs. This happened about a week ago," he said.
Durbin Police spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Vincent Mdunge said the 34-year-old suspect was arrested after a tip-off was made to police.
"When they pounced on (the accused) they found an axe, which we believe is the murder weapon, clothes with blood stains and a hired car that we suspect he could have used during the alleged attacks," Lt-Col Mdunge said.
The player, who has not been named but who used to play for the popular Blue Bulls club, faces three charges of murder and one for attempted murder after one victim managed to escape.
Police have alleged the man stalked his victims over several days in and around townships near Durbin before killing them with an axe.
The Blue Bulls is a popular rugby club in South Africa, especially amongst white Afrikkan fans.
Last year in a separate incident another Blue Bulls player Jacobus Roux was charged after allegedly beating a police officer to death and is currently awaiting trial.
A spokesperson for the club, which is currently on tour in New Zealand, was unavailable for comment.
The accused will stand trial later this week.
SOURCE
A SOUTH African rugby star has been charged with the axe murder of three people in revenge for the alleged gang rape of his daughter.
The player's actions allegedly took place after discovering his daughter had been raped by several men and infected with HIV, reported the Afrikaan newspaper Beeld.
The killings took place near the city of Durbin in South Africa's east.
At least one victim's decapitated head was found in a dustbin over a kilometre away from his body, while another body's head was left hanging "by a nerve", police said.
"The body of (one of the victims) was found in Lamontville and the head was found in Jacobs. This happened about a week ago," he said.
Durbin Police spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Vincent Mdunge said the 34-year-old suspect was arrested after a tip-off was made to police.
"When they pounced on (the accused) they found an axe, which we believe is the murder weapon, clothes with blood stains and a hired car that we suspect he could have used during the alleged attacks," Lt-Col Mdunge said.
The player, who has not been named but who used to play for the popular Blue Bulls club, faces three charges of murder and one for attempted murder after one victim managed to escape.
Police have alleged the man stalked his victims over several days in and around townships near Durbin before killing them with an axe.
The Blue Bulls is a popular rugby club in South Africa, especially amongst white Afrikkan fans.
Last year in a separate incident another Blue Bulls player Jacobus Roux was charged after allegedly beating a police officer to death and is currently awaiting trial.
A spokesperson for the club, which is currently on tour in New Zealand, was unavailable for comment.
The accused will stand trial later this week.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Palin Shows Off Kabbalah Key And Star Of David
On her recent trip to the middle eastern country of kikestan, feminist Sarah Palin was seen with two necklaces, one the "star of david" the other some kabbalistic key. For those that don't know kabbalah is jewish witchcraft. (as if judaism wasn't evil enough already)
It is well known and documented that Sarah Palin has remained loyal to the jewish forces who thrusted her to stardom and this is just one more dsiturbing example.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
American Fear
SOURCE
Whether they realize it or not Americans live in a constant state of fear every day. I’m not referring to the fears of everyday life like losing a job or having an accident of some kind, but rather a more sinister and devious fear; a fear that Americans only dare talk about around the water cooler or at cocktail parties so as not to be taken seriously; a fear they try to mask with a with a whimsical tone of sarcasm or indifference. Whether Americans want to admit it or not, it’s the single greatest fear in their lives: fear of the government.
Right about now there are those reading this thinking: Don Cooper is a drunk. To which I reply: what’s that got to do with it? Maybe more people should drink if that’s what it takes to sober up and confront what they are really afraid of.
In their defense, I’ll admit that reality is scary. No argument that living in delusion is warmer, safer, cozier, and easier. Pretending is always more fun than reality, that’s why we go to the movies. But fear of the government is a fear that invades a person’s soul and – since the government intervenes in every aspect of our lives – it affects every move we make every day.
Fear of the government is hard to recognize and acknowledge. It’s a fear that we are taught early on in life and to which we become accustomed. We inevitably end up tucking it away in the far reaches of our minds in order to function "normally" every day and live our lives. But just as a car backfiring will trigger a sense of fear from a shell-shocked veteran, so too can the State trigger that sense of fear they’ve instilled in us.
One need only ask: when you see a cop in your rearview mirror with his lights on, do you feel a sense of safety and comfort or do you get a shot of adrenaline from your body’s "fight or flight" reflex? Do you immediately start asking yourself what he could possibly pull you over for, other than the fact that he was abused as a child, bullied at school and his mother didn’t love him, and now he’s going to whittle away at that chip on his shoulder by abusing you.
As you search for your proof of government permission to drive (i.e., your license), and your government permission to own the car ( i.e., your registration ), and your proof of government mandated insurance, do you do so calmly and with a smile on your face and with gleeful anticipation of speaking with someone who gives of himself to serve and protect you, or do you do so nervously, fumbling through your papers hoping everything’s up to date and acceptable to him for fear of being detained for whatever reason and having it affect your job, your family, and every aspect of your life?
And when it’s all over, do you feel glad that it happened or are you just glad it’s over? Later that evening do you recount the story to others with a sense of pride, or do you do so with a sharp tongue and kick yourself for all the things you wish you would have had the presence of mind to say at the time but didn’t? Do you feel happy that you have to pay $150 to the government because you were driving down the street faster than the government allows you to, or are you angry?
And in the end, do you send the money to the government even though you don’t agree with it? Even though you feel it’s unfair to have to pay so much money yet you’ve harmed no one? Of course you do. And why? Because you’re afraid of what the government will do to you if you don’t. In the end, you’ll retreat back into your cubby-hole of delusion in order to justify paying the fine by convincing yourself that what you did was wrong, the government was right, and you deserve the punishment.
My favorite delusional argument from those still attached to the matrix is that they pay their taxes voluntarily. To these people I ask: when you do your tax returns, do you take as many deductions as the government will allow you? Of course, the answer is always yes. Then I ask them that if they could take enough deductions such that their tax liability was zero would they do so? Again, not surprisingly, the answer is yes. I then ask them that if their preference is to pay zero taxes then why don’t they simply refuse to pay taxes. Inevitably, that’s where their train of thought always runs out of track. Of course everyone knows the answer: because they’re afraid of what the government will do.
I challenge everyone to ask themselves: when was the last time you even thought about the possibility you might be robbed, your house broken into or shot at? Can you even remember? Now ask yourself when was the last time you were afraid of doing something that could be deemed "illegal" by the government and for which you could be fined, detained or arrested? Something like not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, making a U-turn, going through a yellow light, not crossing the street at the cross-walk, riding a bike on a sidewalk, forgetting your license at home, taking too many deductions on your taxes, talking on your phone while driving, not allowing strangers to touch you or your children at the airport, cutting down a tree on your own property, owning and transporting a gun, collecting rain water and the list goes on. I would wager the answer is: daily! The first word out of everybody’s mouth when asked a normal, completely benign question these days is: "Well legally …" It’s first and foremost on our minds, and why wouldn’t it be, there are 76,000 pages to just the federal register alone. Some argue that everyone commits at least three felonies every day!
Ignorance is a dangerous thing, and it must be stopped in our lifetime, fo’ it kill somebody.
At the end of the day, all government mandates are enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun, and that scares the hell out of everyone, as it should. But if we truly believe we are free then we have to start acting like it. It’s time we cared about something bigger than ourselves. It’s time we stopped living our lives in fear.
Having said all that, I’m not holding my breath. It’s proven to be difficult to convince people that freedom is more important than the real housewives of New Jersey.
And that’s why I drink!
Whether they realize it or not Americans live in a constant state of fear every day. I’m not referring to the fears of everyday life like losing a job or having an accident of some kind, but rather a more sinister and devious fear; a fear that Americans only dare talk about around the water cooler or at cocktail parties so as not to be taken seriously; a fear they try to mask with a with a whimsical tone of sarcasm or indifference. Whether Americans want to admit it or not, it’s the single greatest fear in their lives: fear of the government.
Right about now there are those reading this thinking: Don Cooper is a drunk. To which I reply: what’s that got to do with it? Maybe more people should drink if that’s what it takes to sober up and confront what they are really afraid of.
In their defense, I’ll admit that reality is scary. No argument that living in delusion is warmer, safer, cozier, and easier. Pretending is always more fun than reality, that’s why we go to the movies. But fear of the government is a fear that invades a person’s soul and – since the government intervenes in every aspect of our lives – it affects every move we make every day.
Fear of the government is hard to recognize and acknowledge. It’s a fear that we are taught early on in life and to which we become accustomed. We inevitably end up tucking it away in the far reaches of our minds in order to function "normally" every day and live our lives. But just as a car backfiring will trigger a sense of fear from a shell-shocked veteran, so too can the State trigger that sense of fear they’ve instilled in us.
One need only ask: when you see a cop in your rearview mirror with his lights on, do you feel a sense of safety and comfort or do you get a shot of adrenaline from your body’s "fight or flight" reflex? Do you immediately start asking yourself what he could possibly pull you over for, other than the fact that he was abused as a child, bullied at school and his mother didn’t love him, and now he’s going to whittle away at that chip on his shoulder by abusing you.
As you search for your proof of government permission to drive (i.e., your license), and your government permission to own the car ( i.e., your registration ), and your proof of government mandated insurance, do you do so calmly and with a smile on your face and with gleeful anticipation of speaking with someone who gives of himself to serve and protect you, or do you do so nervously, fumbling through your papers hoping everything’s up to date and acceptable to him for fear of being detained for whatever reason and having it affect your job, your family, and every aspect of your life?
And when it’s all over, do you feel glad that it happened or are you just glad it’s over? Later that evening do you recount the story to others with a sense of pride, or do you do so with a sharp tongue and kick yourself for all the things you wish you would have had the presence of mind to say at the time but didn’t? Do you feel happy that you have to pay $150 to the government because you were driving down the street faster than the government allows you to, or are you angry?
And in the end, do you send the money to the government even though you don’t agree with it? Even though you feel it’s unfair to have to pay so much money yet you’ve harmed no one? Of course you do. And why? Because you’re afraid of what the government will do to you if you don’t. In the end, you’ll retreat back into your cubby-hole of delusion in order to justify paying the fine by convincing yourself that what you did was wrong, the government was right, and you deserve the punishment.
My favorite delusional argument from those still attached to the matrix is that they pay their taxes voluntarily. To these people I ask: when you do your tax returns, do you take as many deductions as the government will allow you? Of course, the answer is always yes. Then I ask them that if they could take enough deductions such that their tax liability was zero would they do so? Again, not surprisingly, the answer is yes. I then ask them that if their preference is to pay zero taxes then why don’t they simply refuse to pay taxes. Inevitably, that’s where their train of thought always runs out of track. Of course everyone knows the answer: because they’re afraid of what the government will do.
I challenge everyone to ask themselves: when was the last time you even thought about the possibility you might be robbed, your house broken into or shot at? Can you even remember? Now ask yourself when was the last time you were afraid of doing something that could be deemed "illegal" by the government and for which you could be fined, detained or arrested? Something like not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, making a U-turn, going through a yellow light, not crossing the street at the cross-walk, riding a bike on a sidewalk, forgetting your license at home, taking too many deductions on your taxes, talking on your phone while driving, not allowing strangers to touch you or your children at the airport, cutting down a tree on your own property, owning and transporting a gun, collecting rain water and the list goes on. I would wager the answer is: daily! The first word out of everybody’s mouth when asked a normal, completely benign question these days is: "Well legally …" It’s first and foremost on our minds, and why wouldn’t it be, there are 76,000 pages to just the federal register alone. Some argue that everyone commits at least three felonies every day!
Ignorance is a dangerous thing, and it must be stopped in our lifetime, fo’ it kill somebody.
At the end of the day, all government mandates are enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun, and that scares the hell out of everyone, as it should. But if we truly believe we are free then we have to start acting like it. It’s time we cared about something bigger than ourselves. It’s time we stopped living our lives in fear.
Having said all that, I’m not holding my breath. It’s proven to be difficult to convince people that freedom is more important than the real housewives of New Jersey.
And that’s why I drink!
The Horrific Life of the Police Officer
SOURCE
Few people in the world seem to appreciate just how awful it is to be a government police officer. It’s not that the job involves particularly physically demanding work, or that the job is particularly dangerous. In fact, the work is not nearly physically demanding enough (as the cop fatness problem demonstrates), and neither is it particularly dangerous (being a cop doesn’t even make the top ten most dangerous jobs). Nor is the job terrible because of the unstated obligation to wear a tawdry mustache in public. Instead, what makes the job so horrific is the fact that it requires living a completely contradictory moral life.
Unlike normal human beings, whose jobs require adherence to the same moral standards that apply in their private lives, police officers are required to act in ways they would never even consider in their private lives. For forty hours a week (or more, if they are trying to milk their departments’ overtime rackets), police officers are required to forget the moral standards that govern their private interactions with their own friends, families and neighbors and adopt the moral outlook of the sociopath and the gangster.
Specifically, the job of the police officer involves giving orders to strangers and locking them up in cages if they choose not to obey. Unless the police officer is a complete sociopath, he would never consider acting in such a way in his private life. With his blue polyester in the closet, for example, the off-duty police officer would never consider putting his grandpa in a cage if he refuses to obey orders. He would never consider electrocuting his children or his grandmother for refusing to do what he tells them. He would never consider beating up his neighbor if she refused to stop her car and show a picture of herself embossed on government plastic. But he is expected to do precisely these types of things to people he doesn’t even know in his "professional" life if they refuse to do what he and his bosses tell them.
The fact that many, many police officers are indeed complete psychopaths should thus not come as a particular surprise. Indeed, the job is tailor made for the psychopath and the sociopath who is comfortable with feelings of cognitive dissonance. People with normally calibrated moral compasses would shudder to think that they would be required to lock people up in cages, electrocute them, or beat them with clubs for not doing as they are told. It would confuse and trouble the normal person to think that by putting on a blue polyester suit, mustache, and riding boots it was suddenly morally acceptable to order people around at the point of a gun (not to mention the icy shudder they would feel at the thought of wearing the ridiculous kit itself). It would horrify the normal person to think that part of his job involved smashing down strange people’s doors, taking their children, shackling them, locking them in cages, stealing their drugs and guns, and shooting them if they happen to resist.
The man with a normally calibrated moral compass is equally disturbed to contemplate that the purported justification for acting in these barbaric ways was that politicians, of all people, told them to. It is not as though God Himself or the Pope gives the police officer sanction to lock people in cages and to order them about. Quite the reverse, the sanction comes from people of such sterling moral character as the coke-snorting drunk driver, Bush II, and the drug-cartel-connected perjurer, Clinton I. The sociopath and the psychopath are not troubled by the fact that their only justification for ordering strange people around is that a pack of corrupt millionaires in Washington or Denver told them to, which is what makes such people sociopaths and psychopaths in the first place. The normal person, in contrast, is not willing to do things to other people that they clearly resent or despise, or to order them to do things they oppose, just because a politician says so.
The person with a normally calibrated moral compass would begin to wonder why the moral standards that govern his private life with friends and family, and which produce relative peace and harmony in that sphere of his life, do not apply to all situations. Why, the normal person will inevitably wonder, is there any peace in his family, when no one wears a special blue suit or has the right to order everyone around and shackle resisters? How is it possible that he can get along with his friends at the bowling alley, when none of them is assigned to break into cars to search for substances the politicians dislike, and none of them has a right to steal anyone else’s children? In short, the normal person will begin to wonder why the people who claim to "protect us" are not held to the same moral standards as everyone else.
The answer to these questions is simple, even if the person with a normally calibrated moral compass often cannot see it through the clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the normal person feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to.
The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers.
The key to liberating the police officer from the contradictory and perverted moral life he currently leads is simply to privatize the provision of defense services. Freed from the need to push arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on strange people, the police officer would then be a moral equal to everyone else in the world who was striving to make money by serving consumers. He would also, one hopes, be liberated from the requirement to wear the most ridiculous bureaucratic costume ever devised by man.
Few people in the world seem to appreciate just how awful it is to be a government police officer. It’s not that the job involves particularly physically demanding work, or that the job is particularly dangerous. In fact, the work is not nearly physically demanding enough (as the cop fatness problem demonstrates), and neither is it particularly dangerous (being a cop doesn’t even make the top ten most dangerous jobs). Nor is the job terrible because of the unstated obligation to wear a tawdry mustache in public. Instead, what makes the job so horrific is the fact that it requires living a completely contradictory moral life.
Unlike normal human beings, whose jobs require adherence to the same moral standards that apply in their private lives, police officers are required to act in ways they would never even consider in their private lives. For forty hours a week (or more, if they are trying to milk their departments’ overtime rackets), police officers are required to forget the moral standards that govern their private interactions with their own friends, families and neighbors and adopt the moral outlook of the sociopath and the gangster.
Specifically, the job of the police officer involves giving orders to strangers and locking them up in cages if they choose not to obey. Unless the police officer is a complete sociopath, he would never consider acting in such a way in his private life. With his blue polyester in the closet, for example, the off-duty police officer would never consider putting his grandpa in a cage if he refuses to obey orders. He would never consider electrocuting his children or his grandmother for refusing to do what he tells them. He would never consider beating up his neighbor if she refused to stop her car and show a picture of herself embossed on government plastic. But he is expected to do precisely these types of things to people he doesn’t even know in his "professional" life if they refuse to do what he and his bosses tell them.
The fact that many, many police officers are indeed complete psychopaths should thus not come as a particular surprise. Indeed, the job is tailor made for the psychopath and the sociopath who is comfortable with feelings of cognitive dissonance. People with normally calibrated moral compasses would shudder to think that they would be required to lock people up in cages, electrocute them, or beat them with clubs for not doing as they are told. It would confuse and trouble the normal person to think that by putting on a blue polyester suit, mustache, and riding boots it was suddenly morally acceptable to order people around at the point of a gun (not to mention the icy shudder they would feel at the thought of wearing the ridiculous kit itself). It would horrify the normal person to think that part of his job involved smashing down strange people’s doors, taking their children, shackling them, locking them in cages, stealing their drugs and guns, and shooting them if they happen to resist.
The man with a normally calibrated moral compass is equally disturbed to contemplate that the purported justification for acting in these barbaric ways was that politicians, of all people, told them to. It is not as though God Himself or the Pope gives the police officer sanction to lock people in cages and to order them about. Quite the reverse, the sanction comes from people of such sterling moral character as the coke-snorting drunk driver, Bush II, and the drug-cartel-connected perjurer, Clinton I. The sociopath and the psychopath are not troubled by the fact that their only justification for ordering strange people around is that a pack of corrupt millionaires in Washington or Denver told them to, which is what makes such people sociopaths and psychopaths in the first place. The normal person, in contrast, is not willing to do things to other people that they clearly resent or despise, or to order them to do things they oppose, just because a politician says so.
The person with a normally calibrated moral compass would begin to wonder why the moral standards that govern his private life with friends and family, and which produce relative peace and harmony in that sphere of his life, do not apply to all situations. Why, the normal person will inevitably wonder, is there any peace in his family, when no one wears a special blue suit or has the right to order everyone around and shackle resisters? How is it possible that he can get along with his friends at the bowling alley, when none of them is assigned to break into cars to search for substances the politicians dislike, and none of them has a right to steal anyone else’s children? In short, the normal person will begin to wonder why the people who claim to "protect us" are not held to the same moral standards as everyone else.
The answer to these questions is simple, even if the person with a normally calibrated moral compass often cannot see it through the clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the normal person feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to.
The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers.
The key to liberating the police officer from the contradictory and perverted moral life he currently leads is simply to privatize the provision of defense services. Freed from the need to push arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on strange people, the police officer would then be a moral equal to everyone else in the world who was striving to make money by serving consumers. He would also, one hopes, be liberated from the requirement to wear the most ridiculous bureaucratic costume ever devised by man.
Jared Taylor’s Open Letter to Alexandra Wallace
SOURCE
Dear Miss Wallace,
None of this would have happened if you had been caught stealing books from the library or cheating on an exam. It would not have happened even if you had been arrested for bank robbery or murder. In the times in which we live, what you did was far worse. You were "insensitive."
Dear Miss Wallace,
Welcome to fame you never wanted.
By my count, since you posted your YouTube video about Asians at UCLA on
March 11—10 days ago—some six million people have watched it. You took it down two days later, but it went viral anyway. There are now scores of "replies" and "parodies" on YouTube, most of them vile, many of them obscene.
National newspapers have held you up to ridicule, and UCLA’s vice chancellor for student affairs Janina Montero [Email her] says she is "appalled and offended." After a week of enduring what you say were "the harassment of my family, the publishing of my personal information, death threats and being ostracized from an entire community," you have decided to drop out of UCLA. [UCLA student who made controversial video says she'll leave school | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Time, March 18, 2011]
None of this would have happened if you had been caught stealing books from the library or cheating on an exam. It would not have happened even if you had been arrested for bank robbery or murder. In the times in which we live, what you did was far worse. You were "insensitive."
What exactly did you do? You said "hordes" of Asians attend UCLA. In fact, there are more Asian than white undergraduates—37 percent vs. 32 percent—so whites are a minority. They don’t call it "UCL Asian" for nothing. You said the number of Asians was "fine" with you but that if they were going to come to UCLA they should learn American manners.
Specifically you said they should not use cell phones in the library, and you imitated how they talk. You also said that the families of Asian students come to cook and clean for them, so that Asian students never learn to "fend for themselves." Tasteless, perhaps, but hardly shocking.
I’m sure you feel you are being punished terribly for a trivial mistake—for something that might not even be a mistake at all. I’m sure you are bewildered and frightened, and I suspect no one in your circle can explain what is happening.
Let me try. Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on you that your sin was not what you said but who you are.
If you were black or Hispanic and made a mocking video about Asians no one would care. The Asians and others who have made video "replies" address you as "bitch" and say awful things about your appearance and imagined sex habits, but no one has criticized them. Many of them seem to be students. Is the administration "appalled and offended"? Have they received death threats? No.
In 2005, Kamau Kambon, a black man who taught Africana studies at North Carolina State University said on C-SPAN that all whites should be exterminated. It caused hardly a ripple. Just last year, Professor Kent Wong of your very own UCLA urged non-whites to "become lawyers, and teachers, and doctors and members of the U.S. Senate [and] replace those old white men." Was Vice Chancellor Montero "appalled." No. But she is appalled at you. Why?
Maybe Pearl Cleage [Email her] can help you understand. She is a black poet and playwright, just the sort of person you might have had to read in high-school English. This is what she says about race:
"In discussions of race between black people and white people the conscious black person is always right; is always the ultimate authority on questions having to do with race and racism; must always be regarded as the ‘injured party,’ or the oppressed. . . . [Whites] cannot possibly be expected to be objective about questions of race." [Pearl Cleage, Deals With the Devil and Other Reasons to Riot (New York, Ballantine Books, 1993), p. 322.]
That, italics and all, sums it up, and what Miss Cleage says about blacks applies to all non-whites. They are your moral superiors, and you must defer to them on the subject of race. In fact, it’s safer to defer to them on other things, too. You never know when disagreeing with a Hispanic could be "racism." Non-whites, on the other hand, don’t have to be "sensitive." They can mock you, insult you, imitate your accent, insist that you learn their manners, but you, Miss Wallace, are different. You must never do these things.
And you must never, never, never notice that whites are outnumbered at UCLA. Next you might notice that whites are being outnumbered in the whole country—outnumbered by people whom your very own Professor Wong [Email him] is urging to "replace those old white men." You are not an old white man; you are a young white woman. Judging from the obscene "replies" on YouTube, the people who are replacing the old white men have different plans for you.
None of this is fair, Miss Wallace. Just three minutes of what you thought was harmless video have changed your life. And what have you learned? The lesson Vice Chancellor Montero wants you to learn is the same one Pearl Cleage wants you to learn: that you are always wrong, always the oppressor. She wants you to apologize, hang your head, and be guilty all your life.
I hope you learn different lessons. They are difficult lessons that will destroy your illusions, but the sooner you learn them the stronger you will be. You have already learned that when populations change, culture and behavior changes. I hope you will learn that as a white woman, as someone descended from the stock who built this country and established its institutions, you have the right to notice and care. If newcomers are changing this country in ways you don’t like, you have the right to say so. You have the right to want your country to remain part of the West rather than become a chaotic mix of conflicting peoples and cultures.
I hope you learn that double standards about "sensitivity" are not just about tormenting one white woman and ignoring the vicious behavior of her non-white attackers. Those double standards mean that no white person may ever stand up for his own values and culture. They mean that non-whites may work for explicitly racial goals but whites may not. Ultimately, Miss Wallace, double standards that deny to whites what they permit to non-whites ensure that your people and your culture will be elbowed aside.
These are difficult and painful truths. It often takes years to grasp them. But you will understand what has happened to you only if you can see through the lies and deceptions that distort everything you have ever been told about race.
In the eyes of the people who are driving you off campus, your greatest sin, Miss Wallace, is that you are white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)