Author: VD

From My Way News: Bush said the United States was demanding the arrest or capture of Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric whose illegal militias have fought U.S. forces in southern Iraq. He said he had instructed the military to use decisive force if necessary to crush the insurgency. He compared insurgents taking hostages in Iraq to radical Islamic fanatics around the world, saying they are “serving the same ideology of murder” of those who blow up trains in Madrid, Spain, bomb buses in Israel – or inflicted the worst attack in American history.

“None of these acts is the work of a religion,” Bush said. “All are the work of a fanatical political ideology.” The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.” “Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that,” the president said.

Color me unimpressed. Not only the expected stay-the-course speech, but he even managed to work in a suggestion that criticism is treasonous: “I think that analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy.” Because, of course, the notion of a war by proxy fought against an external nation supplying an internal militia with men and munitions bears no similarity to Vietnam at all. After all, the one is in the desert, the other is in the jungle.

And what is that fanatical political ideology? Is it Communist? Is it Libertarian? Let’s see, their primary desire is to establish global Sharia. That sure sounds religious to me. Meanwhile, if a Christian shoots a doctor to stop abortion – a profoundly political goal – that’s an example of religious extremism. Furthermore, history ablsolutely suggests that Muslims cannot be self-governing or free. Indonesia and Turkey are the only two modern Islamic states. Both have committed terrible religious-based genocide, and Turkey’s constiution requires the military to act preemptively to prevent the major religious parties from taking control of the country. In Algeria, the first elections were canceled by the military when the jihadist one-vote one-time party was about to win.

Finally, I’ve heard numerous Republican commentators getting all over Clinton for wanting to capture or arrest bin Laden. I find it interesting that Bush is doing exactly the same thing with this Iranian puppet.

UPDATE: NRO manages to refrain from entirely sounding like Tiger Beat covering its favorite pop star in discussing the speech, but just barely. Unfortunately, Ramesh Ponnuru, who is normally one of the most reliably sane NROniks, writes: Like Vienam, except that we’ve captured Ho Chi Minh, we’ve taken Hanoi, there’s no draft, and the boat people have mostly come back.

This only goes to show that he missed the analogy. Let me make it simple. North Vietnam = Iran. South Vietnam = Iraq. Mahdi Militia = Viet Cong. Tehran = Hanoi. Baghdad = Saigon. Saudi Arabia = Soviet Union/China. And one might want to have a look at what Congress is up to before one speaks too soon on the absence of a future draft.

From Stateline.org:

State officials’ hackles are up over a new federal banking rule they say erodes consumer protections and favors the federal government in a turf war that’s been simmering for more than a century. A long list of opponents, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the attorneys general and banking supervisors from all 50 states, is prepared to go to the mat to see the rule rescinded.

The new rule was issued in January by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the federal agency that charters, regulates, and supervises national banks. The rule allows national banks to ignore protective state banking laws related to false and deceptive advertising, predatory lending, customer privacy, general consumer credit issues and no-call lists. OCC representatives say they are simply clarifying power the federal government has had for 140 years. But opponents say the OCC has overstepped its bounds; they fear the rule is a bold attempt to shrink states’ role in passing and enforcing consumer-protection laws and a move by federal regulators to usurp state powers.

State officials now are pushing Congress to step in and re-assert states’ authority over all banks within their borders. The rule change means that of the nation’s approximately 9,000 banks, 2,000 institutions such as Bank of America, Citibank and Wachovia would not be subject to state regulation because they are nationally chartered. Seven of the country’s 10 largest banks hold national charters.

If you’re looking for the bad guys, you could do a lot worse than look where the money goes. And the federal government has had this power for 140 years? Let’s see, 2004-140 = 1864. That would be right around the end of Act I of the American Experiment.* I have a feeling that we might get the chance to see the end of Act II. The interesting question is this: will there even be an Act III.

* of course, everyone knows the war was about slavery. Not expanding federal power. Nope, not at all. No, don’t look at the power players… hey, look, Dred Scott!

Well, SKI sure nailed it this time. He forecast a likely 5 percent drop in USERX and the gold stocks by Tuesday’s close, and the HUI got hammered down 6.21 percent today alone. This triggers his triple-sell signal, which has some significant and worrisome implications.

He wrote yesterday: But if the triple sell pattern occurs, all I can say is that the prior three triple historical sells have yielded 60-90% declines in USERX over several years corresponding to disinflation or deflation. I find that hard to believe, but it has not happened yet (pending tomorrow).

Does this mean deflation? I find it hard to credit, as the central bank can easily go into hyperinflation mode any time it chooses, and has already indicated that it will. This supports the Elliott Wavers, who’ve been insisting on a deflationary scenario for the last eighteen months, and contradicts Hamilton’s RDMA bull notion, which has gold setting up for a buy soon at 1.02 – we’re at 1.04 now. Ackerman, too, called a big short-term decline, but he sees it turning around next week.

What are you seeing, Jamie?

The infamous White Slaver, inveterate Rebel and uncompromising resister of Northern Aggression has his own blog. Visit it. The name alone is a classic.

Jamsco asks: Hey Vox, I have a polite question. What is your definition of Socialist as in “total socialist distribution” with regards to the policies of the democrats? I assume that you aren’t against all taxation (perhaps I’m wrong.) However, It seems like you and other commenters here use socialist to mean “those who believe in more taxation than me.” As you know, I’ve been called a socialist here because I don’t think that requiring that people be taxed for public school funds is wrong. At the very least, I don’t think that most (95%?) Americans would consider me to be socialist based on this fact.

A socialist is one who believes that the collective society, through the mechanism of the government, has a fundamental underlying claim on all private property that supersedes the rights of the nominal owner. I am not against all taxation, although I am against all income taxation for Constitutional, legal, historical and economic reasons.

Now, there are a variety of socialists. A Marxian socialist believes that society hold the underlying right to property on the basis of prior expropriation of stored labor, a Christian socialist believes that society holds it because only the government can achieve equitable distribution of societal wealth. But the reasons why are irrelevant to me as all of them are, in my view, anathema. Most modern Democrats are what I personally consider to be Santa Socialists, because they have no idea why government holds this underlying right, nor do they necessarily even understand that it is required to by their lights, all they care about is that property is taken from one party and distributed to another. In short, if you are a forced distributionist, you are some variant of socialist.

What makes you a socialist, even if a very weak one, is that you fail to understand that the reason does not matter. If the government has the right to seize private property, be it 1 percent or 100 percent, at will, then the justification is irrelevant. Whether it is for schools or personal prostitutes, all that matters is that government rights trump private property rights.

A pure socialist, of course, would require that 100 percent of all private property be confiscated, then distributed according to the judgment of those charged with managing the central distribution. The reason one seldom sees pure socialism at work is because it tends to fail very, very quickly. But whether you believe in 100 percent confiscation or ten percent, you’re simply quibbling about the degree.

It’s rather like the old joke. A man offers a woman one million dollars to have sex with him. She accepts. He then offers her a dollar, to which she reacts angrily. “What kind of woman do you think I am!” “We’ve already established that,” he replies. “Now we’re just negotiating over the price.” Most Americans today are weak socialists at a minimum, simply because they cannot imagine a truly free market society, with free association and voluntary government.

To the police I’m sayin f— you punk,

Readin my rights and s—, it’s all junk.

Pullin out a silly club, so you stand

With a fake-ass badge and a gun in your hand.

But take off the gun so you can see what’s up,

And we’ll go at it punk, and I’ma f— you up

This has been the great success of the drug war. To undermine respect for the law and create general hatred of the police. Most of my law-abiding upper middle-class friends and I now have more regard for lower-class criminals than we do for the police – at least they don’t operate under color of law. The local sheriff happily cooperates with revenue agency thefts built on blatant fraud, the local police commit highway robbery* and then affect to be surprised when the citizenry begins to regard them as nothing but a gang of thugs, more part of the problem than the solution.

It’s not just a few bad apples. It is endemic corruption designed into an extra-legal system. There’s nothing inherently virtuous about the police, they are merely a tool. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that the particular order they are being used to uphold is not a form compatible with individual freedom, the common law or the American Constitution.

*Local police in these small towns made millions of dollars in profits by trolling the interstate highways and stopping travelers with out of state tags. The police typically claimed some traffic infraction, asked permission to search the car and got it, found no drugs but some cash, then brought in a drug sniffing dog, and after getting it to “alert,” seized all the travelers’ money.

Let’s get one thing straight. I consider the Democrats to be the party of lies. They have to lie, because no one who is both sane and self-responsible is ever going to vote for a program of total socialist distribution unless they are on welfare or a government employee. But Republicans have clearly begun to learn from their counterparts, not only the politicians but the commentators too.

Witness the recent words of Mrs. Hagelin writing of Bill Bennet on WND: Yes, the situation in Iraq is messy, Bennett said in a magnificent, powerful speech he gave in November to Heritage Foundation members. And yes, President Bush and his aides sometimes have seemed reluctant to defend their actions. “But let’s be clear on this,” he said that day. “In the issue that matters most – our survival, the civilized world’s survival, the spread of democracy, the war against terrorism and radical Islam – the president is right and his critics wrong.”

Now remember, this is from a column claiming to set the record straight. So, let’s review the assertions:

1. The situation is messy, yes.

2. Bennett’s speech was magnificent and powerful. I wasn’t there, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. 2/2.

3. The issue that matters most is our survival. Hmmm. Well, I believe that history illustrates that Franklin was correct in saying those who value security over freedom will have neither. The administration has argued that we must accept some sacrifice of liberty in order to ensure our security, which is a dubious argument that has been used since Marius and Sulla began the destruction of the Roman republic. Strike one.

4. The president is defending the civilized world. The three greatest threats to the civilized world at this time are the global ambitions of the United Nations, the coming breakdown of central banking and the global jihad. President Bush is an advocate of the first two and refuses to address the third. Strike two.

5. “the spread of democracy” We don’t have a democracy, we have (or had) a republic. We’re preventing democratic rule in Iraq. Strike three.

6. The president is right about the war on terrorism. And he’s guaranteeing Arafat’s survival? Not really a strike, not really a hit. Call it a ball.

7. The president is right about radical Islam. Let’s see, everyone else and his brother knows that the difference between the global jihadists and the so-called moderates is mostly one of degree. But the only problem is that “the religion of peace” has been “hijacked”. Right, tell it to the Ummayids and the Abbasids, the caliphs and their names boasting of martial prowess. Strike four.

Four and one-half incorrect assertions in seven is setting the record straight? I suppose that depends upon what the meaning of is, is. What with their rampant and unsupported assertions of secret second-term plans, secret war strategy and now a secret war against “radical Islam”, I’m beginning to wonder if conservative supporters of the current administration aren’t becoming entirely delusional.

In case anyone is interested, the Northern Alliance radio show will be taking callers during the interview from 2-3 Central next Saturday. The number is 651-688-3131, and be sure to let them know that you’re a Vox Popoli regular or Vox Volk or whatever the appropriate noun might happen to be.

Clearly we need a name and a t-shirt. We’ve already got the flag, of course.

JN writes: The last time I checked, there has been no second attack on the US mainland. Pres Bush must be doing something right, even Libya has turned in their nukes. He is a believer, why do you dislike him so? Would you prefer Hanoi John Kerry? Patriotic men have always rallied around the president during war time, what your problem, Bub? Don’t give me that Libertarian business either, we both know, there is not a libertarian candidate that is credible. Swallow your pride, and get behind your President. Pride was Satan’s problem, don’t let it get you!

I didn’t say the president was doing everything wrong, only that the jury is still out on whether he will be successful in confronting the current enemy, the global jihad. I don’t personally dislike him, but I dislike his dishonesty, many of the people with whom he has surrounded himself as well as his ready willingness to embrace the new world order of the UN-supremacist movement.

I will not rally around any president who refuses to obey the Constitution, of any party. The “patriot” argument has been used by every totalitarian leader since the dawn of recorded history; Americans are free and owe allegiance to no man. And, as usual, the truth is inadvertantly revealed in the attack on exogenous credibility. The pursuit of power trumps all. Others can abandon their principles if they wish, I’ll stand by mine.

There would be very little change if those who refused to accept the status quo paid any attention to those who only think in terms of the pragmatic and the immediate. The Republican Party, like every party in the history of politics, will eventually die. Probably later than sooner, but to argue as if it is some eternal constant is to deny both logic and probability. I don’t care who wins in 2004, I’m far more concerned about laying the groundwork for 2040.

Larkin Rose has released his video on the Section 861 argument against the fraudulent federal income tax scam. It’s a big download and the traffic is pretty heavy so you may wish to wait a day or two. Then again, you may want to DL it before the IRS starts threatening the hosting server, as you know they will.

I haven’t seen it yet, so I have no opinion on it. But anything that helps expose the scam to more people is a good thing. I’ll be interested to hear reviews of it, from both those who agree and disagree with Rose’s case.