The middle is always evil

Ayn Rand on black/white vs gray area:

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, “There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” Isn’t this a rather black-and-white set of values?

RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression “black and white”? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.

When you chose the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

Read Full Post »

The campaign ad you will never see

Because it is honest.

Read Full Post »

Masses of asses

Marc Stevens writes:

It’s truly amazing despite all the crimes committed by governments, people still religiously cling to the idea governments are necessary to protect life, liberty and property. You can even point out governments not only have no duty to protect anyone, but also do a disasterous job at whatever they bother doing. Despite overwhelming evidence government is not only unnecessary, corrupt and a cancer on the world, its victims continue to revere them. Maybe this will help convince them governments are nothing more than gangs of killers, thieves and liars.

I disagree about them doing a disastrous job. Government actually does its job exceptionally well – which is to rob, rape, murder and plunder its subjects while doing everything in its power to expand and protect its monopoly on violence.

Read Full Post »

Ayn Rand on racism

Read Full Post »

Walter E Williams – Discrimination and Liberty

When Rand Paul suggested the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far, he was widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Here, Professor Williams explains why they are wrong and Rand is right, while making a far more important point about liberty itself.

Read Full Post »

Minimum wage outlaws jobs

Murray N. Rothbard wrote:

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.

Then, of course, the government can come to the rescue of the suckers it just unemployed with welfare (unemployment). Amazing how this works isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

Reading list for Rachel Maddow

Rachel, here’s a reading list for you. Please educate yourself to avoid  making a complete fool out of yourself on national television.

• Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act: Was he right?

• “Civil Rights” and Total War

• When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror

• In Defense of Bigots

• Hey, Rachel

• ‘Hornberger,’ the Video (You don’t even have to read this one)

• Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)

• Rachel Maddow vs Rand Paul

• A Question for Rachel Maddow

• Whites Can Still Legally Discriminate Against Blacks

• Rand Paul and the right to be odious

• Libertarianism = Anti-racism

• The Rand Paul Kerfuffle: It’s Not About Racism

• The Right To Discriminate

Read Full Post »

Southern Avenger on Rand Paul and practical politics

Why today asking substantive questions about the very nature of American government is the most practical and necessary politics.

Read Full Post »

‘cosmic Jewish Zombie’

Harold Johnson comments:

1) All politics mix religious belief’s. Whether it is “In God We Trust” on our money, our own politicians references to God and Christianity or Middle Eastern Islamic belief which is the law of their land.

2) The “White Shoe Boys” that Gerald Celente continually refers to are the Jews running Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and other huge financial entities and multi-national corporations. The elite of the elite. Type in “White Shoe Firm” in the Wikipedia for an in-depth explanation.

3) Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were Jews. The Sadducees and Pharisees were Jews. And the Jew Jesus, who was a religious Zealot (a fanatic – similar to non-violent Muslim fanatics or Buddhist fanatics today), was in constant conflict with them.

This link will provide (those interested) in an excellent overview of both the Sadducees and Pharisees:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sadducees-Pharisees.html

4) The New Testament of the Bible was written many years after the death (and burial in an Ossuary) of Jesus by Jews for Jews… till later they realized they could rope in a bunch of daft Gentiles. Paul of Tarsus (a Pharisee Jew) called himself the “Apostle to the Gentiles” and his epistles were written anywhere from 55 to 150 years AD (depending which theologian you believe). Furthermore, throughout the ages the New Testament was added to and parts deleted by various priests and monks (notwithstanding John’s admonition in the book of Revelation about adding to it or taking away from it).

5) Throughout history the Jews have used their religion (both Hebrew and Christian) to influence the mass of people in order to control them. Furthermore, throughout history the Jews have tried to control first the money (gold, silver and/or coin and paper money and convertible notes & debentures of all kinds) then politics which will give them ultimate power. Let’s look at a few historical examples:

Read Full Post »

Another dilemma for Rachel Maddow

David Kramer writes:

A racist White store owner cannot legally prevent a Black customer from trading with him. Yet, a racist White customer can legally prevent a Black store owner from trading with him by just not walking into his or her store. So what’s the difference? In both cases, one of the two parties (i.e., the Black person) in the trade is being economically “hurt” by the other party (i.e., the racist White person).

Not to mention the Civil Rights Act only “protects” a limited group of minorities. What about the others?

Read Full Post »