The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge

It is my opinion that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both Statists. Both will seek ways to gain more power for government at the expense of individuals. How can I put this nicely? Both will continue to look at the Constitutional limitations on their power as a challenge to be overcome.

It is also my opinion that Bummer will take us over the cliff faster than will Bumney. So, therefore, I would prefer to see Bumney elected. It's only to buy us some more time. It may be hopeless; but if it is true that time heels all wounds, maybe time will be on the side of our republic. And so I'd like to buy her some more of it.

There may be some Libertarian voters out there who'd like to vote in such a manner that slows the progress of Statism somewhat more than less. However, they plan on voting for Gary Johnson because the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But in that statement is the recognition that one evil is worse than the other.

There are several states in which the presidential vote tally may be very close. Every vote not for Bumney increases the margin for Bummer, allowing him to win several of those states.

There are also several states where it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will capture their Electoral College votes. In such an instance, a vote for the largest of the 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote against the worst of the main party candidates, but a vote registered in protest that the existing parties are both far too statist.

For those Libertarian voters living in swing states who think that slowing the evil is preferable to speeding it along, I have a proposal.

As a California voter, I’m really frustrated that my vote for Romney will not count. Romney cannot win here, thanks in large part to the ham-stringing of the California GOP by national party headquarters back in 2002 and continued ever since.

I will vote for Gary Johnson in California if you will vote for Mitt Romney in your state.

This is all on the honor system. It may not make a big difference, but sometimes what seems like a gargantuan task can be accomplished if a bunch of little guys can agree that the worst schemers in this world ought to run into annoying opposition every now and again.

If I am correct, and there are a lot of pissed off people out there, a lot of Libertarians and conservatives will be willing to take this pledge.

The way to notice if our effort made a difference is to note the vote tallies the day after the election.

• For Libertarians: if your total votes are increased, the Libertarian Party and all who are ticked off with the status quo will have left their mark.
• For Conservatives: we will see that Bummer is retired and will then have 4 years to whittle away or obstruct Bumney's Statist inclinations.

Hey, isn't this better than voting in blocs that are two small to win? If you really want to make a statement against the status quo, this bargain gives you a realistic chance of increasing the total number of votes that signify that.

Red State Conservatives have no direct roll in this pledge. But you can encourage friends in Blue and Swing states to participate. Please see

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Also, some objections have been fielded too.

Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.

The Inconsistency of Radical Leftist Media is Palpable Now

Q: How come MSM the Agency of Lies doesn't say the video allegedly caused the riots and murders in the Middle East?

A: Were they to use the word allegedly, it would cast doubt on their assigned propaganda narrative. Obama desperately needs his friends in the press (which, is to say, virtually all of them) to pin the blame on anything other than him. Obama's feckless foreign policy must not be connected to it in any way.

Let's compare the press' copy book rules.

• For the Fort Hood massacre, Major Hassan is still the alleged suspect. 
• But the author of the video is guilty of murder, no allegedly about him.

Isn't that inconsistent enough to brand the occupiers of our alleged journalist institutions as worthless and partisan political hacks? It happens so frequently, it's just so glaring in this case, I think it is.

Obama is bad. No question about it. But he never would have been elected in the first place had we an honest press corps.

C'mon my friends. The inconsistency of radical Leftist media is palpable now. Paint it red and plaster it on their foreheads. Normal people need to know them for what they are.

If You Cherish Your Right to Speak Freely

then it would be prudent for you to seriously review the following news articles with those who might be influenced by your knowledge and caring about them.

The connection between the two articles I've selected is unmistakable. It demonstrates the kind of onerous government behavior that both liberals and conservatives dislike. But the groups will know they dislike it only if large majorities in each camp are waylaid in their conditioned reflex of sticking their heads in the sand.

Last year a bill was introduced by a Republican Congressman. HR347 is titled “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.” It moved through Congress under “suspension of the rules” (traditionally reserved for bills deemed non-controversial) so that there was no debate. Although it needed 2/3 majority to pass (according to the Congressional record) it passed by a vote of 399 to 3, which really means that both sides of the aisle are filled with knowing or unknowing (really?) despots.) It was signed by President Obama in March this year.

Now move forward to this last week. At the DNC Convention in Charlotte, we saw Kira Davis, a Black Romney Supporter Kicked Out of MSNBC Pavilion by security officers, accompanied by a US Secret Service agent. [Video is below the break.]  While there is nothing too unusual nowadays to hear that an allegedly unbiased news organization has decided it cannot tolerate even quietly held signs for the Republican nominee at its public venue, the participation of the secret service seems unusual were it not for the new law mentioned above.

It is possible that Ms. Davis was unaware of the new law (perhaps my readers will help bring an end to this ignorance). Whether or not she was aware, it appears she was not prepared to challenge such an arrest in court.

I am including two pertinent videos below the break. The first is when Fox news interviewed Ms. Davis. The second is when Andrew Napolitano predicted back in March how the law would be used to selectively persecute based on the arbitrary decision of the Praetorian Guard Secret Service.  

I want to underscore the facts behind how this law was passed. The second video is entitled “Obama Makes Free Speech a Felony.” However, the law is bipartisan. Not only is it bipartisan, it was done in secrecy. Its very existence is owing to members and leaders of the GOP.

1. It was introduced in the GOP controlled house;
2. By a GOP congressman from Florida;
3. Debate was limited under rules reserved for “non-controversial” bills (That’s under Speaker Boehner’s control).
4. It appears even the freshman congress critters of the TEA party were unaware that Boehner would allow such a subterfuge to be perpetrated, and they voted for it.

BTW, I was pondering adding some additional stories that disclose how free speech is under attack all over the anti-fascist West (the sole preserver of the “speech is a fundamental human right” institution in a world filled with tyrannies.) This one about being fined in Brussels for speaking or writing something that ‘hurts the feelings’ of anybody in a protected class is the only one I will link today.  What to do about the gagging of Kira Davis under auspices of HR347 is enough of a dilemma to ponder without going overseas.

The Most Dreadful Phrases

1. "There are too many people in the world."  

Good luck being on that panel that decides who has to go. And after that, how long will you be permitted to stay empaneled?

2. "I thought you were smart."  

Wise people learn from the mistakes of others. Smart people learn from their own mistakes if they survive them.


Agreeing with thoughts that encourage abandonment of traditional morality has led to and will continue to lead to unspeakable but still predictable consequences.

Appeals to vanity are frequently the last resort of scoundrels seeking to override wisdom gained at a price long forgotten.

Tick-tock.

Another thing Not Found On MSM

It's up to the new media my friends.

Who Notes the Dictatorial Whim?

This story struck me as an excellent instance where the USA is no longer "government of, by and for the people," but rather government purchased by influence peddlers and accomplished through dictatorial fiat.

Comprehend the opening lines of the story. "As the federal government launches a new program that will allow many young undocumented immigrants to stay temporarily in the U.S."

As anyone knows who follows the news of Congress, the bill that was to initiate such a program was killed in Congress. It was voted down by members from both parties. Not that that means anything to reporters nationwide.

In this instance the reporter, Daniel Gonzalez, of The Arizona Republic, so blithely refers to this unilateral decision by Obama as a Federal program. It can hardly be really federal in that a very large number of states that make the USA a federation are against it, and their elected representatives from those states voted against it.

I know there are a lot of people who feel badly at the situation these young people find themselves in. But this action is in no way a federal program under laws duly past at the Federal level. It is a purely cynical political ploy by a man who does not call himself a despot, and is thin-skinned about being compared to tyrants past and present, but whose actions are self-defining as tyranny.

Who else will call him on it? How many non-cowards are left in the country?

Reactionaries On the Left

Reactionary was the epithet invented by the early "Progressives" and their avante garde (trouble-makers) to label members of the "staid" (actually a progressively improving) social order. It was inevitable that once the Progs incrementally begged, cajoled, threatened and rioted their way to get society to accept one radical change after another, and were running things, then they too would become reactionaries towards all the larger number of people who detest this pile of stink they made of what was once glorious about Western civ.

As I have noted before, wherever someone wants to reform the mess that is the socialized government programs, the partisans of the Left scream bloody murder that there's nothing wrong with the way things are. They say this, many would imagine, because they can't admit their schemes are failed, and it would cost the bureaucrats their jobs.

The latest line from the Left (Obama spokes-mouth Robert Gibbs) that demonstrates that they are indeed reactionaries is this one:

"The Ryan-Wyden Plan ends Medicare as we know it." 

This after Obama stole over $700 billion to pay to set up Obamacare (a huge sum, yet not a nickel has gone to pay for any healthcare for anyone, let alone the seniors who have paid into Medicare with every right to gripe that the money has been misspent by Obama). Such a cruel joke on seniors and their loved ones, yet it's Obama's minions who are screaming as if they are not the ones who gored the ox. Once again the radical Left policies are setting up to kill people just like Stalin and Mao did. But don't expect the Bumney campaign to say this. They are afraid of being called extremist by the MSM. Just so long as you know.

For the First Time in Forty-seven Years

I did not fall asleep in a movie that had Michael Caine in its cast. Although it was a fantasy, the plot even made sense. First time in 47 years. Wow.

Responding to Selwyn Duke's Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney

In Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney , Selwyn Duke had good cause to take on Mr. "No Spin" zone. But I found it hard to accept that Mr. Duke is unaware of an email sent out by a usually more reliable conservative voice, Michael Savage. [Mr. Duke informed me that, to his recollection, he'd not received the email; I have since forwarded him a copy.] For the record, Selwyn Duke has frequently been interviewed on The Savage Nation.


Let's face it Selwyn. O'Reilly has always been a bit squishy. He often plays to the middle ground, even when there really isn't any firm middle ground and only a slippery slope. So I am less concerned by O'Reilly's stance than I am with a very good friend of yours, Michael Savage.

I received an email yesterday from the Doc entitled:

'You don't need body armor to hunt deer.'

Deer hunting is an old code word that's been used by SKUNCs whenever they get ready to excuse their complicity with the Left on its latest crackdown on self defense, acting as if they never heard that it's governments who have been the gravest threat to liberty time and again in history.

But even worse than that title, there are his words that disclose that the Doc has abandoned conservative principles in favor of "pragmatic" compromise. Here, let his own words reveal the problem.

  "We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That's because unless our side controls what gets banned, we're liable to see things happen that we don't want to happen,"

It's as if he suddenly believes that if conservatives will just give the Statists this they'll be satisfied. Appeasement Dr. Savage? Tell us, when has that worked?

Bottom line: We should have never expected much better from O'Reilly; but I think the Right has good cause to be alarmed by Savage's new course.

Mr. Duke responds:

DuckSpeak of a Sorts

There were many phenomena of a totalitarian state that George Orwell defined in his famous dystopian novel 1984. Among these that many of us refer to when we see similarities in our real life, were Newspeak, the two-minute hate, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Love.

There was also Duckspeak. Duckspeak, however, may be the only one of Orwell's predictions that has not been all that evident in our world. Duckspeak, as it was defined in the narrative voice and without really good examples, was supposed to be what politicians said when they didn't want to speak about some subject. They purportedly emitted duck-like sounds that were pretty much unintelligible, and that some people were remarkably more adept with it than others. The reader gets the impression it was some kind of new kind of double-talk that was used to spin the speaker or his agency out of hot water when faced with daunting questions. Question such as "How can you say the chocolate ration has increased when the new numbers show a decrease?"

It was much like monthly bureau of labor employment figures having been revised downward every month during the Obama administration. These figures are released concurrently with the current month's figures showing, with great fanfare, the great news: remarkable employment  improvements over last month!

Anyway, what reminded me of Duckspeak was that I saw its purpose yesterday quite clearly being played out when we all heard about another form of nonsense: Chief Justice John Roberts opinion in the ObamaCare (ACA) decision.

The way in which Justice Roberts' opinion was nonsense was revealed by Mark Levin on his show Thursday night and reiterated again tonight. It was most noticeable in Mr. Levin's explanation about how the the ACA tax/penalty was not any tax allowed under the constitution tonight. 

Mr. Levin said Roberts was essentially saying 

'Don't worry about those definitions in the constitution (they're only words). It looks like a tax, so let's treat it as such. However, for the purposes of the anti-injunction clause, it's not a tax then, so you have no standing there to fight the penalty.'

Levin pointed out how outlandishly inconsistent was Roberts' argument. That it was nonsense in totality.
 
So that suggested Orwell to me.

However, nobody in our world actually speaks like a duck. But it is hard to deny that a speaker who strings together nonsense when asked to explain himself is effectively aiming for the same result. They do not wish to or dare say what is clearly revealing, so they spew nonsense in the hopes that the press won't call them on it. Those who "duck" from the onslaughts that seek the truth of the matter are revealing a guilty conscience.

Well, I'm calling Justice Roberts on it. And I'm calling all his apologists on their nonsense too. Don't buy the "closet commerce clause evisceration" arguments by some very overpaid pundits who allegedly write with a view from the Right.  C.J. Roberts could have achieved that goal by voting down the entire ACA as J. Anthony Kennedy did. 


Bottom line. You know that thing which we call spin in our world? That is Orwell's Duckspeak. And every once in a while, like almost everything emitted from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi, or as promulgated in the opinion of Justice Roberts yesterday, words are so meaningless that they might as well have been spoken by a duck.

As to why Justice Roberts did what he did seems to be revealed in the manner and timing that he did it. The surmise and conclusion of his behavior is the subject of my next post became the subject of much speculation, all of which demonstrated once again why it is foolish for the public to put much trust in any human being. Do not forget that C.J. Roberts was appointed by another man whose was elected mostly because he was less disliked by voters than those he ran against, and not elected because he was any where near as constitutionally minded as a majority of Americans would have liked.

How Ford Kept Bummer At Bay

We know how every American company except those that have firm political ties to The Won (gee, could that be GE?) has had difficulties of some sort the last 3+ years. About the only thing we've heard against Ford was when they ran ads about how they didn't need handouts from the government.

What goes on in Dearborn Michigan, the home of Ford, must go on with the tacit blessings of Ford.



Readers who wish avoid being angered by the violent events shown in the earlier portion of this clip, please skip to 15:40. Watch and listen to the dialogue between the victims and the police captain. Violent reactions to silent vigils, the most non-intrusive form of free speech (unlike OWS) are given tacit approval by the police -- and thereby the violence is encouraged to escalate. Indeed, what happens at the end proves that the police were lying and chose to attack the victims from another angle. Witness how free speech was squeeze in a vise. Violent thugs are one jaw, while the other jaw applies pressure under the color of authority.

It is my opinion that the behavior of the police here would be different were Ford unhappy with these events. This sort of thing has happened before, so nobody who has any power in Dearborn can credibly claim ignorance. Indeed, the "religious" trends in Dearborn would not have developed over the years without Ford's encouragement. I conclude that Ford's attitude to societal changes in Dearborn goes a long way in explaining Hussein's "go easy on Ford" policies.

I am sorry if I have angered those of you who think Ford is somehow a sterling stand-out in American business. This nasty event heavily suggests they have simply sold out to anti-American forces via another tactic.

Goading Time

♫Goading in the morning,
Goading in the evening,
Goading at suppertime,
That's our chief executive,
Goading us all the time.♪

Yours truly and an as yet undisclosed friend have been playing with this idea of adapting the McGuire Sister's old hit Sugartime to serve as a warning to independent Americans so they are reminded how badly they're being represented and are thus being goaded into badly thought out reactions by Angelo Codevilla's ruling class and its Agency of Lies. I will end this warning with one of yesterday's examples.

But first a reminder that the following is not an avid endorsement of a personality. No matter how tedious it can become, I must regularly make this clear. You all know why I don't trust the most ardent radio talkers: because they've got their niche and they want to keep on the good side of those who permit them to broadcast. They have a conflict of interest that is lacking in independent bloggers such as moi.

However that does not mean they do not provide valuable services. We should be grateful for each nugget, but we should retain some cynicism. We can't keep the personalities honest, so we must be wary.

Thanks to David James at CNSnews.com, I became aware of another good Mark Levin rant.
(Note Mr. Levin's words near the end about weasels.)

Let nobody declare – without loads of caveats – that the Republican Party will provide the answer to the growth in power of the Anti-American Statists. We TEA Party types will be dragging its leaders kicking and screaming (to where?) before we can gain any real control of the Republican Party – or bury it by transforming it into the Party of America Revitalized.

From Levin: Scalia Understands Obama's 'Catch Me If You Can' Immigration Game

“The core argument that the administration made was that there had to be one rule, an enforcement policy when it comes to immigration. And, while it argued that in front of the Supreme Court a week and a half ago the president of the United States issued his fiat. One rule? What happened to the one rule? What happened to the consistency? What happened to Congressional preemption?

“Here’s what [Justice] Scalia understands. Here’s what he understands. Obama is playing a game of ‘catch me if you can.’

"The Supreme Court hadn’t even ruled on the Arizona law yet. But it’s a process, a gradual process. They have their arguments. They have their this, they have their that. They have their process. They write their opinions. They have to be printed, they have to be issued.

“But Obama knows, that while he’s sitting there waiting for these decisions, he can take unilateral action. Because the court has already ruled even though it hasn’t issued its ruling. Congress can’t do a damn thing because the Democrats control the Senate, and we have weasels running the house.

"So who’s gonna catch him? Nobody. Catch me if you can.”

Man Thinks

Those who would rule you want you lowered to a howling or frightened lumpen-herd. They want you never to think of bigger things, of complex maneuvers. Most people reflexively shun the very idea of conspiracies because that's part of the conditioning. Occam's razor (keep is it simple stupid -- heh!) and Hanlon's Razor (mistakes are more likely than deliberate destruction -- no matter how often that happens -- heh, heh!). Just because there are stupid conspiracy theories, does not prove there are none who endeavor to conspire to take advantage of the ways the system functions or more precisely, is known to malfunction under certain stresses (Cloward-Piven). Besides, the First Triumvirate proves that powerful interests, even though enemies, can agree to short-circuit a republic just so the three or more involved can battle over control of the powerful nation that was built by the republic they aim to make into an empire.

So, today, thanks to a reminder by a reader form Kualar Lumpur, I am reprising a piece from late 2009, (before the TEA Party arose, or OWS was created to undermine its influence, and before the public employees unions tried to destroy Wisconsin) to remind us that it's our thinking that gives us a right to defend ourselves from tyrants.  Hence the tyrants don't want you thinking.

Defend Your Right to Exist

Nothing is more to be esteemed than aptness in discerning the true from the false. Other qualities of mind are of limited use, but precision of thought is essential to every aspect and walk of life. To distinguish accuracy from error is difficult not only in the sciences but also in the everyday affairs men engage in and discuss. Men are everywhere confronted with alternative routes--some true and others false--and reason must choose between them. Who chooses well has a sound mind, who chooses ill a defective one. Capacity for discerning accuracy is the most important measure of minds. --Antoine Arnauld The Art of Thinking

At the behest of a friend, I took the liberty of updating Arnauld's quote above to reflect our modern and scientific understanding of knowing (in keeping with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), and have replaced truth with accuracy.

Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.

All our dignity then, consists in thought. By it we must elevate ourselves, and not by space and time which we cannot fill. Let us endeavor then, to think well; this is the principle of morality. -- Blaise Pascal Pensees 347 

Marie Claude brought the first quote to my attention at Belmont Club. I chose to use the second as it represents how these two allies influenced each other, and because the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University chose to use those quotes (out of many) to introduce these two philosopher/scientists, maybe for the same reason. Most of all, they serve well as a theme for this short discussion. Individual's have the RIGHT to fight gangs of men who act  no differently than all the unknowing brutal forces of the universe.


These two quotes illuminate the capacity of any man to understand what he may in a manner different from other creatures, be he genius or imbecile. What we are witnessing today is that too many of our geniuses are inclined to believe that all below them are imbeciles, and thereby somehow less noble than they.

Maybe -- maybe -- if we lived in a global meritocracy, there might be some grounds for the elite to run things. For then the most trusted executives with the most morally discerning lieutenants, the most competent professionals, the most just legal system, and the most charitable ombudsmen, they all would share the governing of the rest of us. Benign angels sowing peace and prosperity among men.



But what we have now is far worse. Tighten your seat belts, because right now you can meet a slew of people with whom you share sympathetic views most of the time -- and they may instantly fly off the handle were you to dare repeat the following observation. While in the Twentieth Century we survived at least two presidents who embodied the Peter Principle, in this Century we have been inflicted with presidencies that exemplify the Dilbert Principle. Made men are rightfully squeamish about their status, but the men who made them are angered that you dare pull back the curtain so that too many others might comprehend their scheming.

When the left and right sides of the aisles of government get along far better with each other than any of them do with most of their constituents, what would we expect?

^♫And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right^♫

We would expect that the last and current men at the top got there because moneyed interests had sound expectations that their wishes would be heeded.

^♫Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss^♫

I long ago discerned that  influential misanthropes must own the ear of many of our leaders simply because there no high profile party actively taking the contrary view (the "other side of the aisle") of the many proponents of negative population growth, while there was no lack of voices that found one thing or another wrong with religious faiths that consider innocent human life holy and deserving of protection and growth.


On top of it all, I believe I am not saying something new to you. Each of you has long ago suspected the same but were too trusting or too suppressed to bring it to voice. Heed your own senses! You have the gift of thought, and the natural instincts for self preservation. Stop acting like steers, and start acting like men again.  Know our wannabe masters want you enslaved and your drives perverted. Ignorance can be cured; you can cure it. No matter how much cowardice they have tried to inculcate in you, KNOW it is they who are that way by nature. Yes they may be ruthless, but they are cowards first. Make them fear you and you win.

The individual not only needs to resist the forces of conformity so that he may think more clearly for his own interests. He must encourage his neighbors to do the same. I know from experience, so I tell you that will be no easy task. Those who are looking to husband us like sheep need for us to look upon each other with more malice than we have for them.  S I N I S T E R  media exists for more than one reason! 

Love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as yourself.

That credo is the reason our secular world is working so hard to destroy Judeo-Christianity. (And so, beware the institutions of the faiths, because our masters have them controlled; for where they are not co-opted by the worship of man, then by they are often coerced into silence by means of the threat of taxation -- "the power to destroy.")

Learn to discriminate leaders from managers.  Beware of managers for whom you are are of no consequence other than objects for their own advancement; they believe they are superior to you.

You are men. Don't let the balderdash, thrown up by postmodern science, and spread by the relentless propaganda of the "sky is falling" media, convince you to deny the logic and gut senses God has given you.

You HAVE the ability to think on your own, to learn all that you need, to seek out and secure your own interests. To hell with this paternalistic, all powerful state and its statists and fascists and nutters.

It is in you.

Y O U  A R E  M A N!

Well, That's Some Relief

I am happy to report that Ace came through with

Now Prosectutor Angela Corey Is Deceptively Editing-- Cutting Out Key Parts of Zimmerman's Wife's Testimony To Make It Sound Perjurious.

It's time to fire her. Her intent here is obvious: She cannot win the trial and she knows it. Nevertheless, she feels she needs scalps -- some jailtime -- to either prevent riots or make her career, or both.

So she's pressuring Zimmerman, by both her absurd overcharging of Murder Two and now a threat to jail his wife, by throwing a trumped-up perjury charge against her.

It's time for her to go.

Yay! Has anyone else out there made a point of explaining (as I have tried to do here) how Angela Corey and the Florida justice system have trampled George Zimmerman's rights under the 8th Amendment without a peep from the media and civil rights attorneys (assuming such news hasn't been suppressed by the Agency of Lies.)

Now get the significance of this news Dear Readers if it is true as reported at the link above to Bob Owens.

I'm sure you all recall how NBC had edited that 911 call -- editing out key portions of the questions of the 911 operator -- so as to make it sound like George was a racist.

Well the special prosecutor here did the same damn thing, except NOT IN A NEWS REPORT. Angela Corey did that sort of edit in order to keep her charge of felony perjury on Sherrie Zimmerman from being thrown out of court. Do you see why Ace thinks Corey belongs behind bars yet? Then tell everyone you know. The lawlessness will surely grow unless light shines on it to send the like of Corey back under her rock.

More on the Sham of "Conservative" Talk KRLA

KRLA has had the hubris to refer to their network as "The Answer" since the week that Heidi Harris was brought in to replace Glenn Beck in the 6-9AM slot.

Earlier today I griped about how one co-host on Heidi's show repeatedly referred to the Zimmerman's as liars. This has been the relentless Statist propagandist response to first George, and now Sherrie, with being charged with perjury over what was allegedly their personal finances for the purpose of setting bail (which anyway, as stated in Bill of Rights number 8, is only a guarantee against flight risk, and is not supposed to be a punishment for a man innocent until proven guilty).

The miscreant co-host, whose name I did not catch, was the identified "liberal" of the three on the show. Heidi and the other co-host are allegedly the conservative voices.

Yet, how did they respond to the guilty-as-charged Lefty propagandist. "Yes, it's bad to lie to a judge." and "It's sure to get you on the wrong side of the judge by lying to him." Yes, that's right, they accepted the Lefty's assertion without any hint of objection. Not a single hint of "whatever happened to referring to the charges against the Zimmerman's as merely allegations?" No. Instead they let the propaganda stand and indeed, implicitly agreed with. They are not helping our nation and its society one iota. Conservative my eye.

There they are: butt naked and without shame. That's what passes for "conservative" on the Salem Radio Network. And maybe that IS conservative. Dare not contradict the repetitive lies of the Statist wingers. Might rock our cushy little boat here to get on the wrong side of the Statists.

If you, Dear Reader, are already pissed off with what nasties were granted the "liberal" label for over half a century; and pissed off with what has been granted the "progressive" label for over a century (and only recently picked up by the Democrats to join with the country-club Republicans), then maybe you ought to be pissed off with what calls itself "conservative" now.

Conservative is supposed to represent rule of law, not rule of mob and its demagogues. Jeesh!

More and more I am appalled to be affiliated with what calls itself conservative. And the libertarians have gone off the rails ever since the Libertarians were infiltrated by the wackos previously kicked out of the Dem and Rep Parties. Classical liberal is more akin to how this country was founded even before the constitution was ratified.

There is nothing I can see that is close to the principles that are classical liberal at "conservative" Salem that don't have a Statist tinge to them today. And that includes two men I still have some regard for at Salem, Dennis Prager and Bill Bennett. I've got both on record as bowing to Statist spin rather than human rights. And just so that nobody here should be surprised, as pointed out in 2010 by Phil Muliver at Ohioans for Concealed Carry in Not-So-Conservative Talk Radio, anything which hampers your rights to guns was official policy under Czar Bennett when he worked for GHWBush.

Look: I fear I am thinking too much like Winston Smith when I rant like this.  That is, it appears my paraphrasing takes the form: Our only hope is in the proles blogs.

But that's not quite correct. If blogs such as this one can make a few more people aware of how the alleged alternative media really is NOT alternative, and gives you ideas so you can make your neighbors aware, then indeed there is SOME hope in these blogs.

Get to it.

Lying Propagandist Media — Anti-Justice Division

You should be angry. But that is only my opinion.

Just so you all notice and inform everyone you know so that they notice.

How many times have you heard our supposedly straight media repeat the word "alleged"used even in the most obvious criminal cases? In fact, even after a conviction, I've heard the words alleged convict strung together.

This all starts over reactions to the news yesterday that Sherrie Zimmerman was charged with perjury.

This morning – queuing up with other propagandists – I heard one co-host on an allegedly conservative talk radio, The Heidi Harris show (KRLA again),  refer to the Zimmerman's as [proven] liars, over and over again. Remember that this is all regarding their family finances before they knew the extent or availability of their defense fund. Besides, that was meant for George Zimmerman's defense and not his bail, and he has proven he is NOT a flight risk. Meanwhile the overcharging by the grand standing special prosecutor of George with 2nd degree murder is hardly even spoken of.

The whole point being to overwhelm George's 8th Amendment protections for political reasons. The reason, of course, is that the political class hates guns in private hands. So George is the political class' sacrificial lamb. That lamb represents YOU. Dammit folks.

But back to the reason I got fired up. A week ago I heard "fair-minded civil rights attorney" Leo Terrell (on KABC) [the sarcasm is in his own description, not mine] say the same things I heard today's talkshow co-host repeat over and over again. (The talking points for warming up the lynching mob I'd call it.) Repeatedly saying so-and-so 'is a liar; the wife is a liar; the whole family is a liar; now we know they are liars; they lie.'

That my friends is propaganda.

Guilty until proven innocent. Conviction and then the trial. If I am the only one making an issue of this today, this society deserves every bit of pain that is coming.

Wishful Thinking, Meaning Well, and Failing

So much that I attempt to write about gets left in draft, incomplete. I am publishing the following self-absorbed drivel because maybe it will provide a public service to others who find themselves similarly afflicted. I am open to suggestions as to how to prevail upon myself to achieve what I'd like, but it ultimately comes down to me doing the hard labor that I so often seek to avoid.

Og reminded me today that he had tried to get me to think more deeply of what he calls the Left and Right forces in play in our lives. I really don't recall exactly what his hypothesis was because as he was explaining it I went on one of my tangential side-trips inspired by his new way of viewing things. He saw it better than I do because I was of no help to him when he needed a sounding-board and multi-processor feedback back then.

It reminded me that I see the forces at play in our lives in a way nobody else I know seems to share. It should be no surprise to regular readers here that it is my opinion that anti-human forces (in humans themselves) play an immense role in how badly the plans and inventions of the brightest minds get turned to deadly outcomes.

And that further got me to reflect again about why I chose my online name that implies that this is the place to find the fervor that was Blaise Pascal's.

Did I already see the concept of God and love of life much as apparently did Blaise Pascal? Or did I only begin to comprehend those conceptions more deeply after I focused on how he showed hubris filled men and their nefarious plans could be defeated? I do not remember.

But what I did do, in adding the name Fervor, was seek to attain the level of his fervor, a sort of wishful thinking: a setting of a goal.

It is a sad self-recognition of my shortcomings that I have come in no way close to the level of that man's drive. My silence in the last month has troubled me. I far too often take solace in the thought: "if you have nothing worth putting in the effort to say properly – fully – better to say nothing." But as any good writer will tell me, it's in the discipline to write that gets you where you want to go.

Yet I have mixed results over the years in trying to follow that advice. Just this last month alone I started many commentaries on important subjects. Yet I did not find and draw upon what drive I needed to complete them. I failed to overcome either what I view as my laziness (being hard on myself) or my scattered-thoughts/forgetfulness (being charitable to myself), and maybe a good bit of oh-what's-the-use-ism.

When I see so much awful behavior transpiring in the world, micro and macro, I get angered by the lack of reflective, conscientious commentary about society's failings being at the root of so much of it. And I find that that anger passes far too quickly to keep me fired-up to write. Maybe that is precisely how I and a good number of my generation were conditioned by the Conditioners. But I KNOW they wanted me to behave that way, so it's really my own shortcomings now that I am aware of that indoctrination.  Oh God how I wish I could find, in the shorter time remaining to me, the key to becoming a better man than I have been.

Kudos to Ace Nevertheless

I've been critical of Ace of Spades for being both too sophomoric and too much in favor of what most people call RINOs, but which we here call SKUNCs.

However, he did something today that deserves kudos. He broke his one-day silence today (intended as part of the web protest on behalf of the attacks on Ali Akhbar) to Post why he turned down his Andrew Breitbart award:  because of his admitted cowardice. He feels -- and has good reason -- he must keep his anonymity. I think it was because he could not look himself in the eye and accept the award in absentia.

He didn't put it that way -- I just did.

But it took balls to admit.  He indeed has very good reasons to be concerned not only for his own safety, but for how ever many others who might be endangered were he outed by accepting the award.

His untitled post explains it in part. But his additional comments in the comment section reveal far more. I recommend doing a search for "ace" in the comments and finding what he has to say.

It's a dangerous world out there. I'm not sure what Ace thinks Congress can do about (he asks us to write) because bills of attainder are unconstitutional. And given the current dangers already to free speech, I'm very concerned about any generic laws Congress might pass.

Maybe I'm missing what he means by asking Congress to act. I personally think it will take nothing short of angelic actions to solve the problem.

 I'd welcome anyone who happens by here to explain to thick old me. What can Congress do about the outrageous behavior of the notorious jaw-house lawyer antics? (As far as I can see, his psychopathic ego is fed by every hit Google makes when it finds his name, and having Congress act on behalf of him would be akin to us putting icing on top of all of it.)

Partials: Give Away the Keys, Get Blamed for the Thefts

On August 1, 2011, John Boehner caved to pressure (or, as yet to be proven, went along with his cronies) and gave the President the right to raise the debt ceiling at his will, as if Obama were a dictator.

So, today, the headline reads:

Debt Up $1.59T Under GOP House—More in 15 Months Than First 97 Congresses Combined.

Please vote in more TEA Party congressman so we can be rid of this good-old-boy Boehner.

The Look of Fear

Photo appeared this morning at Big Government under the headline Warren: My Mother Was So Cherokee She Had to Elope.

We've seen this look before. Think of when Margaret Hamilton's character realized she was about to be "baptized" in her most famous climax.